Journal of Theoretics Vol.3-3

June/July  2001  Comments

Center of Gravity 

NOUN : Inflected forms: pl. centers of gravity
The point in or near a body at which the gravitational potential energy of the body is equal to that of a single particle of the same mass located at that point and through which the resultant of the gravitational forces on the component particles of the body acts.
(American  Heritage Dictionary)

A recent letter writer wanted me to review his theory of gravity which ended up being invalid for several reasons but one of his misconceptions (upon which he had based some of his theory) was that the gravitational effect from a body will always be from its center of mass, no matter what shape it is.  It is a common misconception that a mass no matter its shape will have the same gravitational effect on another mass or point of observation no matter what shape it is. This is a common fallacy (one that is still taught in schools and universities today) but the truth is that the shape of an object will always affect the gravitational attraction unless the object is a sphere with a uniform density (hollow or solid it doesn't matter though), then the size of the sphere is irrelevant as the point of reference (the center of gravity) will always be the same as long as the distance between the two spheres is greater than zero. 

A simple proof of this is to take two solid 1 kg balls 1 m apart and you will find that the gravitational force between the two is F=Gx1x1/12=G but when you shape one of the solid balls into a solid rod 40 meters long it all changes. This can easily be shown by calculating the effect of the rod as two separate parts each 20m long where the center of gravity of each will be about 10.05m from the other ball (102+12=101 and the sqrt of 101 is 10.05m). The calculated force for each will therefore be F=Gx.5x1/10.052=.5G/101=0.005G and when the force from both sections are added, the force is 0.01G. The gravitational effect of the rod on the other ball has now been decreased a hundred fold even though the “center of gravity” for each has remained the same.

The reason for this misconception is that the shape of an object for the most part is usually insignificant (its effect is less than the number of significant digits in the calculation) since gravitational calculations are usually done for planets where the distance between the two objects is usually much greater than the size of the individual spheres.  

I thought that this discussion would be of benefit to our readers.  Maybe you can educate others in physics who still hold this misconception.  Even though most references present this concept incorrectly, there is hope as does not even list the phrase "center of gravity" but rather refers the reader to "center of mass" which states that using the center of mass is a "simpler" when performing gravitational calculations and it accurately does not equate the two phrases.  

The take away thought:

The "center of gravity" of an object is only the same as its "center of mass" when that object is a sphere of uniform density.


Dr. James P. Siepmann

LIGO: Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory 

Dear Sirs/Madam:

I have been following (somewhat loosely) the creation of LIGO, the Laser Gravity Observatory in Hanford Oregon.  What is your opinions on this Observatory and how does it/ doesn't it support your laws [The Laws of Space and Observation]?

Thank you,

Gene Newby <>

Dr. Siepmann's response:

Good question. It is a waste of money as they are looking for something that does not exist. Gravitational waves are erroneous theory on multiple levels. The only worthwhile aspect will be if a gravitational change spreads as rapidly as the speed of light. By my theory (the Laws of Space and Observation) they will find that gravitational changes will be slower than the speed of light since gravity is an indirect effect on Space rather than a direct effect from a wave. This will hopefully convince them that gravitational waves do not exist and that my theory is correct. But like most failed theories, they will likely try to alter their theory in a Rube-Goldberg manner rather than using a more simple and accurate theory such as mine. It is unfortunately a lot about money, politics, and power, rather than science.


Dr. James P. Siepmann 

P.S. For those interested, the main two LIGO websites are: LIGO and LIGO: A New Window on the Universe.

Roderick Rees on Daniel Light's "Have Equations Taken the Place of Theory" 

Daniel Light's "Have Equations Taken the Place of Theory" is all too correct. Unfortunately it is even worse than that. A theory is founded on concepts intended to help us to deal with the physical world (I make a careful point here that I see religion as a way to deal with a spiritual world which has its own reality, while neither can properly deal with the other; and that much of the contention between the two arises from religious attitudes that neglect the spiritual in favor of the material).

Thus, physics is conceptual, and the theory and the ensuing mathematics are formalizations of the concepts. If we have no adequate concepts, there can be no adequate theory, still less adequate mathematics. Mathematics without an adequate conceptual theory is merely a mathematical game.

Much of modern physics and cosmology is based on inadequate concepts. For example, the Big Bang theory proposes that there was a point at which time began. However, this can be no more than a form of words. We cannot conceive of a beginning of time, before which there was no time. If we cannot conceive of it, it is a useless theory, not helpful to us in dealing with the physical world, and is therefore not physics. The same is true of "expanding space (or spacetime)". What is it expanding into? Apparently, into non-existent space or spacetime. 

To explain some of the anomalies, some branches of science do propose new concepts, such as "dark matter", which was intended to explain gravitational anomalies. As the scale is increased, the anomalies increase by orders of magnitude, demanding correspondingly increased amounts of dark matter. Clearly, this might have been a reasonable hypothesis in the first place, but it cannot survive a minute's examination - yet I have seen a respected professor write of dark matter as a fact, rather than an unreasonable fairy story. 

There needs to be some discipline in this, a constant awareness that we cannot think about the real world (as distinct from the mathematical world in which anything may be tried) without concepts. Any reality that we could not conceive of would completely baffle us, no matter what mathematical ingenuities might be claimed to describe it. Besides that, the concepts must be useful and must be reasonably consistent with our perception of the physical world. Dark matter, in particular, is preposterous and should have been abandoned just after birth. Quantum theory is in an equally poor state. It is very strange in that its formulae are so extremely accurate and therefore presumably could in principle be included in a coherent theory, but the concepts make no sense and need drastic revision.

Roderick Rees <>

Michail Telegin on Time and More ...

Dear Dr. Siepmann.

Yesterday has read your paper "Why Einstein was Wrong".  He is harmful because has entered as the fourth measurement time.  How it is possible to change fraction with the help of the Lorentz's transformations? For example money is a fraction too, they are the ratio of cost of gold to the cost of other goods. Whether it signifies, what at acceleration they will fall in the price or will rise in it? A nonsense.

As I have shown in my paper " Optics of Masses" [We have added this paper to our links section as a PDF file: Optics of Masses] the Lorentz's transformations are a high-speed aberration.

There are the calculation of a turn angle of a beam of light about the Sun is represented. This effect is completely optical because of a gravitational modification of an index of refraction. The photon cannot exchange impulses with a celestial body on the highest velocity of signal. For the same reason photon cannot have any red shift, when it leaves from a center of gravitation.

The photon can lose energy, that is to have a Red Shift, at direct collision with a substance - the Compton's effect. Just it explains a Red Shift in the universe, but not a Big Bang recalling a fairy tales of a primitive egg.

It seems, that my paper will help to [stand physics on its head].


Michail Telegin <>



Journal Home Page

© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2001  (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)