# Thread: Gravitation

1. ## Gravitation

Static individual beta Ti is mass. Attraction is delta Fi which catalyzes dynamic collective beta Ti (motion). Gravity is an attraction based on static individual beta Ti.

Gravity is not really a force... rather, it is an attraction which exudes force via the accepting/producing relationship between Ti and Se.

2. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Static individual beta Ti is mass. Attraction is delta Fi which catalyzes dynamic collective beta Ti (motion). Gravity is an attraction based on static individual beta Ti.

Gravity is not really a force... rather, it is an attraction which exudes force via the accepting/producing relationship between Ti and Se.
What is the difference between "static individual beta Ti" and "dynamic collective beta Ti?" Can you provide a scenario to flesh out how this would play out in real life?

3. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Static individual beta Ti is mass. Attraction is delta Fi which catalyzes dynamic collective beta Ti (motion). Gravity is an attraction based on static individual beta Ti.

Gravity is not really a force... rather, it is an attraction which exudes force via the accepting/producing relationship between Ti and Se.
Isn't gravitational attraction and ?

4. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Isn't gravitational attraction and ?
What? Not gonna contextualize that comment ESC?

5. Originally Posted by Timmy
What? Not gonna contextualize that comment ESC?
I have some knowledge of Tcaud's theories, but this is mostly of my own theorizing. If you've seen my controversial Aspectonics thread, I tried to show how the Static aspects related to physics(and the laws thereof).

[sorry to hijack Tcaud]

Singular = Matter
of = Properties of matter1 ; of = Attraction of matter2
Singular = Essence3
of = Properties of essence4 ; of = Attraction of essence5

&

&

&

&

1 Properties of matter give forth to the incontrovertible, albeit unknown, laws of matter. The most imperative implications are distance and mass.

2 Attraction of matter represents the inherent convergence of certain physical bodies to certain other physical bodies based on mass. From this we have gravity, speed, velocity, acceleration; the movement of physical force, basically. Also sexual attraction.

While laws, or properties, are meant to separate, attraction, or convergence, is a movement towards unity.

3 The essence of something is the nature of it, without being actual or manifested; potentiality. Here, essence is potentiality due to the combined nature of the properties and the attraction of .

4 Properties of essence give forth to the incontrovertible, albeit unknown, laws of potentiality in this world. They are directly responsible for the limited possible arrangements of the essence of things. The implications are improvement, change, and practicality.

5 Attraction of essence represents the inherent attraction of certain essences to certain other essences based on individual nature. From this we have the illusion of hope & closeness, love, emotional distance & grief(comparable to gravity), empathy, telekinesis, will power, ESP, desire, motivation, spirit. Attraction to beauty or character, and not sexual nature.

6. Gravity is when you collapse on your face and hear your teeth ring or when you fell down the stairs waking up in the morning thinking you got in trouble.

EDIT: And yea, you LIIs have fun, all of you

7. Attempting to isolate the subelemental components of beta Ti, the following appears to be true:
- stable beta Ti (the aspect of beta Ti most paid attention to by cultural conservatives -- Mitchell's paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives) processes the state of the physical world. Stable Ti elements are physical objects, and are related by the concept of space. I name stable beta Ti "stable (or static) individual beta Ti" and the relationships between stable Ti aspects "stable collective beta Ti".
- unstable beta Ti (the aspect of beta Ti most paid attention to by cultural liberals -- Mitchell's communitarians and individualists) processes changes of the physical world. Unstable Ti is the coming into and out of existence of objects due to changes of the space between their units: if a force causes the space between units of an object to change, then they can be considered distinct objects (there union of course, not necessarily dissolved). For example, if you move the sun then the planets will move with it -- the sun is, of course, always orbiting about the galactic center, so relative to that center it is always moving. That the planets move with the sun around the galactic center is the proof of the solar system as an "object" in and of itself, a physical collective of parts. Indeed, we are all a "part" of the earth in this sense, as is everything in orbit around it, including the moon.

I call changes in the physical world "unstable (or dynamic) individual beta Ti" and changes in the space between objects (which in the context of gamma Ni we call "motion") "unstable collective beta Ti".
- Positive beta Ti, in the context of the above, is the existence of objects, the existences of objects being related to each other by the concept of "parts" to "wholes". Negative beta Ti is the state of an object's non-existence or non-being, the relationship of an object's non-being to other objects being the sense of something being "missing" or "void".

So, you can see that taken in the aggregate, beta Ti encompasses all non-mathematical conceptions of the physical universe. (the mathematical aspects involve measurement and perceived via association of beta Ti with gamma Te).

Beta Se is force and contest, inertia, resistance, action/reaction.

8. Einstein's relativity: it is the philosophical assertion of the correlation between changes in gamma Ni and beta Ti.

Change in Ti, via the mental energy transference route from the EM system to the IM system, means a corresponding change in Ni. Likewise, changes in Ni mean changes in Ti, particularly with regard to measurements associated with either. Changing the measurement of one changes the measurement of the other. Consider the concept of the Aether -- it stipulated that changes in either Ti or Ni could happen with no correlating changes to the other... PoLR problem, anyone?

9. So is this meant to be a scheme of comparative logic or what?

10. Originally Posted by Galen
So is this meant to be a scheme of comparative logic or what?
Yes. I'm sure I could understand what they're trying to say if I actually read the whole thread, but all I know now is that threads like this make me giggle.

11. Originally Posted by Mountain Dew
Originally Posted by Galen
So is this meant to be a scheme of comparative logic or what?
Yes. I'm sure I could understand what they're trying to say if I actually read the whole thread, but all I know now is that threads like this make me giggle.
Pertaining to my own post, it's not that hard to follow(and if you had problems understanding, you could have just asked(no one's in any ivory tower here)), not to mention, I didn't mean for my "logic" to actually represent reality. It's just some hyper-reductive system to better understand the elements of reality that Socionics IEs are, if you care.

12. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Pertaining to my own post, it's not that hard to follow(and if you had problems understanding, you could have just asked(no one's in any ivory tower here)), not to mention, I didn't mean for my "logic" to actually represent reality. It's just some hyper-reductive system to better understand the elements of reality that Socionics IEs are, if you care.
Well then methinks you'd be much better understood if you spoke in terms of actual reality.

Originally Posted by Mountain Dew
Yes. I'm sure I could understand what they're trying to say if I actually read the whole thread, but all I know now is that threads like this make me giggle.
lol Ti-seeking

13. Originally Posted by Galen
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Pertaining to my own post, it's not that hard to follow(and if you had problems understanding, you could have just asked(no one's in any ivory tower here)), not to mention, I didn't mean for my "logic" to actually represent reality. It's just some hyper-reductive system to better understand the elements of reality that Socionics IEs are, if you care.
Well then methinks you'd be much better understood if you spoke in terms of actual reality.
What is "actual reality"?

*troll disclaimer*

14. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Originally Posted by Galen
Well then methinks you'd be much better understood if you spoke in terms of actual reality.
What is "actual reality"?

*troll disclaimer*
How am I supposed to answer that? Shouldn't this concept be obvious on an intuitive level?

15. Originally Posted by Galen
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

What is "actual reality"?

*troll disclaimer*
How am I supposed to answer that? Shouldn't this concept be obvious on an intuitive level?
I didn't expect you to, hence the troll disclaimer.

http://creative-spirit.info/organiza...of_inquiry.htm

Pulling the string Pulling the string come from pulling a loose thread on a sweater or a seam on a garment only to have the sweater or garment come apart. It is to pursue the cause or reason for an anomaly by continually asking why the situation exist as it does. Pulling the string is to follow a lead which present itself to us to its end regardless of ridiculous our mind might think about lead and where it is taking us. Pulling the string requires surrender.
Might be related to Process vs Result..but pulling the string is similar to "trolling", Devil's Advocate and the dialectical method in that it exposes holes in flimsy premises by exploring or questioning their assumptions, but also can lead to new questions and insights.

16. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Originally Posted by Galen
How am I supposed to answer that? Shouldn't this concept be obvious on an intuitive level?
I didn't expect you to, hence the troll disclaimer.

http://creative-spirit.info/organiza...of_inquiry.htm
I didn't expect you to give a decent response, so I guess we're even in that regard.

What I mean is that I'm expecting your "logic" or your thought processes to actually be representative of reality, in response to your claims that it is not (and from what I have observed of you personally).

btw that site you linked has some pretty great english errors.

17. The relativity post was actually meant for HaveLucidDreams.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•