Gravity is kind of like the air we breathe: We take it for granted. (Though dwellers in space colonies – a.k.a. “O’Neills” — will have full control of it. But that’s another story.)

For decades, physicists have assumed that they understood gravity, even when they had to invent things (such as dark matter) to explain certain phenomena.

Now comes a new theory that throws the whole understanding of gravity, well, up in the air. Scots are known for their willing to challenge orthodoxy. It’s happened again.

The Scotsman reports scientists at St. Andrews University have “apparently rewritten the laws of physics.”

Dr HongSheng Zhao and Dr Benoit Famaey assert that the force of gravity varies according to where it is in the universe. In particular, it is stronger at the fringes of a galaxy than closer to the center.

To explain this, they have developed a formula based on the work of Moti Milgrom, as refined by Jacob Bekenstein. A problem with the prevailing theory is why stars at the ends of the spiral arms of galaxies are not flung into the intergalactic void.

It’s very relevant because, among other things, it pertains to why our solar system is part of the Milky Way rather than isolated in deep space. Conventional physics explains the behavior of such isolated stars by relying on “dark matter.” However, such dark matter is a matter of speculation and none has been found in the vicinity of our galaxy.

(Though it wasn’t mentioned in the Scotsman article, this “flexi-gravity” may also explain why space ships have been observed to travel faster than expected as they exit our solar system.)

This new theory wouldn’t completely turn physics on its head. “It is a modification to the law of gravity as prescribed by Newton and Einstein,” said Dr. Zhao.

Newtonian physics can be used to predict the movement of the planets successfully, but the problem comes when it is used to calculate the movement of stars. Newton’s formula was that the gravitational force of an object was equal to the gravitational constant multiplied by its mass and then divided by distance squared. The further away something is from the source of the gravity, the less powerful it is. At the edges of the universe, the force is so weak it is known as “nano-gravity.”

The scientists say, “By trial and error, only one set of functions comes out to be both simple and explain the data. This formula explains it very well and does it sort of effortlessly.”

All of this raises a very intriguing question. If something as fundamental as the theory of gravity is still open to debate among reasonable, highly credible scientists — a subject until very recently thought settled and nailed down — what else is lurking in the realm of the unknown?

Magnetism is another phenomenon considered firmly understood. Yet I remember sitting with my friend, the inventor Jerry Smith, and three professors of physics at a table at Colorado School of Mines. Jerry was showing a videotape of a device he has working in his laboratory. One of the professors looked at the results and then his eyes grew wide.

It appeared to show magnetic fields behaving in a way contrary to what is expected. “That would be perpetual motion,” the professor exclaimed. “Can’t be,” retorted one of his colleagues. The first physicist shook his head and said “No, of course not.”

He had just contradicted the evidence of his eyes because it did not agree with his model of reality. He has a Ph.D. in physics from Stanford and teaches at a prestigious school.

I like to say that when beliefs arise from observations, it’s science. When observations arise from beliefs, it’s religion. (I think both are valuable for a rich life. I just object to confusing the two…from either side.)

When a theory is well established in science, any anomalies represent a problem. Anomalies are defined as observations that seem accurate, yet contradict the theory. Such “anomalies,” even when repeatable, are reasoned away via patchwork explanations. The current theory of gravity, buttressed as an afterthought by as-yet-undetected dark matter, is one example.

I know for a fact that the current theory of magnetism is incomplete, because the Transmagnet(TM) exists. Conventional theory excludes it, yet (like the bumblebee that plagued aerodynamic engineers for decades) it just goes merrily along working.

Multiple experiments have established that SOMETHING unexplained by conventional science is happening in so-called “cold fusion.” Whether it is actually fusion is beside the point. My friend Dr. Scott Chubb, a physicist at Naval Research Laboratories, has compiled a sheaf of nine studies showing clear “anomalous” results. In his view (and that of a number of other highly respected physicists and chemists), such results beg for further study.

Granted, Dr. Chubb and others like him are in the minority. However, the truly great revolutions in science and technology come from precisely such iconoclasts.

Let’s remember: Einstein was an unknown patent clerk — not even affiliated with a university — when he developed his theories of relativity. A new worldview arose, and so did nuclear power.

I keep my eyes open for technologies that exploit “anomalies.” Some of the truly great investing opportunities of all time could arise from these.

To your profitable future,
Jonathan Kolber
March 21, 2007

P.S.: You could get rich investing in scientifically selected penny stocks. The CXS Money-Multiplier System finds enormous winners…and it’s incredibly easy. We do all the work, telling you when to buy and sell.

Penny Sleuth Contributor

The Penny Sleuth also features commentary by other financial analysts, small-cap experts, investment gurus and an array of contributors from various fields and occupations. Their diverse insights and contrarian investing ideas are hand selected by the Penny Sleuth editors.

Special Report: HOW YOU COULD TURN $200 INTO $1.2 MILLION!

View articles by Penny Sleuth Contributor