Shall NASA be Able to Re-position an Asteroid

Shall NASA be Able to Re-position an Asteroid?

Summary: NASA has recently announced its intention to capture an asteroid and re-position it close to moon, to be used as space station. However several conditions need to be taken into consideration to accomplish the task and hence it may really not be possible for NASA to meet its stated objectives.

American space agency has recently announced its intention to re-position an asteroid close to moon in an orbit and use it as a space station. NASA has claimed that it has all the technology to accomplish the task. It is expected to serve as a proving ground for hardware and crews en route to larger objects deeper into space.

In April, the Keck Institute for Space Studies at the California Institute of Technology reported its conclusion that a 5, 00,000-kg (1.1-million-lb.) near-Earth asteroid (NEA) could be discovered, tracked, captured and delivered to cislunar space by 2025 at a cost of about $2.65 billion.

Keck concluded that placing a 500-ton asteroid in high lunar orbit could provide a unique, meaningful and affordable destination for astronaut crews in the next decade. This disruptive capability would have a positive impact on a wide range of space exploration interests, which includes developing technology to deflect an asteroid on its way to a disastrous collision with Earth’s atmosphere.

Astronomers on the Keck team estimated that a “low-cost, ground based observation campaign” could identify five or so candidate targets per year in the desired 7-meter-dia. Range.

A spacecraft generating power with large circular “Mickey Mouse” solar arrays would use Xenon-based 10-kw Hall thrusters to spiral out to the desired NEA – firing four at a time, each with a specific impulse of 3,000 sec. As it approaches the target, it would use on board instruments to characterize its shape and rotation, and apply algorithms developed by the Defense Advanced Research Agency to match its spin. Then it would essentially lasso the NEA with a 15-meter dia. “capture bag” that would be clinched tight over the spinning space rock, once the spacecraft and asteroid are tightly secured together, the spacecraft would then de-tumble the combination. The Keck study experts calculate that it would take 300 kg of propellant to stabilize the asteroid.

After that, the spacecraft could use its solar-electric propulsion to work its way into a high lunar orbit or even one of the Earth- Moon Lagrangian points that NASA is studying as way stations that avoid fuel-consuming gravity wells en route to destinations beyond low Earth orbit.

It is well known that all celestial bodies maintain precise elliptical orbits. A circular orbit can easily be understood on the basis of balance of gravitational force of attraction and centrifugal force but elliptical orbits that are precisely maintained over an immense period of time can’t be thus explained. No doubt, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion have sufficient room for elliptical orbits but they only define the conditions that are met and not the mechanisms utilized to meet the conditions. It is implicit even in ‘Kepler’s equal area law’ that elliptical orbit requires mathematically-precise maintenance. There is really no room for a celestial body to wander about its elliptical path. Elliptical orbits, for example, involve precise movement of Earth towards Sun during part of its journey and precise movement of Earth away from Sun during another part of its journey. Not only this, it also involves precise conservation of total energy of a celestial body all the time. Therefore elliptical movement of celestial bodies is quite unlike the pendulum movement which involves total inter-conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa. Elliptical orbits of celestial bodies involve mathematically precise partial inter-conversion of kinetic energy and potential energy. We just don’t know as to how celestial bodies conserve their energy, maintain precise elliptical paths, precisely regulate inter-conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa; and precisely move towards or away from their Sun.

Re-0positioning an asteroid into a new orbit demands precise understanding of these considerations so that appropriate technology can be developed to meet above stated considerations. However, since astronomers/physicists have never posed these questions to themselves, therefore there can’t be any solutions to these questions either.

Hence, NASA may have the technology to be able to discover, track, capture and deliver an asteroid to cislunar space but it is unlikely to have technology to keep it in cislunar space along a precise mathematically predictable elliptical orbit. This must be true and correct at the present level of understanding and technology development.

Therefore NASA with all its resources is unlikely to be able to re-position an asteroid into a new home. Yet this technology may be useful to deflect an asteroid on its way to a disastrous collision with Earth’s atmosphere.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book that deals with origin of nature and universe from null (Zero or nothing). This article is in line with author’s understanding of nature.

Visit:  http//www.sciencengod.com      

          http://curatio.in

  Buy Now

Whether or Not Horse Evolution Lends Any Credibility to Darwinism

Whether or Not Horse Evolution Lends Any Credibility to Darwinism

Posted by +Mahesh

Summary: Horse series is touted as the strongest evidence in support of Darwin’s mechanism of evolution. However this is not correct. Since, there is no evidence that supports migration of horse ancestors from North America to Asia across Bering Land Bridge.  

The evolution of the horse pertains to the phylogenetic ancestry of the modern horse from the small, dog-sized, forest-dwelling Eohippus over geologic time scales. Paleozoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal.

The horse belongs to an order known as Perissodactyla, or "odd-toed ungulates", which all share hooved feet and an odd number of toes on each foot, as well as mobile upper lips and a similar tooth structure. This means that horses share a common ancestry with tapirs and rhinoceroses.

Horse evolution is cited as the best example in support of Darwin’s mechanism of evolution essentially consisting of continuous, gradual evolution by accumulation of random variations over immense periods of time.  In this context, Equidae fossils discovered are said to form a horse series that is consistent with Darwin’s mechanism of evolution.

North America is presumed to be horse’s natural habitat. About 55 million years ago there is supposed to be a dry land in the place where present strait of Bering is. However there is no geological or geographical evidence to support this contention. There are only presumptions. The ancestors of American horses migrated to Asia, later Europe and distant Africa along this “bridge”. Even archeologists cannot find their tracks. Even the timeline of horse migration is different in different references varying from 25 million years to 5 million years. For unknown reasons 30 million years ago horses disappeared from America. No reason for extinction of Equidae family from North America has ever been provided. One of the suppositions is that the sting of some fly was poisonous to horses. Moreover if horses became extinct from North America 25 million years back, then where were the horses left to migrate to Asia along Bering Land Bridge.Only in the 16th century horses were brought to America by conquistadors.

 The Bering Strait is approximately 82 kilometres (51 mi; 44 nmi) wide at its narrowest point, with depth varying between 98 feet (30 m) and 160 feet (49 m).It connects the Chukchi Sea (part of the Arctic Ocean) to the north with the Bering Sea (part of the Pacific Ocean) to the south. This is supposed to have transformed into Bering Land Bridge, several times in the geological and geographical history of Earth to permit migration of flora and fauna across North American and European continents and then to Asia and Africa. Bering Land Bridge is said to be 1000 Km wide from NORTH to SOUTH. However the only reason cited in support of such a contention is compulsion of Biogeography. To quote:

“Some, like the ancient saber-toothed cats, have a recurring geographical range: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America. The only way they could reach the New World was by the Bering land bridge. Had this bridge not existed at that time, the fauna of the world would be very different.”

There is no independent geological or geographical evidence to support existence of Bering Land Bridge. Hence the only difficult with this presumption is that presumes the fact it has to prove.

Despite an excellent fossil record of the Equidae, there are still many gaps in our evolutionary knowledge. Only the modern horse, zebras, wild asses and donkey survive today, but many other lineages have become extinct over the last 50,000 years. Detailed fossil information on the rate and distribution of new equid species has also revealed that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed. Although some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, indeed appear to be gradual progressions, a number of others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Eohippus to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized.

Therefore all the accumulated evidences points only to morphological trends and patterns in Equidae family on empirical basis and are no evidence to conclude any straight line evolution from  from the small, dog-sized, forest-dwelling Eohippus over geologic time scales to modern horse in accordance with Darwin’s Mechanism of Evolution. Hence, the observed evolutionary morphological trends and patterns lend no credibility to Darwin’s mechanism of Evolution. There is no evidence to show that ancestors of modern horse actually migrated to Europe through Bering Strait. In fact extinction of horses in North America 30 million years ago precludes such migration. In fact, all the evidence points to correlations, associations and correspondences; widely rampant in nature and for which no rational explanations are presently available.

Cumulative evidence suggests some other mechanism of evolution other than Darwinism. Observed morphological trends and patterns are nothing more than correlations, associations and correspondences that are commonly seen in our study of nature. Empirical data does not fit into Darwin’s mechanism of evolution.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Thirtieth chapter of the book deals with the subject matter of ‘Evolution of Life’.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

 Buy Now

Whether or not Global Warming is Real – A View Point

Whether or not Global Warming is Real – A View Point

Summary: It is not disputed that mean temperature of Earth has increased by 0.8° C since the early 20^th century. Various factors affecting Earth’s surface temperature have been examined and it is found that no mathematical correlation exists between those factors and Global Warming. It is suggested that Earth dynamically keeps its surface temperature.

 The purpose of this article is not to dispute generally accepted facts or to deny projected effects of Global Warming. The purpose of this article is to examine whether or not evidence that has accumulated is being correctly interpreted. Therefore cumulative evidence is generally presumed to be correct. I have principally relied upon Wikipedia to build up this article.

According to Wikipedia:-

“Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations.

Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest. The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Wikipedia further states:-

“Global warming controversy

The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations hold non-committal position.

From 1990–1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence.”

The difficulty with Global Warming is that cause-effect relationship between increased temperature and the alleged causes has never been scientifically established. Only certain associated changes have been alleged to be the cause. We are not certain if these associated changes are indeed the culprit. Moreover even these projections are based on empirically generated climate models. This is presumably because we do not yet understand how Earth keeps its climate/temperature. So literature has plenty of mutually contradictory observations, claims and counterclaims. Plenty of positive feedback and negative feedback cycles are known but all put together do not explain as to how Earth keeps its climate/temperature within a range. Attempts to link Earth’s temperature with solar constant and its variations just don’t meet the eye. Solar constant is highest during winters and lowest during summers. Variations in solar constant do not exceed 0.1%. Wikipedia states about Solar Constant as under:-

“Solar output is nearly, but not quite, constant. Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%; see solar variation for details.

The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum. The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×10¹⁷ W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit. The approximate average value cited,1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.952 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.952 langleys (Ly)—or, in SI units— about 81.672 kJ/m² per minute.

The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·R_E²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·R_E²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m²). At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location's latitude, and the time of day.”

The amount of solar energy Earth receives for sun is sufficient to increase surface temperature beyond 100° C in less than one hour. Moreover amount of energy can’t be correlated with observed weather conditions, being the highest in winters and lowest in summers. Even the extent of variation in solar constant can’t be correlated with rise of Earth’s temperature by 0.8° C during the last century. Moreover it is self-evident that Earth was unable to dissipate energy it receives from Sun; it would have been hot enough that no known life forms except (probably) some kind of Extremophiles could have survived. Even depletion of Ozone layer does not correlate with Global Warming.

 In 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (474×10¹⁸ J=132,000 TWh). This is equivalent to an average power use of 15 terawatts (1.504×10¹³ W). This is 0.009% of the amount of energy Earth receives from Sun during any year. Therefore increased energy consumption due to increased human activity can’t account for increase in mean temperature of Earth from 13.9° C to 14.6° C (approximate increase of 5.4%) during past 100 years.

From the above discussion, it is evident that Earth rigorously keeps its temperature and Earth’s temperature bears no direct correlation to amount of energy it receives from sun or released by burning of fuels to meet demands created by increased human activity. Further no cause-effect relationship with accumulation of so called green house gases and Earth’s temperature has been established. Increased concentration (16% to 167% since 1750) of naturally occurring greenhouse gases does not linearly correlate with extent of reported mean temperature change. Same is the case with increased positive radiative forcing.  Increased positive radiative forcing for different naturally occurring greenhouse gases has increased from 0.18 W/square meter to 1.79 W/square meter but bears no correlation with reported temperature increase.

Therefore all that can be said at the moment is that Earth’s surface temperature is the result of dynamic equilibrium which is attained and maintained by a variety of mechanisms having positive and negative feedback loops. So the reported increase in mean temperature of Earth may not be due to alleged accumulation of green house gases or increased human activity but may be the result of shift in dynamic equilibrium. How this dynamic equilibrium is determined, attained and maintained is the key issue to be resolved if we want to understand the reason underlying reported increase in mean temperature of Earth. Empirically worked out climate models are really not of much help because they indicate only association of facts and not the rationale behind those facts. Scientific resolution of problem of Global warming is not possible in the absence of proper understanding of the phenomenon. Last but not the least, nature is self-perpetuating and this invariably is the result of dynamic conservation of status-quo.  

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. 

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

Buy Now

Changing Doctor Patient Relationship: “Hostile Dependency Syndrome”

Changing Doctor Patient Relationship: “Hostile Dependency Syndrome”

Summary: Violence against health care providers is widely rampant and this has contributed to increasing cost of health care and added to patients’ sufferings. Relationship between a doctor and patient is essentially a relationship of trust and only this kind of relationship is in the best interest of patients because of their limited understanding of medical principles, practices and realities of the market place. Patients’ hostile conduct towards their doctors has been described as Hostile Dependency Syndrome.

Hostile Dependency Syndrome reflects normal dependence of patients upon their doctors for their welfare, hostile conduct of patients towards their treating doctors and the ensuing violent, arbitrary and illegal conduct of patients towards their doctors. 

Nature of doctor patient relationship has undergone a profound change during later half of last century and particularly during the last 4 decades. Patients are becoming increasingly hostile towards their doctors. Mass media and judicial acts have contributed in a great measure towards increasing hostility.

For media every story involving doctor patient conflict is a hit and hot story wherein doctor’s side of the story is often ignored and for individual controversies of doubtful merits, entire profession is painted in black. I have rarely come across news in which prima-facei allegations against the treating physician are made out. Their sole motive is to sell their own publication and they know it well that such stories are a hit among consuming masses. They are least bothered that such biased reporting does no good to the subjects for whose cause they are apparently fighting. This imbalanced, irresponsible reporting only increases alienation of doctors from their patients and serves to strengthen the invisible battle line between doctors and their subjects i.e. patients.

Judiciary relying upon its authority under law of torts has adopted the robe of legislature and redefined doctor patient relationship from a natural relationship based on mutual trust to a legal relationship based on contract for service. This effectively means that a doctor is duty bound to provide all the services to a patient on demand but all the authority vests in the patient. It includes duty to inform and the duty to procure informed consent from the patient. It is the duty of the doctor to educate the patient about his clinical condition and the treatment to be undertaken to such an extent that patient is able to take prudent and pragmatic decisions before granting his consent. Judiciary in their wisdom has completely ignored patient’s ability to comprehend his doctor’s word. Moreover judiciary is completely oblivious to the ability of a doctor to treat a patient upon whom he has no authority. A doctor is legally required to protect his patient’s interests even in those situations where patient acts arbitrarily, whimsical, idiosyncratic and in utter disregard of his doctor’s advice. For example a doctor is supposed to provide discharge summary even when patient leaves the hospital contrary to medical advice.

The traditional and the natural view that doctor patient relationship is essentially a relationship of trust , the treating doctor being the best judge of his patient’s clinical condition and the treatment to be given, has been given a good bye. Patients are no longer satisfied with the only right given to them i.e. right to select their doctor. Patients no longer feel that they are duty bound to comply with their doctor’s advice.  Majority of patients in exercise of their right to personal satisfaction think that they have a free will and no rule of conduct applies to them but at the same time they expect a doctor to be bound by ethics, morals, law and at the same time be able to or is rather duty bound to cater to all their individual interests, whims, fancies, wild and weird ideas. Patient would not hesitate to call themselves as customers and even law has recognized them as consumers. Doctor’s legal liability towards his negligence has been blown out of proportion. Patients often levy wild allegations and thus harass doctors before various legal and administrative forums even when their allegations are ambiguous and lacking in particulars of alleged negligence.

Increasing hostilities have led to alienation of doctors from their patient’s welfare which is reflected in refusal to attend odd hour calls and majority of doctor’s children opting for a profession other than medical profession (According to one survey 85% of doctors children do not want to become doctors). Doctors often agitate in pursuance of their demand for increased security. Hospitals have employed bouncers to keep trouble mongers off. In one Indian state, many doctors keep arms and ammunition in their clinics for the purpose of personal security.

Hostilities and unreasonable conduct of patients and their attendants have led to a vicious cycle wherein doctors are progressively becoming more commercial and manipulative whereas patients are becoming more hostile. Clinical acumen based practice has given way to scientific and legal evidence based practice in which instead of patient welfare, the doctor’s preoccupation is being on the right side of law irrespective of cost of treatment to the patient. This has made healthcare very expensive and unaffordable for the great majority. Hence in USA, these days there is talk about Obama Care.

Nature of doctor patient relationship: It is essentially a relationship of trust. The reason being that no human being in his capacity as patient have sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to determine the best for him and choose and demand accordingly. His treating doctor is the only person competent to do by virtue of his education, cumulative experience, knowledge, skills and management practices.  It is not possible to lay down law and legal procedures to meet vast diversity of situations any doctor encounters in his medical practice. Therefore, for his well being patient is squarely dependent upon the treating doctor. Under these conditions, nature of relationship demands that patients must be modest while dealing with their doctors so as to draw maximum benefit out of cumulative experience of the attending physician. In this situation, the only right that can be granted to a patient is the right to select his doctor and this right has already been granted to all the patients. But once a patient has chosen a doctor, he is bound to comply with his doctor’s prescription in his own interest and is bound to pay fee for services rendered. In my medical practice, I have seen that even the most intelligent of patients are rarely in a position to control and regulate management of their clinical condition.

Doctor’s perspective: Medical practices demand a holistic approach and require a doctor to utilize his total experience for the benefit of each and every patient. There are no stereotyped responses. Best medical practices have evolved over a period of 2000 years and are beyond a patient’s common sense. A doctor demands compliance of his prescription and fee for the services rendered. Doctor’s only concern is clinical condition of the patient and its management. A doctor can’t refuse treating a patient on grounds of personal enmity or likes and interests. In the great Indian epic Ramayana, Ravana’s personal physician Sushain was called upon to treat his opponent Laxman and Sushain never refused.

Acts of a doctor are often amenable to peer-review but no member of judiciary, bureaucracy or legislature can ever be competent to judge a doctor’s acts or prescribe conduct rules for doctors. To extract the best out of a doctor, a patient has to be modest and comply with his prescription and be ready to pay fee for the services rendered. Trust, modesty and compliance are the 3 cardinal principles for patients to better connect with their doctors. Quite often doctors encounter patients seeking free consultation for one or the other reason and employ all sorts of tools and techniques to achieve their ends. But little they realize that this is the beginning of doctor patient conflict.

Patient’s perspective: Patient often tend to think that doctors are just like any other businessman or service provider working in accordance with profit maximization theory of a firm. Accordingly patients don’t hesitate to regard themselves as consumers or customers of the attending physician. Patients not only exercise discretion in selection of their doctors but also pass all sorts of value judgments about their doctor. They will interfere at each and every step of the way. Patients often demand doctors to satisfy their illegitimate and illogical interests, whims and fancies. On one hand they would elevate a doctor to the level of God and the next moment they can be seen indulging in reckless violence against their doctors. Patients generally have a very poor idea of medical practices and realities of market place but want to dictate themselves under the pretext of seeking satisfaction, at times only because they are paying the money.

Because of wide gaps in perception of doctors and patients, conflicts are inevitable and hence “Hostile Dependency Syndrome”.

Hostilities against health care providers at all levels of social hierarchy have led to a shift from clinical acumen based medical practice to scientific and legal evidence based practice. In the former, for a doctor, patient’s welfare is supreme whereas in the later being on the right side of law is the supreme consideration. The later approach not only makes healthcare extremely expensive and unaffordable for majority of the patients but also acts contrary to patients interests in so many ways.

So the best approach for a patient is to establish a relationship rooted in trust so that the attending doctor feels responsible for his patient and makes his best efforts to restore his patient’s health. But hostile attitude, raising unreasonable demands or indiscriminately exercising his rights and opportunities is clearly counterproductive. I have seen patients hurting themselves more often by their own negligence rather than negligence on the part of their doctors.

 It is against this backdrop that http://curatio.in has been founded in order to help patients in taking informed decision in the matter of selection of their health care provider and reap the greatest benefit out of his cumulative experience. It is sincerely expected that this initiative would improve doctor patient relationship leading to decline in incidence and prevalence of Hostile Dependency Syndrome.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. 

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

Buy Now  

4th Law Of Newtonian Motion

4^th Law Of Newtonian Motion

Summary: Description of Newtonian Mechanics is incomplete without description of 4^th Law of Newtonian Motion and hence the same has been defined.

Until widespread recognition of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in on November 7, 1919 it was generally believed that Newtonian mechanics was sufficient to explain Natural Phenomena. The headlines in London Times on Nov 7, 1919 were: “Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.” Newtonian Mechanics begins with assumption of existence of a body in motion with no forces acting upon it. However, it has not been generally appreciated that there can’t be a body in Newtonian Motion upon which forces of one or the other kind are not acting. These forces, in the least, invariably lead to decay or dissipation of energy. Hence the need to define another law of Newtonian Motion which states as under:-

“Newtonian Motion is invariably associated with dissipation of Energy”

This statement is designated as 4^th Law of Newtonian Motion.

4^th Law of Newtonian Motion recognizes that Newtonian Mechanics is not a comprehensive description of phenomenon of motion. There are not only unrecognized aspects of Newtonian Motion but there also exist Non- Newtonian motions such as Perpetual Motion, Rheopaxy, Thixotropy etc. These non- Newtonian motions have not been clearly differentiated against Newtonian Motion.

Natural phenomena leading to formulation of 4^th Law of Newtonian Motion are well recognized such as friction, viscous drag, entropy etc. and need no further elaboration. However the distinction between Perpetual Motion and Newtonian Motion needs to be clearly understood as the former is the kind of motion responsible for large scale structuring of universe. Please read author’s article about Perpetual Motion.

Gas molecules within a Hydrogen gas cylinder being perpetually in Brownian motion travel at a root mean square speed of 6624 Km/hr but do not suffer any dissipation of their energy but the moment they are made to move along a pressure gradient by letting them through a small opening, despite travelling at much smaller speed, Newtonian motion comes into play and is associated with well known cooling effect due to dissipation of energy. This phenomenon is the basis of all refrigeration devices. Hence one can clearly notice distinction between Perpetual Motion and Newtonian Motion.

Effects of 4^th Law of Newtonian Motion on theoretical physics:-

1.     Newtonian motion is not a comprehensive description of phenomena of motion.

2.     Statements of Newton’s laws suffer from inherent contradiction, being valid only if there is no decay of energy whereas Newtonian motion is inherently associated with decay of energy.

3.     The concepts such as absolute rest, absolute frame of reference and absolute space are naturally invalid.

4.     Newtonian Mechanics should not be taken as anything more than a scheme for computation of some of the motions we commonly see around us.

5.     Newtonian mechanics alone shall never provide us comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena.

An interesting consequence of 4^th Law of Newtonian Motion in nature is in maintenance of surface temperature of Earth and may be other celestial bodies.  Winds and sea waves are important means for Earth to dissipate the energy it ordinarily receives from Sun, in order to keep its surface temperature. Accumulation of large amount of energy, Earth ordinarily receives from sun shall otherwise lead to global warming and elimination of all life on Earth. May be that without efficient dissipation of energy Earth ordinarily receives from Sun; origin of life on Earth would have been impossible.

P.S.  Please search and LIKE Facebook page “Encounter of Science With Philosophy – A Synthetic View”

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing.  22^nd Chapter of the book is about NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

  Buy Now

Physics Without Foundations In Natural Phenomena

Summary: Till date Theoretical Physics has been built upon description of Fixed Stars by ancient astronomers. However in 1718 it was reported that Fixed Stars have proper motion. This naturally invalidates entire edifice of Theoretical Physics.

For the purpose of this discussion, Physics can be divided into two streams, one is Experimental Physics and the other is Theoretical Physics. Experimental Physics is concerned with facts and their interpretation whereas Theoretical Physics is concerned with rational basis of Experimental Physics and integration of Experimental Physics into one comprehensive theory. So, it not only attempts to find rationally, origin of mass and gravity but also has evolved the ill founded belief that Laws OF Physics are all sufficient to explain the entire natural phenomena. This is despite the fact that Physicists have never concerned themselves with Biological Phenomena and Consciousness, except fantasizing effect of time travel upon living matter.

In the domain of Theoretical Physics, Newton, Ernst Mach, Einstein and in present times Stephen Hawking are among the most dominant personalities, having set the ground for others to follow.

Newton needed to define absolute frame of reference in order to rationalize Newtonian Mechanics. He assumed that the so called Fixed Stars such as North Pole Star are the bodies at absolute rest in absolute space and so provide absolute frame of reference. He concluded that in other reference frames either at rest with respect to the fixed stars or in uniform translation relative to these stars, Newton's laws of motion were supposed to hold. In contrast, in frames accelerating with respect to the fixed stars, in particular frames rotating relative to the fixed stars, the laws of motion did not hold in their simplest form, but had to be supplemented by the addition of fictitious forces, for example, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force.

 However, he failed to appreciate that this assumption is self-contradictory to his Law of Gravitation. Phenomenon of gravity forbids existence of any Fixed Star in any absolute space in any absolute frame of reference.  Moreover, Newton never explained the mechanism/ cause effect sequence that will force a rigid body on Earth to move along a straight line under the influence of distant Fixed Stars and in accordance with his Law of Inertia.

Ernst Mach (1838–1916) formulated Mach’s Principle which says “Local physical laws are determined by large scale structure of the universe”. But he was not comfortable with notion of Absolute Space and therefore he recommended removal of all mention of Absolute Space from Law of Inertia, and it would then be explained as follows: Every body maintains its velocity, both in magnitude and in direction, as relative to Fixed Stars as long as no forces act upon it.

Mach gave no reason for his principle. He never explained as to why local physical laws should be determined by large scale structure of the universe. In author’s opinion it is wild and weird and a blatant misinterpretation of observed facts. It is antithetical to hierarchical structure of nature wherein rules vary from one hierarchical level to another. 

Einstein (1905) under the influence of Mach’s Principle concluded: Since light rays are travelling in gravitational field, so they are bound to get deflected on account of their travel in accelerated frame of reference. But gravitational field is determined by curvature of space produced by presence of material bodies. This curvature of space determines Geodesic Lines or the paths of material bodies as well as light rays. This whole conception further leads to notion of time-space continuum or Four Dimensional Space.

So Einstein’s anticipation of gravitational deflection of light is rationally grounded in notion of Fixed Stars, absolute space and absolute frame of reference. There is no doubt that gravitational deflection of light is a proven fact but in author’s opinion this is a case of correct anticipation but for wrong reasons. Such are the wonders of Science.

There is nothing much needed to say about Stephen Hawking except that he has elaborated upon foundations of Physics as detailed above. In author’s opinion, his anticipation of gravitational collapse of Universe into Black Holes is not founded in reality.

Ancient astronomers referred to various stars as Fixed Stars, since they were unable to observe their motion in relation to a geographical locus. However in 1718 Edmund Halley announced his discovery that Fixed Stars are not fixed but have proper motion. The Fixed Star with largest known proper motion is Barnard’s star. Since Newton lived up to 1927, so he should have revised his notions in his life time but unfortunately the Newtonian Legacy continues till date even though in a slightly modified form, as detailed above.

From the above account, it can be readily seen that the notion of Fixed Stars upon which rests the entire edifice of Theoretical Physics in naturally invalid. Hence, Theoretical Physics as it stands today is without foundations in natural phenomena.

In my book “Encounter of Science With Philosophy – A Synthetic View” I have discussed the concept of rest in Physics (Chapter-11) and evolved the concept of Deemed Rest that does not rely upon notion of Fixed Star, absolute space and absolute frame reference; and to which Laws of Physics are naturally valid.

Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor and has written the book “Encounter of Science with Philosophy – A synthetic view”. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null. Several chapters of the book are devoted to physics.

http://www.sciencengod.com

http://curatio.in

 Buy Now