Submited on: 03 Sep 2012 04:28:31 PM GMT
Published on: 03 Sep 2012 06:37:22 PM GMT

Respected Reviewer Dr. Marios Kyriazis seems confused between “self gravity” and “mutual gravity”. This is equivalent to difference between “inter-molecular” and “intra-molecular” forces. “Mutual gravity” is well known and commonly regarded as ‘gravity’. Self gravity is never put use in biology. Hence his comment deserves necessary rectification. I adore his comment much.

Last few days I have received some communications which I wish to share with my esteemed reviewers/ readers as follows:


(1)     On Google+, Graham Burnett  commented the article as ‘interesting’. He suggested to search Vincent Wee-Foo with the platform of gravity as a push in force, a paradox to dismiss/set-aside gravity in mechanical measure of the structure torus in a geometric reality. I welcome his suggestions stating that examples of push-in force of gravity having torus geometry are plenty in non-Newtonian bio-materials and wish to look into these.


(2) I also received interesting and important feedback from Prof.Lester Ingber, Prof Franklin M Harold and Neil McEwan:


(i) Revered Prof.Lester Ingber, in reply to my communication to kindly go through Section 8 of the article wherein some calculations have been incorporated in non-mathematical language (esp.for biologists) and I admit lack of calculations, which I wish to place separately e.g. on eccentric nucleus applying divergence theorem, wrote:


"I did re-read Section 8, as you requested.  The forces of self-gravity are really really small compared to all other forces typically considered.  My sense of the paper is the same: I do appreciate your presentation; it is very well written, quite informative, and well-researched in all the different examples you provide in the paper.

The problem I see as a scientist/physicist, it that you have not provided any testable calculation to support the premise that "self-gravity" is large and important enough to materially affect any interactions you cite in your examples.  You give examples of magnitudes of self-gravity, but you do not explicitly calculate just where these forces are being applied, e.g., to which specific chemical or physical bonds that are also influenced by other quantum/chemical/Earth-centric gravity, etc.  The forces of "self-gravity" must be applied between specific pairs of constituents, correct? I assume you are not proposing special 3-body or n-body interactions.  You must consider the contribution of self-gravity to all these other accepted forces.  Calculating a "lump" of "self-gravity" just does not address these issues.

Of course, I could be wrong and you could be right, but the responsibility is yours to prove that with precise calculations in experimentally observed interactions.  I do appreciate your precision, but I do not see that you have applied your calculations to a system that demonstrates the importance of self-gravity.

Again, the paper is well-written and informative, but I cannot give it a passing review.  I expect that you have had similar feedback, and I hope the reviewers have been helpful as to why they have given such feedback. 


Prof Lester Ingber earlier wrote as Reviewer in the article:


“I filled out a more complete report and submitted it previously, but it seems to have been lost?

This paper is much too broad in covering too many phenomena, without giving any decent calculations to any one interaction.

I suggested trying something like examining the interaction between two proteins, with and without the "self-gravity" forces, but including in both calcs the same chemical, biological and electromagnetic, and Earth-centric gravity forces.”


(ii) Revered Prof Franklin M Harold whom I requested to review my article wrote to me:


“Thanks for sharing your paper on self-gravity and many related matters.  I looked it over, but must admit that I had great difficulty in understanding it.

The basic thesis, as I understand it, is that what holds molecules together in cells is, at least in part, the gravitational attraction between molecules.  Small as they are, bringing them close together makes that force significant.  I am no physicist, but my intuition tells me that gravity will be too weak to counter the forces favoring dispersal.  I think that your paper would be more convincing if it focused specifically on this issue, with detailed calculations and, ideally, empirical data.

Curiously, just yesterday I came across a reference to the fact that the Swedish chemist Berthollet proposed a similar idea in the 18th century (gravity as the force that holds elements together in making compounds), but later abandoned it. “


 (iii) Neil McEwan who is in regular correspondence with me after giving comment on the published article wrote:


“Your reviewer suggests an expt, but let's just say Einstein didn't do an expt, he was just right. He wants expts then they have some sort of observations & you're on the merry-go-round. What expt? Point 19, microtubules have an organising centre (centrosome). The trouble is you need those energy-centres for a meaningful expt. Without the energy it's inanimate matter. I think he means a physical expt, but this is bio-physics. I don't see how you take one  out of the other (geneticists study genes-it's a closed circle). As far as I can see, the physical parameters are powered by the cell. If you take the energy away you don't have the physics. If you take fractals, I think there are expts to show them form spontaneously, so that is physical. The rest is cellular. Fractals are a priori growth of pattern. Fractals have proportions, but my point is all proportions are energy-driven: it's a physical property. It follows that rhythms produce rhythmic growth. What expt is rhythmic?

PS: I just think expts often aren't meaningful. The Large Hadron Collider seems an alternative to Einstein (particle for mass). How do they connect? They may find it' just a figment of the machine. I'm counting on it.

RE: Fractals are spirals of energy that branch for every energetic change, such as a branch of a tree, a joint of a limb. They have been likened to holograms (I read a theory of the 'holographic universe' which is a projection of fractals or some such). There seem to be as many theories as there are people (

For our purposes, their explanation is unknown, but they are embedded in the universe. Without them everything would be entropy.

I just thought I'd mention that as fractals have to be spontaneous phenomena. They have no explanation, so if cells are dividing they would spontaneously fractalise - splits or divisions would appear. That seems to follow from the energetics.

As far as proportion goes, these have to be specific to a species (dark DNA). It does seem to me that on top of the specific instructions in DNA, you have something spontaneous that has no explanation. This would supply energy, but this energy is somewhat mysterious.”


Prof.Lester Ingber replied: "It's fine with me if you wish to make these reviews part of your open file on WebmedCentral.  I have nothing to add or modify in response to the other two reviewers.


Author’s response to Prof.Lester Ingber


I have given a little deep thought on your suggestion for trying something like examining the interaction between two “proteins”, with and without "self-gravity" forces, but including in both calculations the same chemical, biological and electromagnetic and earth-centric gravity forces. I agree it might improve our understanding, as protein–protein interactions are of central importance for virtually every process in a living cell. There are a multitude of methods to detect them. Each of the approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses, especially with regard to sensitivity and specificity of the method. A high sensitivity means that many of the interactions that occur in reality are detected by the screen. A high specificity indicates that most of the interactions detected by the screen are also occurring in reality. So selection would have to be made meticulously to reduce error that might not lead to noisy results. I appreciate your idea that calculating a "lump" of "self-gravity" just does not address these issues, though, I am afraid, effect of force of self gravity in dynamic bio-matters might not become visible unless critical quantity of mass accumulates.


Application of scientific visualization techniques along with Bayesian inference and studies of ‘proportionality’ along with 'fractal mathematics' (suggested by Neil McEwan), can possibly be supportive to the idea.


Comparing interaction of self gravity with earth-centric gravity forces and with microgravity I have my ideas, though I have not mentioned in the present webmedcentral article.  In coming occasion, I hope to do so.


If you have more suggestions, kindly extend for which I would be grateful. After all we want to extend our knowledge, no matter I do or someone else does.  


Author,s comment: (1) Not only Claude Louis Berthollet (1748 –1822) alone, in a most misleading way, Franz Anton MesmerRef (1734-1815) was probably the first to use the word ‘animal gravity’ to describe influence of stars on living things, just as Newtonian gravity by its influence on the Earth. In fact after discovery of gravitation by Sir Isaac Newton (1642 –1727), there was a overwhelm euphoria to see everything in the light of Newton’s gravity. {Ref: Burns William E. Science in the Enlightment: an encyclopedia P.194. ABC-CLIO’s history of science series. (2003)}


(2)  In calculating a "lump" of "self-gravity" just may not address these issues, effect of force of self gravity in dynamic bio-matters might not become visible unless critical quantity of mass accumulates. The reason is described in the article as item 11. Whether gravitational anchor is a criterion for manifestation as living?

“It is theorized that a single cell is difficult to survive under natural condition without being self-gravitationally anchored or attaining steady state condition or under multi-assembled single cell condition. A single cell can survive in isolated exceptional way, when it is pivoted over fluid or similar other substance, appropriately anchored. But this is not a generalized phenomenon. In plant tissue culture, unless a callus of say above 500 mg or suspension of cultures of say, 3-4 cubic centimeter (in terms of packed cell volume) is used, it is difficult to maintain continuity of life and growth from individual cells. Similarly in the final volume for cell culture, maintaining cell density as low as 3 x 10^5 to high of more than 10–15x 10^6 cells/ml of inoculums are required. Why a minimum mass is required for cell culture under multi-assembled single cell condition. Is it for anchorage? There is a literary proverb that “A Rolling stone gathers no moss”. This is possibly not only a literary proverb but based on scientific observation and fact of the commoners.”



(3) I anticipate more reviews/comments/ suggestions yet to come. So I am ready to share more in this regard.