Rebuttal to: Southwestern Oklahoma State University
I received the following message from your e-mail address:
New gravitational theory and equation explained.
Click here for gravity and repulsion: http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro09.htm
Distinguished Professor, Ph.D. (name removed)
Science Education Section, Dept. of Chemistry and Physics
Southwestern Oklahoma State University
100 Campus Drive
Weatherford, OK 73096-3098
Ph.D.:
I don't know why I received it, but out of curiosity I visited the URL address
cited. After only a cursory scan, I noticed a couple of errors in
reasoning I felt I should bring to your attention (besides the numerous spelling
errors, such as "breath" for "breadth"
(corrected) and
"it's" for "its".
Grant:
The Grant Chronicles are meant to inform the scientific community of new ideas.
Emphasis is placed on grammar and spelling, which has passed Microsoft’s Word
spelling and grammar program.
Ph.D.:
First, it is an error to substitute "gravitational force" for
"pressure". As you note, pressure is equal to force/area.
So force is used to calculate pressure, but cannot be substituted in its place.
Grant: You
have overlooked the obvious; pressure is a force applied upon matter within a
defined area. Gravity has the attributes of pressure as it applies a force upon
all matter within the effected area. Isn’t gravity directly accountable for
the containment pressure of the Sun according to present day theory? Thus
stating, the fusion process of the Sun, which is responsible for the tremendous
outward pressure of hot hydrogen –helium gases, is balanced by the force of
gravity. How can one then turn around and say gravitation force and pressure on
a mass cannot be substituted, when the Sun presently is a working example of
this idea.
Ph.D.:
Second, you seem to be confusing the universal gravitation constant (G) with the
acceleration due to Earth's gravity (g). The first, G, is part of the
universal law of gravitation and is equal to approximately 6.67 x 10^-11
N-m^2/kg^2 (the units are Newton-meters squared per kilogram squared).
Clearly, this is NOT an acceleration and cannot be substituted for "a"
in Newton's second law, F = ma. The second, g, is the acceleration due to
Earth's gravity and is equal to approximately 9.8 m/sec^2 (the units are meters
per second squared or meters per second per second). This quantity IS an
acceleration and may be substituted into the equation F = ma to find the weight
(W) of a mass (W = mg).
Grant: Addressing the confusion of the universal gravitation constant (G) with
the acceleration due to Earth's gravity (g), I will set
up the gravitational equation in comparison to force equation:
G *
M1* M2
= Force
Force
= M *A
Radius2
This Yeilds:
G *
M1* M2
= M
*A
R2
M1
and M2 are factors of the total Mass so they cancel from both
equations leaving:
G = A
R2
Conclusion:
The gravitational constant G is the acceleration part in Newton’s F=M*A
equation, but the constant R2 controls the magnitude of acceleration
related to distance from the source. There is a direct relationship between the
gravitational constant and acceleration with a function of G affected by R dictating
the resultant A. Observations on
Earth have shown that objects accelerate at the same rate and it is not
dependent upon its mass. So if the mass can vary, force and acceleration move
hand and hand. It is similar to putting a constant that proportionally affects
another variable. Look at the affects of gravity, no matter the size of the
mass, whether a feather or a canon ball in the absence of outside friction; they
both fall at same the rate of acceleration.
Ph.D.: For
the past few hundreds of years, thousands of brilliant scientists and
mathematicians have studied the ideas you address on your web site. Many
have tried in vain to find flaws, because, after all, that is the way science
advances. None have been successful. Good luck on your attempts.
I should warn you, however, that in my opinion attempts to support religious
beliefs with scientific evidence are futile. Beliefs are not based upon
evidence or theories, but are based upon faith. And scientific theories
are not based upon beliefs, but upon evidence. To mix the two, or to try
to support one with the other, is a disservice to value of both science and
religion.
Grant: Many scientists have found flaws. This is why science advances. The Grant Chronicles are not written to criticize or state that the current format of physics is wrong, but as mankind now embarks on a new path towards the future, the current ideas and theories are just the foundation. The Grant Chronicles is meant to bridge the gaps and introduce science to the next level.
Finally,
addressing science and religion: I am not using religious beliefs to link or
give credence to my scientific theories, but instead to enlighten the world to
the idea that science and spirituality can be connected.
Agreed, religious beliefs are based upon faith and science is primarily
based on evidence. Theory though is based upon scientific faith. Modern science
cannot even begin to address the many mysteries scattered about the globe, which
are not part of the western culture. There are so many ideas and theories
challenging mankind that cannot be proved or disproved by science. In our
advanced industrialized world science still cannot answer how civilizations of
the past existed? How did they construct fixtures that have withstood the test
of time, which modern man can neither build or replicate? When science says it
cannot coexists with religion, is it referring to all religions and
spirituality, or just the western based Christian version. If so, why the
Christian version so widely accepted, which is in its infancy state compared to
other faiths? In the Western World religion is based predominantly upon the
version presented by Christians. The collection of ancient scriptures contained
in the Bible is their documentation of the history of Earth and God’s
existence. Written by man with God’s inspiration, it is primarily the story of
the creation of life “Adam and Eve” that brings about controversy. It is a
contradiction to Science’s discovery the Big Bang and the theory of evolution,
backed by evidence of fossils millions of years old. These ideas are the
backbone of their version related to the creation of life here on Earth. Science
in its ongoing quest for knowledge based upon facts quickly dismisses religion,
but have they investigated other religions of the world? How do other religions
and sects of specialized faith believe how mankind and life on Earth began? Why
are their versions dismissed or buried? Looking at the various varieties of
religion that integrate with mankind existence, there are many with similarities
along with equal differences that propose the existence of a Supreme Being. An
example of this is the faith of the Native Americans. The Native Americans’
history and faith can be traced back 30,000 to 60,000 years. There are many
tribes that believe cosmology as its base. Others believe they are descendants
from sky people who inhabited a disk above the Earth and propagated this planet.
The Native Americans believe in and practiced respect for the wisdom of elders
and the environment. The responsibility of the family is extended beyond the
nuclear family and there is a wiliness to share. At the center of their beliefs
is one with the universe and the Great Spirit, creating a harmony among all
life. So why was pressure forced upon the Native Americans to abandon their
beliefs? Europeans crushed indigenous spirituality with the gun, all under the
disguise as missionaries. In their quest to civilize the various native
populations, they lost focus on the small details. As a result a collective
shame manifested itself with the unnecessary destruction and death of many
cultures. We should distinguish between the idea and practice of spirituality
and the many versions of religions. They are not interchangeable! Spirituality
encompasses religion, not vise versa. Spirituality believes that a Supreme Being
or spirit, God exists, and that we are one with the universe for which there is
a master plan. Religion takes selected aspects of spirituality and adds man’s
views, morals, and a power structure to keep checks and balances in place for
the flocks of dependent followers. Remember in
Catholicism, which is based on the Bible, man had many wives. Today this
practice is called bigamy. Spirituality is walking with God in heart everyday
rather than going to church just on Sunday. Spirituality is making a connection
to the Great Spirit through thought and prayer rather worshiping from afar.
Spirituality is praising him through everyday actions rather than the use of
idols. One does not need religion to believe in God and to care about others.
There are many paths to God and it is not just through selected religions. There
is a link in advanced cultures, where both are integrated to compliment each
other. SPIRITUALITY
OR ONE WITH GOD and the universe working
hand and hand with science and nature is the answer. How is it that Einstein who
was a confirmed atheist near death embraced God? It is using the many advances
of science to benefit all and have respect for all living things including the
Earth. When referring to spirituality it is the responsibility to God’s great
gift of knowledge and its proper applications without using it to have an
advantage over another being.
Grant: Question
to ponder. Set up a proportionality equation comparing the distance of the Moon
and its large mass revolving around the Earth to a man-made low mass satellite
moving faster than 17,000mph in low orbit. Why does the satellite fall back to
Earth no matter how high their orbital path or precise they’re orbital
velocity is? In a vacuum like space, consider the atmospheric effects on
satellite drag? How does the occasional molecules that comprise air slow a fast
moving massive satellite in comparison in the near frictionless environment of
space in time span of a few short years? For the astute step one, calculate
mass-velocity ratios vs. distance between various satellites in orbit and the
Moon. Step 2, calculate the density of the air needed to slow a fast moving
massive satellite like the Hubble Telescope and its orbital radii vs. time,
which had to be pushed into a higher after only a few years. Is the density of
the air needed to slow satellites near the vacuum documented in Earth orbit? It
is here the disparity will become evident in mankind’s gravitational formula,
which is only the foundation.