Falling (part A)

We’ve all done it & you might say, we never stopped nor did we begin, but we’ll probably end someday, maybe.
i do not really understand these equations, but i wanted precision & recently read in Foucault that equations had a brevity akin to poetry (at least i think it was Foucault). i also kind of liked the inversion of mathematics explaining language rather than language explaining mathematics. High praise for anyone who can tell me what the equations are without resorting to copying & pasting them into Google.

Falling 1

i can say everything falls. If stuff falls
at c = 3.0 x 108 m/s, like the under garment
of reality, do they remain stationary?
F = Gm1m2/r2 is how a scientist will
explain a fall, maybe— i loosen my grasp
on anything & hear it hit the floor. i read
a Syrian’s account of Saydnaya prison camp,
now a hostage to memory, despite freedom,
as if his memories are fed through a drip
against his will. The sun doesn’t bleed light,
nor light shadow, they are a consequence of a type
of falling. The wind’s ruckus of updrafts
cannot pack rain into a cloud;
only the sun can do that, in good time

& with the help of chlorophylls.

25 Comments Add yours

  1. lostinmist says:

    I think the one with the G is gravity attraction between two* masses. BTW, you can do superscripts, at least the 2 & 3, in, wordpress via the special characters (others as well if you learn to arrange the raw html, I °think°.). If on a computer, not a phone, that is. I dig it. May have other things to say, but I told my house-neighbor is be back in 20 & in n9w late. (&!§}

    1. lostinmist says:

      Two* = As if a reduction to an integer isolate of pairs could ever be accurate. Truth is immediate experience, though words & calculations can also do very handy things, though at 1 to infinite removes from ‘real reality’.

      1. The G one is Newton. So yes gravity, although, there is not a single equation for gravity.
        i really wish i understood the rest of what you said but i must throw my hands up. Maybe you can oversimplify it for my oversimple mind.

  2. Rather than get lost in grand semantic flights of fancy, we may be able to do a more practical mathematics of language that possibly/maybe be empirical rather than metaphysical (“the gravity of verbs”, etc.).

    Thus, I would think that if “mathematics” an explain language, the logical site of exploration would be: (1) algebra, as it deals with symbols (2x + y = 5, etc.), or (2) finding relationships (ratios) between the amount of letters in various words, like maybe intransitive verbs are usually longer than transitive verbs, or the intransitive/transitive verb word length ration an be expressed as 4:3.

    Interesting and.or significant things might be found in the whole verb stem phenomenon in Japanese, that verbs are built ergo “extended” by lengthening them: the verb stem for “eat” (tabe -) can be expanded to be tabeta (to have eaten)… all the way to something like “tabesaserareta” (to have been made to eat something). So there might be a ratio for stem to medium length verb structure to longest possible verb structure, providing some kind of “mathe-gramamatical” algorithm.

    It may not be as grand as a more l=belles-lettres approach, or a grand semantic essay… but I prefer reason over potentially pseudo-spiritual musings on how words reveal the Golden Mean and Fibonacci…blah blah blah… 🙂

    1. I’ll leave that to others as i don’t really understand it. I used these equations as a similes & a little irony to say gravity & the speed of light. Because it disrupts the experience as mathematics can, at least to me.

      1. Here are the only literary algebra you need to know: DPM = 2x + 8y… where Daniel Paul Marshall (DPM) equals twice the talent (x) and 8 times the profundity (y) of his peers!

      2. That’s some algebra i can get to grips with. Thanks.

      3. I would argue that DPM = 188x + 296y but I don’t want to make any/all primary and/or subsidiary peers jealous/angry! 🙂

  3. Very much enjoyed this one Daniel 💚, especially the “type of falling” and its connection with the apparently freed prisoner.

    1. Been thinking a lot about falling lately, i think i have been reading too much Camus & watching too many Adam Curtis documentaries.

      1. Because of the world and me (that just about covers it hahaha), I don’t read/watch much stuff on the darker side these days. It’s not denial (maybe?) but it connects too easily with that part of my inner self.

      2. It is very easy to hide yourself from it & i still don’t know what the necessary action is or whether knowing about it is the right action, but i feel responsible somehow & at least trying to process it through reading & consideration is the little i can do.

      3. I was at a Buddhist talk last year given by a monk I greatly respect, and he spoke about climate change (he’d been on govt panels etc etc). He said that we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that personally we can’t do anything about it, it is out of our control. There was an uproar (in Buddhist terms), many in the audience disagreed, and yet I fear he was right …

  4. Li says:

    One of my undergrad lecturer once said (in a lecture about set theory) that we need maths and equations because English is inherently unclear and ambiguous, e.g. “Nothing is better than eternal joy” and “An egg sandwich is better than nothing” surely implies that an egg sandwich is better than eternal joy?! And by the time you’ve clarified everything in English, you’ve written 10 pages against the 1 single line in maths.

    In some sense a good equation, like good poetry, reveals more insights the more you look into it. A recent experiment which confirmed Einstein’s insight is a good example of good equation/maths, that it keeps on giving even when the author is long gone and perhaps even making surprising connections in other disciplines. (Although I’m not entirely sure if the man himself would be that surprised 🙂

    1. i added the equations as i am sure, like poetry, equations when understood are a very precise method of understanding what they explain. My problem is when a scientist will say (& i’ve heard this said many time) that an equation describes reality better than anything else. A scientist visited my guesthouse, a lovely chap. He brought some friends with him & they asked me what i think about science. i said it was interesting but essentially like a mystery school, in that you have to be initiated into them through a lot of education to even be able to glean something from the surface. Moreover, i can’t accept that an equation for gravity explains it better than if i drop my fork on the floor, point & say “that is gravity.” Now these scientists far from being outraged, actually agreed with me. i am not going to say science isn’t a precision discipline, that probes with its language, closer than we can with the written word but i find it hard to accept that it explains nature better than the direct experience of it.
      i am not implying anything about how you feel on this subject, i hope you understand.

      1. Li says:

        That’s interesting, I was discussing just this with a friend last week. In the fork example, you’ve demonstrated a real-life manifestion of gravity in a particular instance with a particular set of conditions. If you’re explaining to someone who didn’t understand gravity before, s/he probably now understand more than if you tried to overwhelm them with equations. But, and that’s the question my friend asked, did you actually explain gravity? For the vast majority of people’s purposes, of course you did and that’s the end of the story. But, did you actually? You’ve certainly explained the concept of an attractive force, but what of gravity itself? I’m not so certain.

        For example, the fork-drop demo seems to suggest that gravity is Earth-centric but in fact it is simply the force of attraction between any two massive (i.e. with mass) objects. So, the fork-drop doesn’t tell you that you’re personally exerting gravity on everything around you, but it’s just that your mass is negligible compared with that of the Earth’s so we can’t demonstrate it easily (doesn’t mean it’s not there, we just haven’t invented a measurement device sensitive enough). More related to my work, is there gravity when you’re a single atom of dishwashing liquid in a thin film of 50 nanometer in thickness? Does it too drop like a fork? What if you do it in space? almost in space?

        So the fork-drop demonstrated very well the effect of an attractive force field (which happens to be gravity in this case), but to describe gravity specifically we must quantify it further to distinguish it from other forces. In this case, the key parameters were worked out (a story in itself, which parameters, why those parameters?) to be mass and distance of the two objects together with a constant of proportionality (G). So for me, if you tried to explain to me a previously unknown force but say that its force is proportional to m_1m_2/r^5 for instance, then I’ll immediately be able to extract much much more information than if you simply dropped a fork in a 1/r^5 force field. So in that sense, an equation does certainly describes a phenomenon far better than anything else since it “demystifies” it and puts its strength into context.

        But I’m not sure it matters, since to the vast majority of people, there simply isn’t a need to explain the subtleties and a direct experience is indeed the way to go 🙂

      2. Lovely explanation. i agree, of course.

  5. Pablo Cuzco says:

    These take a few reads to get at the wryness embedded within.

    1. Being English, numerous aspects of humour are like a second language, which i was brought up speaking. i think humour has a strong place in poetry. i am heavily influenced by Berryman for his practice of it & for Kenneth Burke for his theorizing of comedy as a paradigm for society.

      1. Pablo Cuzco says:

        ‘One of the author’s main purpose is to entertain.’ I read that somewhere, but haven’t been able to find a reliable source for the quote. True nonetheless.

      2. i do that all the time, not entertain, but remember the bones of something but not where they came from.

      3. Pablo Cuzco says:

        I found something on Google, but it was from a lesser known author. I remembered it being Steinbeck. Now searching I cant find attribution to any writer at all, just how-to articles on writing. It is an important aspect to my writing—no matter how important I feel about a topic, write to entertain and uplift, not to sell a point.

  6. kvennarad says:

    You appear to be on a roll, and that’s that.

    1. It seems to me were both on a continual roll. Let the times roll indefinitely.

a penny for your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s