I still don’t understand the distinction of gravity as an invention

[kieranperez]

I can see how gravity as a concept is something human beings invented and now project in order to interpret the world around them. However, I still don’t understand how the principle of what the concept of gravity is pointing to wasn’t there prior to Newton making that distinction. 

The example I still get stuck on in my own contemplation of the matter is such:

if I pick up anything and I drop it, whether or not I made the distinction of gravity and the force of it, it still fell down. Planes operate they do because of a force that we now call as gravity. Even if I take away the distinction in my mind, it still falls down as it did even when I had the distinction of gravity. 

Where am I getting lost here?

[Leo Gura]

Rahter than concept, think of things as being imaginary. The past is imaginary. There never was a Newton so to speak unless you imagine him right now.

So what Newton is, is what you think he is right now.

[Sempiternity]

Ever float or fly in a dream? What we call real life is just another more complicated dream with it's own rules, that was created by God, which is you. 

[Forestluv]

@kieranperez Along the imaginary theme. . . Could you have a dream in which objects fell to the ground when dropped? Sure. I've had many dreams like that. 

@Jed Vassallo Nice jinx. 

[Nahm]

@kieranperez It’s so simple and obvious (yet deep) that it is missed. Write “What is gravity?” on your dream board, knowing the universe has already received your question, let it go, be the emptiness the answer is arising in. A little while later, grab a pad of paper, and contemplate it’s opposite.  

The chair you’re in is perception...and so are the thoughts. Where does the chair end up, really?

[cetus]

@kieranperez This universe with it's laws are but one plane of existence to explore. Wait till you experience the plane where objects fall sideways and the future is behind you.

[LastThursday]

12 hours ago, kieranperez said:

it still fell down.

That's just a theory - just simpler than Newton's.

[tsuki]

Prior to Newton's invention of gravity, the fact that things were falling down was not the issue, not the point.
Right now, you look from the vantage point where the gravity distinction has already been made, so OF COURSE things were falling down prior to Newton. But imagine if you were ignorant of that distinction. The fact that things fall down would be so obvious that this fact would be overlooked.

Or, to put it another way - imagine that right now, there is some distinction that you haven't made yet. Let's call this distinction X. Do things happen in accordance to X, like they fall down in accordance with gravity? 

Edited October 8, 2019 by tsuki

[remember]

14 hours ago, kieranperez said:

I can see how gravity as a concept is something human beings invented and now project in order to interpret the world around them. However, I still don’t understand how the principle of what the concept of gravity is pointing to wasn’t there prior to Newton making that distinction. 

The example I still get stuck on in my own contemplation of the matter is such:

if I pick up anything and I drop it, whether or not I made the distinction of gravity and the force of it, it still fell down. Planes operate they do because of a force that we now call as gravity. Even if I take away the distinction in my mind, it still falls down as it did even when I had the distinction of gravity. 

Where am I getting lost here?

rather than thinking about gravity, realize how you pick them up over and over again. now realize what is bringing things up and what is pulling them down. newton is not about the distinction, he is about relativity. even the apple story is relatively genius.

[mandyjw]

Sit under an apple tree, it will answer your questions like it answered Newton's. 

16 hours ago, kieranperez said:

Even if I take away the distinction in my mind, it still falls down as it did even when I had the distinction of gravity. 

This is because your actual mind encompasses physical reality. Even though you took away the distinction in your own mind the effects of gravity are still a greatly desired physical state. Question and contemplate whose desire is this? 

 

[Nahm]

Newton never explained gravity.

[mandyjw]

 

5 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Newton never explained gravity.

No, but he asked questions and received insights. Can anyone explain God? Does that make God a fiction?

Yes and no. 

[Nahm]

@mandyjw What if the church was right about science in the first place?  What if the story of Adam & Eve is actuality? Imagine the implications of the actuality of gravity being common knowledge. That’d be some serious unification. 

[remember]

@Nahm what if both appletree stories are just some really fitting self fulfilling prophesies that fit the ego mind quite well? science loves it mostly just as much as most religions.

[kieranperez]

8 hours ago, LastThursday said:

That's just a theory - just simpler than Newton's.

Jump off a cliff and then tell me as your falling to your death (of the body) whether you falling is still a story. And don’t give me a slick little nondual rationalization. Yes, in the Absolute there is no one to die and no one falling and no ground. In yet you will still fall until you hit the ground. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by kieranperez

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

Jump off a cliff and then tell me as your falling to your death (of the body) whether you falling is still a story. And don’t give me a slick little nondual rationalization. Yes, in the Absolute there is no one to die and no one falling and no ground. In yet you will still fall until you hit the ground. 

You are making a distinction between real and unreal - which is fine. That distinction can have practical value. It's easy to conceptualize the inter-relatedness between real and unreal in the comfort of one's own living room. As you say, it's a lot more difficult to conceptualize when one has fallen off a cliff - then things get real fast. Yet intensifying the story through subjective experiences related to personal survival does not increase the truth of the story. What *is* regarding real / unreal *is* regardless of interpretive filters. . . I had a nightmare in which I fell of a cliff and it was very real. . . It just so happens one of my greatest fears is falling off a cliff. . . For me, lucid dreaming is one of the best ways to explore real and unreal. There are many facets and integrations of lucidity and wakefulness. 

Do you think in the next 200 years, we could create virtual reality in which people cannot distinguish between real and unreal? 

[mandyjw]

@Nahm I can't know the grave ity of the situation. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

I can't know the grave ity of the situation. 

The grave-ity is such a downer. . . 

[Nahm]

@remember Self fulfilling stories indeed. ???

 

[RendHeaven]

what makes you think "things" "fall?"