Mystic
Places

Strange
Artifacts

Ancient
Writings

Popular
Experts

Science
Mysteries

Related
Links

Home

  You are here: world-mysteries.com » guest writers » wayne mcdonald
 



  


      
     Wayne McDonald

Guest Writers


 

A Reply to Rich Anders’
'Gravity’s Mystery Unveiled'

by Wayne McDonald

Link to Gravity's Mystery Unveiled by Rich Anders >>

 

 

In an essay entitled “Gravity’s Mystery Unveiled,” 1 Rich Anders purports to explain gravity in terms of “electromagnetism” and “spirituality.” Unfortunately, Mr. Anders’ obvious unfamiliarity with the body of currently accepted experimental and observational scientific data means that his thesis fails to stand the test of even a casual critical review. The purpose of this essay is to address the plausibility of Mr. Anders’ “electromagnetic” and “spiritual” gravity claims versus that of current scientific theory.

Throughout his essay Mr. Anders Mr. Anders makes repeated references to what he describes as “positive” and “negative” spiritual energy as being responsible for gravity. Unfortunately, he provides no supporting empirical or theoretical support for his contention except to restate it time and time again. In formal logic, as well as in rhetoric, this tactic is known as the argument ad nauseam; the repetition of an unsupported statement in anticipation that it will eventually be accepted as true. Once this factor is removed, the validity of Mr. Anders’ theory must rest on its scientific merits.

Early in his essay Mr. Anders states his acceptance of the “mainstream” Big Bang theory and further accepts that this primeval explosive event was responsible for the total amount of matter and energy present in our Universe as it exists today. It is regarding his statements regarding what happened before, and immediately after, the big bang nature with which I will first take exception.

According to Mr. Anders, prior to the big bang there was a period of time in which “all the matter of the universe before…” (Paragraph 1) was compressed into a single point (a singularity). He does not state whether this was our Universe or some other “parallel” universe. The stylistic error of not clarifying his point would be immaterial except that Mr. Anders repeats that error several times in the remainder of his essay. We may now turn our attention to what he alleges happened immediately after the Big Bang.

Mr. Anders first attempts to define the status of matter in the instant prior to the Big Bang. Consider the following statement, from paragraph 4:

When matter collapses out of existence its energy component ceases to exist, as well. … This energy is not destroyed but it corresponds to dead matter. To re-vitalize this energy an input of energy is needed. … For matter to collapse it has to be separated from its electromagnetic energies, the weak and the strong force of the atom. Energy is not lost … [Emphasis added].

Well, Mr. Anders, is energy destroyed or not; and what of the equivalence of matter and energy? Does E=mc2 not hold true as matter collapses? The self-contradictions continue in the remainder of the paragraph.

Separating from the dying matter this energy forms its own dimensionless point in the quantum vacuum. When the separation of all the electromagnetic energy from all matter in a universe has been reached the result are two dimensionless points, which are part of the energy of the quantum vacuum, the spiritual energy. One such point corresponds to all the dead matter of the collapsed universe the other one corresponds to all the electromagnetic energies, which had kept this matter alive.

Aside from his notion that matter is somehow “alive” because of its “electromagnetic energies,” 2 Mr. Anders reveals a serious misunderstanding of the basic principles of quantum physics; notably the four fundamental forces of the Universe. These forces are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

How these forces interact with one another in the Universe is immaterial to our purposes. What is material is how these forces would be transformed by an extremely intense gravitational influence.3

Even with our sophisticated 21st century mathematics and ultra-powerful computers, we cannot describe the exact moment of the Big Bang. We can only begin with the cosmic microwave background radiation and work our way back. Even then, we can only theorize about events and conditions since once we encounter a time frame less than 1×10-43 seconds after the Big Bang our physical laws simply cease to exist. But, even though these laws break down past that barrier, some every interesting things happen do happen at that instant.

At 1×10-43 seconds after the Big Bang there are not four fundamental forces in the Universe! Under these conditions of almost unbelievable temperature and density3 these forces were merged into a single force, which we call the unified force. It was only after the Universe began to cool did these forces separate in what we call the decoupling.

The first force to have emerged from unification was gravity. It is believed that the remaining three forces remained unified until about 1×10-33 seconds after the Big Bang when the strong nuclear force separated from the electroweak force when the temperature of the primeval Universe had fallen to 1×1027 degrees Kelvin, with the electroweak force splitting into the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces when the temperature had fallen to 1×1015 degrees Kelvin at about 1×10-12 seconds (see Figure 1).

If the electromagnetic force not only did not survive whatever happened in Mr. Anders’ “other universe” but also did not decouple from its unity with the weak nuclear force until well after the other forces, how could it “keep matter alive?”

After stating several additional times that “electromagnetism gives life to matter” and that there are two types of “spiritual energy,” Mr. Anders makes another statement demonstrating his unfamiliarity with

Matter consists of two components: matter itself and electromagnetism, which keeps matter alive. This duality corresponds to the duality of the spiritual energies.… The Positive Principle creates and maintains creation and the Negative Principle destroys. The Positive Principle provides electromagnetism + the weak and the strong force of the atom and the Negative Principle provides matter and gravity. Together they provide living matter (Paragraph 8).

Once again, he contradicts himself. After clearly stating earlier in paragraph 8 that “electromagnetism…keeps matter alive” he then states that it is the “Positive Principle” and the “Negative Principle” that provide living matter! Did he perhaps mean “Positive Electromagnetism” and “Negative Electromagnetism?”

In either case, he seems to have forgotten that there is no such entity as either “Positive” or “Negative” electromagnetism! Is there also a “positive light” and a negative light?” Light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If his original statement at the close of paragraph 8 is correct then there must be, by logical extension, positive and negative light. Since no such entities have been observed, we may safely conclude that Mr. Anders is again wrong.

His attempts to equate gravity and electromagnetism, since they depend on his “positive” and “negative” what-evers, are equally ludicrous. In fact his entire theory collapses with the following statement.

The weak force and the strong force of the atom counter gravity on the atomic level and keep the electrons orbiting a nucleus (Paragraph 9).

Mr. Anders, the reason that electrons orbit the nucleus has nothing to do with gravity and everything to do with centripetal motion counteracting the electrostatic attraction between the protons within the nucleus and the electrons outside it!

Electrons orbit the atomic nucleus at velocities of approximately 10% the speed of light. This velocity is sufficient to prevent the electron from being drawn into the nucleus by exactly the same principle that prevents the Moon from crashing into the Earth.

The gravitational attraction exerted by the nucleus is virtually immeasurable, being some one billion times weaker than the electrostatic force attracting the low-mass, negatively charged electron to the higher-mass, positively charged protons. So, if the major force acting on an electron isn’t gravity at all but instead an electrostatic attraction, where does this leave Mr. Anders’ theory?

In conclusion, Mr. Anders’ appeal to the supposed properties of supernatural “positive” and “negative” “spiritual energy” is supported by neither empirical evidence, nor his own logical reasoning, and must therefore be disregarded as a viable theory of gravity.

 

Notes

1. Anders, Rich (Undated): “Gravity’s Mystery Unveiled,” World Mysteries.com, http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_13.htm#Mystery . Last accessed June 25, 2007.

2. These “electromagnetic energies, which had kept this matter alive” sound suspiciously like the electrical bio-animation theories (long since discredited) advanced by the followers of Luigi Galvani (1737 – 1798), the Italian physician who discovered that an electrical impulse was capable of causing a muscular contraction in dissected muscle tissue. He was the inspiration for the title character in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein.

3. For an excellent, non-technical discussion of the first seconds following the Big Bang, see Weinberg, Steven (1977): The First Three Minutes, New York: Bantam, pp. 94-139 or Silk, Joseph (2000): The Big Bang (3rd Edition), New York: Freeman, pp. 105-137.

4. According to Silk, the temperature of the Universe at 1 × 10-43 seconds was 1 × 1032 degrees Kelvin (p. 110) and the density was 1 × 1090 kg/cc3 (p. 108).

 

©2007 Wayne McDonald
All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted with Permission



Related Books and Links

 


DISCLAIMER

Views expressed here are not necessarily endorsed by the hosting organization (World-Mysteries.com), our ISP or any sponsoring individuals or organizations.

Reference to any specific commercial product, process, or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the World-Mysteries.com.

Links outside of the World-Mysteries.com web site (external links) are provided for user convenience and do not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the World-Mysteries.com.
Please be aware that the disclaimer appearing on this page does not apply to these linked sites. We encourage you to read the posted disclaimer, privacy and security notices whenever interacting with any Web site.
 

Copyright 2007 by World-Mysteries.com