https://youtu.be/4mxZuvpBZyo?si=jalZcJDsCAM2Cc_O

Have you ever wondered why gravity cannot be directly observed or experienced? Have you ever wondered why only its effects are observed and experienced, but not it, itself? Like space and time, we are told that gravity-qua-gravity does, in fact, exist. Yet these things are always and inexorably to be inferred only; only indirectly known as expressions of perceivable objects. Remove these objects, and gravity—and space, and time—are likewise removed—they become without any specific relevance, meaning, or description.

Hmm…that’s curious. Science, which adamantly rejects anything purely metaphysical as being utterly subjective at best, nevertheless is completely certain that forces and continuums and coordinate systems which simply cannot be qualified nor quantified—perceived or measured—directly, ever, in the history of science, are as objectively real as you or I am—as real as the moon, sun, and stars.

The only way to “observe” gravity in and of itself is on paper or screen in a mathematical rendering. If one were to ask the greatest scientific minds in the world to show us gravity in its own independent and distinct form, they could not do so; and this is because to exist, distinctly, is simply not gravity’s nature.

This is what makes gravity so special, and interesting, and mysterious, right? That’s why science is so fascinating—it deals with the mysterious and the paradoxical. Except…funny how contradictions become “paradoxes” when they are intrinsically scientific; and funny how science never extends the same courtesy to metaphysical claims. Metaphysical contradictions are always contradictions. Metaphysics is never given the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, it is a contradiction to declare the objectivity of gravity’s existence when such objective existence can never be verified because gravity can never, according its very nature, be directly experienced or observed. Only in science can that which only exists theoretically simultaneously exist objectively.

With that in mind, the following, I submit, represents a description of gravity that both defines and explains it in a way which, unlike it is with science, is not intrinsically contradictory, and puts it in its proper metaphysical and conceptual place, which is where it has actually existed, in fact, all along.

Now, to be clear, I am not suggesting that gravity is a simple thing to quantify, or that it shouldn’t be quantified; nor I’m I suggesting that this is what I will do here. The quantification of gravity I am happy to leave to the mathematicians and physicists. In this article it is my intention to qualify the nature of gravity in rational terms, without appealing to contradiction or paradox.

Now before I get to the body of my article, there are two issues that need to be addressed first:

Number one:

I should not be confused with a conspiracy theorist—I am not, for example, a “flat earther”. I believe that the Earth is round. I believe that gravity is a thing. As I previously stated in this article, I am perfectly fine with how science quantifies gravity…I accept the math. I don’t believe that any one or any institution is purposefully engaging in some kind of grand “gravity deception”. What I don’t accept is simply how science qualifies gravity…that is, describes its nature.

Number two:

For those of you who might believe that gravity is something you can feel—the fact of the matter is that, no, you cannot. A quick Google search puts it this way [italics mine]:

“Because gravity acts on every part of your body equally, you don’t experience a sensation of being pulled down unless there is a counterforce like the ground pushing back up on you.”

Without going into unnecessary detail regarding exactly why a force which “acts on every part of your body equally can’t be felt” (I do understand why, and could explain it, it’s just not relevant here), my point is this: gravity, by its nature, can only ever be observed and experienced indirectly. This means, fundamentally, that gravity, as science understands its nature, can only ever exist in theory.

*

I submit that gravity is not a force at all, but rather is the perception of a specific relative relationship between objects.

What gravity is, then, is not gravity qua gravity at all. Gravity is not actually “there” in any literal sense of the word. Rather, gravity is a concept that the Observer (Man) uses to describe a specific relative relationship he perceives between objects in space; and more specifically, gravity relates to the root existence of any given object.

Gravity, I propose, relates to the intrinsic act of existing—a fourth dimensional movement, one could say, manifest as a constant rate of what I call “existential acceleration”.

More on that in a bit.

Despite what you might be thinking, there is nothing particularly silly or clumsy about this assertion. I submit that gravity in this sense becomes almost obvious once we make a single, relatively minor cognitive adjustment to how we think about the nature of existence. Once made, the relative relationship we call “gravity” becomes clear; and further, I submit, is consistent with all current scientific explications of how gravity is observed to behave.

Let us consider that the nature of existence is not passive, but active; that there is no such thing as an object at rest, fundamentally, and thus existence itself represents an inexorable, constant state of activity, and that this active existence can be described as an object’s “constant rate of (existential) acceleration” along what I have called its “path of existence” (POE).

And this is indeed what I submit: that gravity is how the Observer (Man) conceptualizes the active existence of objects. When we understand that existence is not passive, but active, and thus represents a peculiar fourth dimensional movement of its own, then the mystery and contradictory nature of gravity as it is currently described by science fades, replaced with a simple metaphysical equation, so to speak: Active existence = constant rate of fourth dimensional “existential acceleration” along a “Path of Existence”.

Thus, when we consider the “pull” of gravity of a more massive object on a less massive object, like a planet “pulling” on a meteor, for example, what is the actual nature of this relationship according to my thesis?

As the meteor wanders too close to the planet, it is not actually being pulled in by the planet’s gravitational “force”. This is how it may appear to an observer, but this an optical illusion. What is really happening is that the meteor has wandered into the planet’s POE (path of existence). If the meteor is not moving at a sufficient enough velocity to get beyond the planet’s POE before intersection, it will eventually collide with the planet’s surface (or burn up in its atmosphere). It isn’t that the meteor is being pulled in by the planet, but rather the planet, in accelerating along its POE has “run into” the meteor. To an outside observer this collision looks as though the meteor is being “pulled in” by the planet, and he sees it curve away from its linear trajectory and down towards the planet…but, again this is an optical illusion.

But why the illusion?

Because the existential frame of reference is the same for all things, including the observer.

It must be understood that all things equally exist—this is axiomatic. For example I do not exist to a greater or lesser degree than you do; the ball does not exist to a greater or lesser degree than the bicycle does. Thus in the above scenario, the observer, the planet, and the meteor are all equally accelerating at the same constant rate along their own respective POEs as a function of existing. This is why the observer perceives the act of the smaller meteor curving into the planet, and not the planet “expanding out” to collide with it. Possessing the same existential frame of reference as the meteor and the planet means that the observer perceives the gravitational relationship in parabolas, and “forces” which “pull”. The existential frame of reference is the same for all objects involved, thus gravity will not be perceived linearly.

To put it another way: Let’s say that in the above scenario the observer, the planet, and the meteor are all sitting still space, at enough distance from one another that gravity is not a factor. None are moving in any linear fashion. None are moving in any direction at any velocity. They are “bodies at rest”, is to speak.

What movement will the observer then perceive?

Well, the answer is “none at all”. Existential movement (the constant acceleration of an object along its POE) cannot be perceived directly by the observer since the the rate of existential acceleration is the same for all things which exist, including the observer. Thus gravity—a sort of “fourth dimensional existential acceleration at a constant rate”—shall be perceived when a less massive object travels in space relative to a more massive one at a close enough distance to have wandered into its the POE; and it will be perceived parabolically.

Gravity shall also be perceived, of course, by the fact that less massive objects can rest upon a more massive object’s surface. The reason why I am planted firmly in my easy chair right now is because of gravity; yet it isn’t that I’m being pulled down by some unseen force. Rather I am experiencing the effects of a significantly more massive object’s —Earth’s—“existential acceleration”.

*

If all objects exist to an equal degree, and therefore the constant rate of existential acceleration is likewise equal, why do objects possess greater or lesser degrees of gravitational “force” as a function their mass? Why is gravity stronger on, say, Jupiter, than it is on Earth if both Earth and Jupiter “existentially accelerate” at the same rate?

Discrepancies of perceived gravitational “force” have to do with the size, we could say, of the POE (path of existence). It stands to reason that the more mass an object possesses, the greater the size of that object’s POE (wider and extending further), and thus the greater the gravitational “force” which is perceived by the observer.

The reason, for example, that Jupiter’s gravity is more “forceful” than Earth’s is because Jupiter is much more massive, and thus possesses a much larger POE. Jupiter’s POE therefore extends much further out into space than Earth’s (and this fact is verified by current science—Jupiter’s gravitational force does, in fact, extend much further out into space than that Earth’s, and thus is both longer and wider). Therefore, the reason that objects which appear drawn to Jupiter by its gravity do so at a greater overall rate of acceleration is because they are in effect “under acceleration” for a longer duration before intersection than they would be relative to earth. The general rate of existential acceleration is a constant that is non-relative amongst all objects which exist—however, there are relative discrepancies which are a function of the size of an object’s POE. The greater an object’s mass, the larger the POE, the greater the time under acceleration, which translates into larger objects possessing a relatively greater gravitational “force”.

Now, remember this “force”—the “pull” of gravity—is an illusion; and smaller object isn’t accelerating “in towards” the larger; rather a more proper description of what is actually happening is that the larger is accelerating “out towards” the smaller (“out towards” in a fourth dimensional sense)

I know it’s getting a bit abstruse now, so let me slow down and explain this in more careful detail.

It is important to understand that “existence as movement/acceleration” is a rather difficult thing to conceptualize. Again, it represents a kind of “fourth dimensional” movement, and thus must be conceptualized in a very unique way. Naturally, being fourth dimensional, “existential acceleration” is not linear, and thus is hard to render in three dimensional space.

At any rate, here is the basic “equation” explaining discrepancies in relative gravitational “force” according to my description of gravity:

More mass = larger POE (“path of existence”) = more distance for a more massive object to “existentially accelerate” towards a less massive object caught in its POE = greater relative gravitational “force”

Again, it isn’t that more massive objects exert greater gravitational “force” or “pull”, and it isn’t that more massive objects “existentially accelerate” to a greater degree than less massive objects. It is that more massive objects have POEs which are larger, and thus extend further out into space, which means that there is more time for the more massive object to “existentially accelerate” towards any object caught in its POE. Gravitational intensity is a function of time in the POE.

Further evidence to support my thesis is the fact that objects under the influence of a given object’s gravity will “fall” at the same rate, regardless of size and/or mass. On Earth, for example, when accounting for mitigating factors like wind resistance, a penny will fall at the same rate of acceleration as a bus; a feather the same rate as a bowling ball.

Relative to my thesis on gravity, this makes perfect sense. An object “existentially accelerating” will necessarily accelerate “towards” various objects in its POE at the exact same rate. There could be no intrinsic properties of objects caught within the POE which would change the degree to which they are being accelerated towards by the more massive object. In the same way that a truck will accelerate towards a tree and a wall in its path in equal measure. The truck doesn’t care what is in its path—it just accelerates at the rate it does towards whatever happens to be there. The same is true for an object accelerating along its POE. It accelerates at the same rate towards whatever is in its path.

*

As I refer to “gravity” in this article as the manifestation of an object accelerating at a constant rate along its POE, a question which might arise is: why is the “movement of existence” acceleration and not velocity? Why a constant rate of acceleration and not a constant rate of speed? Well, the answer is rather simple, I think, though perhaps not especially intuitive.

In simple terms, speed is fundamentally passive, while acceleration is fundamentally active. In a vacuum, an object traveling at a constant speed need not, itself, be doing anything nor having anything done to it. Meaning, an object traveling at a constant velocity in a vacuum can be passive; it need not do anything nor have anything done to it to maintain that constant velocity. This is not so for an object in a vacuum which is moving at a constant rate of acceleration, In order for an object to maintain a constant rate of acceleration in a vacuum it must be active. It must be actively doing something in order to constantly accelerate, even if what it is doing is receiving some sort of external motivation.

The point here is that an object under a constant rate of acceleration must be an active participant in the movement. An object which is merely maintaining a constant velocity need not be participating in anything at all. It can be completely passive and yet still be moving. Not so with acceleration. Thus, if existence is active and represents movement (the “movement of existence; or existing”) then it must be “active movement”—it must be movement where object participation is always required. Thus, the movement must be a sort of “existential acceleration”, not merely “existential velocity”.

Further, it could be argued that for a single object in a vacuum, a mere constant rate of speed does not necessarily represent fundamental change over time, whereas acceleration does. Or perhaps better said, acceleration represents constant change over space and time, where velocity is only change over space, but not time. I will end this explication here, in order to not overcomplicate this article. I trust you get the point, at any rate.

*

It could be argued that this section here should have come the beginning of the article, but ultimately it’s a minor point. At any rate, an obvious question begged is: Why must existence necessarily be active and not passive?

Well…let me ask: According to what, exactly, do things exit?

The answer is: according to their ability.

In other words, things exist because they are able to exist; and ability absent action is irrelevant. In other words, ability implies doing—ability without a corollary action is ability which is irrelevant—that is, is ability which might as well be unable. It is the functional equivalent of inability.

Ability thus necessarily implies action. Ability is active. Inability, then, is passive.

Therefore to say that an object’s existence—which is any object’s most fundamental state—is passive, is to ultimately say that the object is unable to exist. This of course is a contradiction. If an object exists, then it exists because it is able to exist, and therefore its existence must be active.

In short, passive existence is existence which is unable to do anything, and therefore isn’t doing anything, which obviously includes existing.

*

This concludes what I assert is the proper metaphysical description of gravity. I submit that it is the most accurate description of what gravity actually is (meaning a description of the nature of the phenomenon, as opposed to a mathematical rendering, which I will leave to science). Gravity is how the observer perceives any given object’s active existence. It is the acceleration at a constant rate of an object along its POE (path of existence). The more mass an object possesses, the larger its POE, which accounts for the perception of a stronger gravitational “pull”: A larger POE = “existential acceleration” over more time = greater gravitational force relative to objects with less mass and thus smaller POEs.

*

Before ending this article, there are a couple of issues that need addressing; they will almost certainly come to the mind of any astute reader.

…

First, I shall address the issue of “gravitational lensing”. This is the phenomenon where light can be observed to bend around massive objects in space. Gravitational lensing is presented as evidence for both the existence of, and curvature, of spacetime. Now, without getting into the serious rational issues with the notion of infinite continuums like “space” and “time” existing in the literal sense, and thus in a sense that they can actually bend, and bend and displace themselves into themselves, I shall only say that I submit that gravitational lensing is this:

Gravitational lensing is simply the observer perceiving the effect of light, being emitted in a steady stream (of protons) and, due to its great speed, perpetually “outrunning”, or “moving past” the POE of a given massive object. Light appears to “bend” as it moves away from the object’s POE.

Think of it this way…

A truck is accelerating down a road, en route to collide with an endless train running perpendicularly across its path.

Now…

No matter how fast the truck goes it can never actually collide with the train, even though, as I said above, the train is endless, and even though the train is running perpendicularly across the truck’s path. The reason the truck cannot hit the train is because the train is always moving fast enough to outrun the truck. By the time truck reaches the endless train, the endless train isn’t there to be struck.

How can we visualize this crazy analogy?

Obviously we can neither observe nor conceptualize a contradiction, but how might this look given the parameters?—that no matter how fast the truck accelerates, it can never strike the endless train running across its path because the train is moving too fast.

Well, it might look like the train is persistently bending or bowing away from of the truck near the point of impact. In other words, each car of the train, just before impact, is able to slip past the nose of the truck, and continue traveling in the same direction it was, while the truck speeds on by. This would have the effect of making it look as though the train is constantly bending away from the nose of the truck as the truck speeds on down the road.

This, I submit to you, is what is happening when we observe gravitational lensing. Light is simply moving too fast for the object which is accelerating along its POE to ever reach it, thus it appears to “bend” around the object.

…

Secondly, I will very briefly touch upon the “expanding universe”. Here, too, I think my description of gravity can help explain this phenomenon, without having to resort to some mysterious and ultimately self-contradictory notion like “dark energy”.

Objects, like, galaxies, which are separated by sufficient amounts of space, will, like all objects, accelerate along their POEs (paths of existence). However, due to the extreme distances between these objects, there will be no “gravity” observed…meaning, objects separated by sufficient amounts of space will never cross each other’s POEs. Gravity thus will have no bearing on how these objects are observed from our frame of reference.

So, how then will they be observed?

As merely stationary over infinite time?

Not likely…existence is active, after all. Existence is movement.

Will they drawn closer together? Again, no, because as I already said objects being drawn close tother do so because of gravity…meaning because they are crossing POEs, which in this case is precluded due to distance.

The only option left then is that they will be observed to “pulling” away from each other…expanding the distance relative to each other. They will continue to accelerate along their own individual POEs…accelerating “into” their own existence.

*

I’m sure all this has stretched the brains, maybe painfully so, of those that have come this far. Thank you to anyone who has bothered to read this. Your time and attention are more appreciated than you can possibly know.

Finally, allow me a bit of therapeutic psychological cope:

I fully expect this thesis to be disregarded out of hand as arrant nonsense by the vast majority of those who bother with it…and that number almost certainly will be close or zero.

C’est la vie…it is what it is. Like virtually all creative ideas that truly offer something of new, productive, and valid substance, their fresh take is rejected as madness at first.

Oh well…as I said, such is life. Nevertheless, I submit that I shall certainly be validated in the…

END