Center of Gravity
NOUN : Inflected forms: pl. centers of gravity
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.
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 Encyclopedia.com 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
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]?
Gene Newby <gnewby@AccordionNetworks.com>
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
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).
Roderick Rees <Roderick.Rees@PSS.Boeing.com>
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 2001 (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)