From Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment

inertia-k-12-science-physicsFrom Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment
Transition from perceiving behaviors as gravity-dominated to inertia-dominated
The bridging rhetoric for perceiving ether

One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.

Tho I have a Goethean Science blog http://blog.goetheanscience.net I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”

I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.

I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.

No such thing as “rest” in our solar system

Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.

What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.

When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.

Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.

My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.

My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.

Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.

If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.

What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:

“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.

The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.

The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?

What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.

What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.

When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.

If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.

This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.

I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.

The propositions:
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and

– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’

…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.

If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.” http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

To Do possibilities

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/contact-us/

Abstract-summary of the Three Sciences we use everyday

Abstract of Three Sciences chapters 19-20 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul ~

“Hard scientists,” especially those skeptical of holistic ideas and subjective phenomena, forget we use two other kinds of science every day.

three-sciences-triptych-hi-resThe average adult—especially women–use Three Orders of Science each day.

Second Order Science: Physical survival intelligence ~

Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solving; in fact, navigating any new situation unfamiliar to us.

Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.

First Order Science: Immune System Self intelligence ~

Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 1 am? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?

Down below our neck, in our Small Intestine, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” and “testing,” “Is this nutrient floating by safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?” Either this nutrient is safe and beneficial now or it is not safe and/or beneficial now.

Even tho they concern me and me alone, these activities and choices are also “real” and rational.

The two above add up to TWO kinds of rational thinking; now two categories of “science” we use everyday.

Let’s pause here to not “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences get fused, cross-wired. Then “all about me” becomes the criteria for every moment of waking life. In extreme cases, my needs become more significant than yours or anyone else’s. A certain Republican candidate for President in 2016 demonstrated the error of this mis-use of thinking magnificently. We can all learn what not to do from his example.

Third Order Science: Intelligence of the greatest good for the greatest number ~

If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources we have in hand against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy it is to get more of each resource; and, how each need will expand or shrink in the next time period to come.

In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; and often, extended family members. Even tho thinking here concerns me as perhaps one small part of a greater whole, choices made in this area are also real and rational. Ask any parent.

By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.

Q: What practical application does this have?

A: The Three Sciences may have have the most immediate and timely relevance to methods of holistic healing and Energy Medicine, all of them.

This is because Second Order (ego-survival, “hard” science) has been at war with holism and holistic thought since the 1970s [including everything in Waldorf].

The Three Sciences make the conflict unnecessary. ONE science alone cannot span the range of rational thinking we use every day; on one end, what is beneficial at the cellular level; and, what is beneficial for highest good of everyone and all critters on Planet Earth.

We can, we do, and we must use different Orders of thinking to address issues, depending which scale of concern is before us presently.

First Order Science is the naturally supportive science for holistic studies
How our cells and immune system “think” is 100% First Order Science. Not Second, not Third. First Order Science is the Science of the subjective; where, we honor and uncover more of both its intelligence; and, its limitations.

First Order Science is the key to forward progress in health and healing because ‘each person heals uniquely’ (Rudolf Steiner paraphrase). What is workable to heal me is highly individualized. It may or may not be workable for you. What works is often subjective. Outside of accidents and physical injury, the vast majority of healing for humans must be calibrated to the single individual. Humans are the least herd-like of creatures.

What thinking, which Science, characterizes hospital-drug-surgery-medicine? Can you guess?

Conventional 20th century medicine is 100% Second Order Science, the science of physical-material survival and male-ego-survival.

This is why it was pointless for John Thie, DC of Touch for Health and his practitioner colleagues to struggle for 25 years to get T4H services accepted by established medical authorities, why insurance companies never paid for Touch for Health by anyone except MDs. Holistic healing is literally outside what they call and consider “science,” beyond what they consider “real.”

With Three Sciences, we can say, just because holistic idea X is not Second Order Science does NOT mean no science, no rational, no critical thinking is occurring. Critical thinking occurs at three or more levels of intelligence inside us each and every day.

Q: Where does the science of Galileo-Descartes-Newton-Hawking fall?

A: Second Order. The middle Science was the first to evolve. First Order did not get going outwardly until the 1970s. Third Order began with Lincoln, Ghandi and ML King.

First Order Science healthcare has no conflict with Second Order medical healthcare. Why should they? they are separate Sciences. We want Second Order Science healthcare for accidents, injuries, and needed surgeries. We want First Order Science healthcare for most other wellness, health and prevention needs. A future, more Goethean Psychology will address concerns in all Three Sciences.

No flowering plant grows just to make seeds; just ask any plant

red_flowerExcerpted from the forthcoming book on Brain Quadrants and Holistic Brain Balancing

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

We tell school children the purpose of plants is to make seeds so new plants can grow next year.

That is how the one-eyed, color-blind survivalist intellect thinks.
That’s not how a flowering plant thinks.

The plant thinks: “Just making seeds is boring. What’s the fun of doing the same thing over and over again endlessly?”

The plant thinks: “I want to make a FLOWER! I was born to make flowers!

“The leaf-leaf-leaf rhythm is all very well, but I’m just getting ready for the climax, the big event, my FLOWER!

In our etheric aura, each living thing aspires to become something more. We nominalize this into a static noun, “evolution.” Our etheric body experiences this as a verb and an affirmation, “I am evolving.”

Physical locomotion, crawling, walking, is the biggest physical metaphor for evolving. If I can move, when I’m in motion, I’m more likely to get to something better.”

To paraphrase Ernst Lehrs, what does a flowering plant aspire to? The animal kingdom.
In its flowering, the plant approximates, in plant terms, the sex organs of animals. Many flowers create scent as well, like animals do.

A plant’s sexual expression with partners close by or at a distance, mimics and pantomimes, as best a plant can, the sexual activity of animals.

As humans we look at flowers less as sex organ images and more as divine images. Why? At no time does an annual plant express so perfect a geometry as in its flower.

In the simplicity and perfection of its geometry, flowers approximate and remind us of the perfection and potential for symmetry in Divine Archetypes.

red_flowerThe seeds are a consequence of the flower. However compared to the advent of a blossom, more like a useful after-thought, clearly not the main event in the life and death of a flowering plant. Seeds are what it does as physical life and vitality is slipping away. Flowers is what plants do at their peak of vitality.

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

It may be helpful to add here the image of a gentle upward spiral. Flowers are the rapid, accelerated development that punctuates the otherwise peaceful process of leaf, leaf, leaf. Every intelligence in our brain-psyche aspires to a gentle upward spiral. In Holistic Brain Balance we test and check to learn if a gentle upward spiral is present or not. If not, we apply what we know so a gentle upward spiral is present.

Colored shadows demo how all color has a subjective aspect. Let’s apply this to ether studies

colored-shadows4 colored-shadows3 colored-shadows2 colored-shadows1According to Goethe, all hues are colored shadows. Later, color scientists, most famously Edwin Land (founder of the Polaroid Corporation), appear to produce shadows of virtually every hue… (ref)

The above photo-demonstrations serve to bring healthy doubt into Newton’s one-sided, 100% materialistic explanations of color.

If studied, the images suggest a definite subjective element must be part of how we perceive color, how we estimate and imagine polarities where they may or may not exist, how in fact, each person may do this somewhat uniquely.

These photo-demonstrations of colored shadows are part of an old argument which may have new meaning in our post-2012 world.

You may know in the field of “free” energy, older ideas about ether are being revised and upgraded as we speak.

A main piece of the old argument between Goethe~Newton on color can be summarized freshly as:  Is color 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we view color?

This is a microcosm to the identical dilemma and conflict encountered by etheric researchers.  Those who know Goethe’s view of color can propose a useful question to etheric researchers:  Is ethericity 100% a materialistic phenomena; or, is a subjective and physiological element part and parcel of how we perceive and work with etheric formative forces?

If you have seen Chapter 19 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul it should be clear how one-sided scientists, paid by corporations, often prefer totally one-sided science, where human ethics, morals and choice are irrelevant.  Conversely, how Goethean, two-sided scientists-experimenters celebrate the etherical, moral and transformatinal aspects of working with ethericity.

The current generations of etheric researchers are intelligent and collaborative. See the free two-hour YouTube video of intro statements by 30 of the leaders at the 2015 gathering of researchers, approximately HERE

However current etheric researchers tend to be less interested in artistic and metaphysical Oneness than Steiner and his immediate successors on this topic in Anthroposophy, most notably, Ernst Lehrs.

Dethroning gravity as the King of the Universe

abstract-gravityWhen man in the state of world-onlooker undertook to form a dynamic picture of the nature of matter, it was inevitable of all the qualities which belong to existence, scientists were only able to imagine and perceive gravity and electricity.

In the 1700s and 1800s mankind’s consciousness was closely bound up with the force of gravity in the human body.  Because of this focus, we were unable to imagine or perceive forces connected with levity, in our body, opposite to gravity.  

Nature is built on and between polar archetypes.  This means it was inevitable the ‘gravity-run-universe’ of Newton will eventually give way to a model of the universe built on gravity and its opposite.  Which we call “levity” in Man or Matter.  

[The process of de-throning gravity as sole King of the universe has already proceeded far in the topic of the Electric Universe (www.Thunderbolts.info, et al) even tho this mis-labels some etheric phenomena as purely electrical.]

To gravity-bound intellects of the 1700s-800s, the only possible counter-force to gravity was electricity. Here lies the origins of our faulty world model, composed of only gravity and electricity, the pro-gravity side of forces, the ‘gravity team.’

We meet the idea of Creation composed and created only by gravity and electricity in the 1900s model of the atom, composed of what?  A heavy electro-positive nucleus circled by virtually weightless electro-negative electrons.  

[Man or Matter goes on to show while gravity is indeed primary, electricity is only a secondary force, NOT the equal opposite of gravity. ]

Heavily revised from Man or Matter, Chapter XIII Radiant Matter p 282.