An ontological contraction embodies a phrase or a statement in which the communicator unwittingly converts a concept into an object and assigns motion, causal relations or change effects to that concept. Unfortunately one finds many ontological contradictions in mainstream physics communication.
A classic example is the phrase "gravity pulls". Gravity pulled the apple to the Earth. What an innocent statement! And yet what an unlearned tongue! Gravity is a name referencing a relation between two objects namely the Earth and the apple. Our concept is worked out by the brain. Earth and apple both refer to objects. They have form. And they, i.e. Earth and apple are in a singular relation we conceived and named gravity.
Gravity refers to a concept, a relation of two or more objects: worked out by the brain. And we assume that all the atoms of the Universe are in an inseparable relation called gravity. This is why we modify gravity with 'universal'. But gravity does not refer to an object that could possibly perform causal relations or undergo change effects. There are no objects out there called gravity pulling on other objects such as Earth or apple. The Earth and the apple pull on each other. They are in a constant tension with one another that exponentially increases as their distance decreases. As an explanation it would seem that they do this by way of an assumed object or thing or entity that is inherent to all the atoms of the Universe. We can call this object a mediator or a nexus. We assume that it is there connecting Earth and apple, even all atoms to each other so that Earth and apple and all stars can complete this universal relation called gravity. This object is not discrete to the atom or a background to the atom, rather it is inherent, intrinsic, inseparable, fundamental, essential, constitutional (choose your synonym) TO THE ATOM AND ALL ATOMS. So much so that the atom literally takes on its form or derives its form from this SAME OBJECT. This object has many unique properties and behaviors that we could describe for example it is continuous, tense, rectilinear, the finest object in existence (tiniest width and height), inordinately long, has the ability to superpose while retaining its form. And this is somewhat a mystery. How an atom is held together and constantly reforms itself via this object is a great mystery described by fiendishly difficult mathematical ideas.
But the aim of this post is that only objects can enact causal relations such as gravity. In terms of Mother Nature and reality, gravity has never pulled a single object in the entire history of the Universe! Gravity refers to a causal relation between objects which perform the work via an assumed object which serves as mediator or nexus. The fact that so many use this redundant ontological contradictions such as "gravity pulls" reveals a lack of understanding. And there are many other examples. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Now you might smile and say that I am playing semantics games. However this use of language is alarming since we have no other way of reading minds. How else am I suppose to know what is happening in another person's brain unless I use his language and possibly his illustrations as criteria?