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:


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 Microsoftís 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. Isnít 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 Ėhelium 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 


This Yeilds:

G * M1* M2      =          M *A


M1 and M2 are factors of the total Mass so they cancel from both equations leaving: 

 G = A


Conclusion: The gravitational constant G is the acceleration part in Newtonís 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 Godís existence. Written by man with Godís inspiration, it is primarily the story of the creation of life ďAdam and EveĒ that brings about controversy. It is a contradiction to Scienceís 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 Americansí 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 manís 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 Godís 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 theyíre 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 mankindís gravitational formula, which is only the foundation. 

All Rights Reserved: © Copyright 2001


Return to Title Page 2