The concepts of inertial and gravitational mass are central to conventional thinking related to matter. Especially the principle of equivalence, which states that the two types of mass are the same.

However, our alternative theory of matter doesn’t include mass as anything but an abstraction. Instead, of mass, we have particles with positive and negative charge. Yet, our theory yields identical results to conventional ones.

To see why this is so, we need to compare conventional theory to our alternative.

Inertia

Inertia is conventionally defined as resistance to changes in velocity. No further explanation is given.

However, in our alternative theory, we have an explanation.

Inertia is due to the fact that it takes time to transfer energy from one object to another. So, we end up with a mismatch between the pressure we apply and any consequent change in motion. The delay comes across as resistance.

Energy

Energy is another property that’s poorly defined in conventional theory. It’s simply a property related to matter and particles like photons.

However, in our alternative theory, energy is defined as surface area at the subatomic. Energetic particles are larger than less energetic particles of the same kind. So, when energy is added to an object, the total surface area of its subatomic particles increases.

With more surface area to cover in order to transfer energy, the time required to do so goes up, and hence we get an increase in inertia.

Gravity

Gravity is conventionally thought of as a force proportional to the masses involved. So, when inertia increases due to more matter, gravity increases to the exact same degree. The acceleration due to gravity is therefore identical for all objects, no matter their size or shape.

However, this too lacks any good explanation.

But in our alternative theory, gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force. Repulsion between equally charged particles is a tiny bit less strong than attraction between opposite charged particles.

For massive objects, this minuscule imbalance adds up to a measurable force that’s always attracting, and it is this force that we call gravity.

This force is proportional to the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic. So, we end up with the same conclusion as the one derived from conventional thinking. The more matter we have, the more gravity we get.

Proportionalities

So, in our theory, we have inertia as something proportional to energy.

Adding energy to an object results in more inertia.

However, gravity is unaffected by energy. Because it’s related only to the total number of charged particles involved. The number of charged particles we have at the subatomic remains the same regardless of how much energy we have.

So, when energy is added to an object, inertia increases while gravity remains the same.

Inertia and free falling objects

From this, it appears that we must conclude that energetic objects fall at a slower rate than less energetic objects of the same kind. Because the energetic objects have more inertia, so it’s harder for gravity to pull on them.

However, this ignores the fact that no energy is transferred to or from objects in free fall. Inertia, as it is defined in our theory, has nothing to do with free falling objects. It’s only when these objects hit the ground that energy is transferred to other objects.

So, gravity is an acceleration more than it is a force. Hence, the principle of equivalence, proposed by Einstein.

The aether

Einstein concluded in his work that space-time must be curved, and that this curvature is proportional to the masses involved.

This is equivalent to our alternative proposal, which involves an aether.

The idea is that gravity is due to aether escaping from in between gravitational objects. This produces a low pressure of sorts that draws objects together.

But this low pressure is not produced by the elusive entity that we call mass. It depends instead on the number of charged particles involved at the subatomic.

With no change in charge when energy is added to matter, the acceleration due to the aether remains unchanged.

So, here again, we see that our model produces results identical to what we get with models based on mass.

Conclusion

There’s no need to conjure up an elusive concept called mass in order to explain inertia and gravity. Because a theory centered around charges and the size of particles at the subatomic gives the exact same results.