Gravity's Magic

[Dipanjan Maitra]

Could Pynchon have *missed* Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1915)
which is also a theory of gravity? Einstein talked about how space-time got
warped, was dependent upon mass of heavenly bodies. Arthur Eddington's 1919
experiment by photographing a solar eclipse apparently 'proved' it. Of
course 'Dr. Einstein' features in *GR*, how could he not, after his role in
creating the Bomb however much he regretted it?

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

> All I know is a recent TV show on Black Holes sez: Gravity is 'infinite'
> at the center of a black hole which
> is The Singularity and cannot exist via Einstein's theory.
>
> There we go again.
>
>   *From:* Bled Welder <bledwelder at hotmail.com>
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:11 AM
> *Subject:* Gravity's Magic
>
>   Has this never occurred to anyone?  Sheesh.  I mean what do we really
> know about gravity anyway.   It curves space, is that what it does, now?  I
> should wiki gravitons before I "spout thick blood!"
>
> Feed your head.  (For qualified madmen only.)
>
> "Our forefathers in the most remote ages  have handed down to their
> posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods
> and tat the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition
> has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the
> multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say the gods
> are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say
> other things, consequent on and similar to those which we have mentioned.
> But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take
> it alone--that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must
> regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each
> art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has
> again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the
> present like relics of the ancient treasure.  Only thus far, then, is the
> opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us."
>  --Aristotle, Metaphysics 1074 b 1-10
>
> And yes! the Aristotelians are again among us, breeding their particular
> forms into our cherished mechanical physics.  R.Sheldrake, he's hellbent on
> proving the morphic resonance on physical grounds, to test it, and to avoid
> the dread...falsification!  Not that!  If you're going to be a physicist in
> our time, you gotta be able to connect your Platonic ideas or Aristotle
> causes to our tactile satisfaction.  One thing about Sheldrake's inquiry
> though, for sure, is that it highlights the magnificent *weakness* of
> what we believe so solidly in *our* science:
>
> "'If the chain explored all possible configurations at random by rotations
> about the various single bonds of the structure, it would take too long to
> reach the native configuration [damn time!]. For example, if the individual
> residues of an unfolded polypeptide chain can exist in only two states,
> which is a gross underestimate, then the number of possibly generated
> conformations is 10 to the 45 for a chain of 10 amino acid residues.  If
> each conformation could be explored with a frequency of a molecular
> rotation (10 to 12 sec. to -1), which is an overestimate, it would take
> approximately 10 to the 26 years to examine all possible conformations.
>  Since the synthesis and folding of a protein chain such as that of
> ribonuclease or lysozyme can be accomplished in about 2 minutes, it is
> clear that all conformations are not traversed in the folding process.
>  Instead, it appears that, in response to local interacgtions, the peptide
> chain is directed along a variety of low-energy pathways (relatvely small
> in number), possibly passing through unique indeterminate states, towards
> the conformation of lowest free energy (Anfinsen and Scheraga.)'
>
> "...It is thus conceivable that some factor other than energy 'selcts'
> between these possibilities and thus determines the specific structure
> taken up by the system." Sheldrake, New Science of Life.
>
> The trippy thing is like, wha? no energy?  We can't even conceive of
> anything that doesn't entail energy.  Thinking entails energy.  I can't
> then think about anything without at least *that* energy being involved.
>  It seems that our physics has it right, then, that everything exists in a
> field of energy.  Then there's magical gravity, with its field.  And now
> Sheldrake wants to bring in form fields?  It almost makes sense!
>
> It's wild, I highly recommend everyone trying it: right when you hit the
> beginning of middle age, say 37, 38, totally change the way you view the
> world.  And by that I mean, do it in a way that it comes naturally, by say,
> if you're qualified, exploring the Cybe.  The Mother has much much, much to
> say, I've only mentioned parts on here.  Don't force yourself into
> anything.  Then again, why not?  You've been indocrinated into everything
> else.  (Just keep away from those Korean corporate owners fuckers....)  I
> wonder where Aristotle heard that about the ancients?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120509/1ace9445/attachment.html>