I expanded my post (didn’t see your second question).
Keep in mind -
De-weaponizing, de-strengthening, de-incentivizing, de-educating, and misinforming the underclass of the “New Liberal (communist) World Order” is actively paramount and ongoing.
There is this feature of Google Earth or the space version that you can toggle so that it gives a perspective of the celestial sphere as if the earth was flat at the center of the solar system (or something). That sounds like something you’re saying here. It feels like you’re saying our system is both flat earth-centered and egg-shaped heliocentric (or whatever), and you just gotta toggle your perspective.
There is time t & time T… might be the confusion.
I see it more like -
origami - 4 is made of 2+2
Magnus - 4 is made of 1+1+1+1
FJ - 4 could be made of 3+1
MD - NO! - “3” is just a myth. There is no “3”. How could there be a 3? If there was a 3 - there would have to be a 1/3. I call BS!
Ec - You’re all nuts. 1 comes before 3. Anyone knows that.
oh so gravity grounds its energy in the base but the wave/circuit flow has no direction cuz it’s a cloud or whole valence/field & the slowed up (captured by … hm … sea?) base that keeps the pos & neg from canceling each other out?
I’m not sure if that makes sense. The way I prefer thinking about it is with James’ Affectance Ontology. Some of his videos relating to all of this –
Equation of Space - 
Affectance Ontology - 
Of What the Universe is Made - 
The Affectance Field - 
Gravitation -
Particle Formation - 
Anentropic Shelter - 
The issue of positive and negative attraction and why electrons don’t crash into nuclei is a different set of graphs and videos. He talked about it on this board (somewhere). I’ll look them up. I think it was a matter of the extreme potential differences that kept the particles apart.
Does James think the universe feels? Like a body. Does he think it also has mind/consciousness?
James was asked that as part of a debate years ago. He made a much longer story out of it with much more detail but I surmised his answer to be - “You aren’t qualified to ask that question - because you wouldn’t know what you asked nor what was given as an answer.”
As an example - “What is consciousness?” Regardless of your answer to that - who else would agree enough to say whether the universe had that quality - and how would they support their opinion? A person sometimes needs to know a lot more about what he is asking to understand any given answer.
This is one of his graphics on why electrons can’t fall into nuclei -
I haven’t searched out the text for it yet.
What it all amounts to - the simple version of gravitation - is that mass is formed by radiant energy colliding with other radiant energy to form “traffic jams” (all a mass particle actually is) around which the radiation density gets higher than at distant locations. That forms a mass field (made of radiant energy - “affectance”). And because that field is not uniform - anything traveling through it will experience more drag on the side closer to the center of mass ( the particle or planet) then be forced to gradually turn toward that mass. It happens because the mass field is not uniform so masses “migrate” toward each other as consequence (actually seems like common sense). There is no actual gravitation force - merely uneven mass density causing more drag on one side - simple.
The story about electrons not being able to collide with nuclei is more complicated but if I remember right - it is because the electron refuses to become a part of the positive mass field of the nuclei (like a cabal of Jews refusing to become a part of the larger Catholic church they live close to - one of his examples). In effect - a type of force field of extreme positive and extreme negative radiant pulses develops (“Max PtA Change Rate”) that absolutely forbids the electron from getting too close to the much larger positive particle (the particle must be much larger for the effect to work). He proposed it to be “the most powerful actual force in the universe” - a force of reluctance.
Yes that is what the Neo-Cons have indoctrinated you to think. 
Obstvr - No all those numbers 1,3,4 are all just a liberal plot. There is only 2 genders! The commies are trying to kill me. URGHHHH
Your conspiracy theory? 
They must have done a really really good job on me because no one seems to be able to present evidence for your case (quite the opposite).
ovsrvr, James’ graphs don’t really make sense as informative & feels like you’re pulling my leg that you actually believe his thinking.
but. the traffic jams thing feels right on a way to describe matter (slowed up energy) 
And I gotta admit my first feeling about the “hole”/privation (at the link) was expectation. I just kind of wonder if by affectance/reluctance he considered it all willful, like Newton.
Not by themselves - you have to read his texts.
By “affectance” he means what normal people call energy or radiant energy or EMF. He - being the philosopher type - just had to use a broader term (he explained why somewhere). It is all in Mithus’ book.
curious. was everything he said just other findings, models, or theories in different words?
It’s like reading my development textbooks stealing from philosophers & giving zero credit… except the one weirdo addicted to coke & covering for wealthy pedophiles.
I temporarily suspected that but it became very clear that James was into explaining WHY theories worked to the degree they worked (and when they didn’t - e.g. relativity theory, quantum theory) - so naturally he had to be saying many commonly known things. He used a different concept - “affectance” (he said he borrowed from psychology) - in order to tie all of the known principles together as well as give “meaningful definition of existence” and explanation to why anything exists at all.
So no - he certainly wasn’t merely re-wording already known theories. He often explained things that science doesn’t explain in favor of just defaulting to “that is just the way it is” - such as
- why light travels at that particular speed -
- where gluons come from
- why particles form
- why gravity works
- why magnets attract
- why positive and negative attract
- why electrons don’t crash into nuclei
- what a god is and whether one exists
- why people do what they do
- and more
All are questions science does not answer. He said that was his intention - and that is what he did.
(and this has gotten WAY off topic).
reminds me of Descartes a little bit. cuz he was down with harmonic triads or unity of consciousness long before Kant, Hume, or Brentano. would like to see more Newton, though.
anyway. back to centripetal.
We should do a group reading of Descarte’s Geometry.
no no, forget it.
The Earth came from the Sun, and is moving away from the Sun as time elapses.
There is no “attraction”, the Earth is being FORCED AWAY from the Sun.
Why circularly though? Why not in a straight line?