Gravity is due to an imbalance in the electric force. The source of this imbalance lies in the difference between woolly on woolly and abrasive on abrasive interactions. While there’s no affinity between two woolly surfaces, there is a tiny bit of affinity between two abrasive surfaces.
It follows from this that there are in fact more than two types of collisions taking place between neutrinos in the aether.
We have collisions between:
- Abrasive and woolly neutrinos
- Abrasive and abrasive neutrinos
- Woolly and woolly neutrinos
The effect of the two last types are almost, but not quite, identical. There is a tiny difference due to the fact that abrasive surfaces interact ever so slightly with other abrasive surfaces.
A consequence of this is that the repelling force between negatively charged particles is a tiny bit stronger than the repelling force between positively charged particles.
When we add up all the different types of neutrino collisions taking place between two neutral bodies, we get that repulsion comes out a tiny bit weaker than attraction. We end up with a tiny attracting force.
Neutrinos are so small that they can pass through planets and stars. Many collide with particles deep inside such bodies, and carry this information with them back into space.
Every astronomic body has in this way a cloud of neutrinos around them that carry information about the total number of charged particles that they are made up of.
The grand total of information-carrying neutrinos from such bodies is gigantic, so even a tiny discrepancy between attraction and repulsion adds up to a considerable force.
This force, which we have arrived at purely on basis of theory, is what we call gravity. It’s due to a tiny imbalance in the electric force, which explains why Newton’s universal law of gravity looks so much like Coulomb’s law:
Coulomb’s law ignores the tiny discrepancy between electric attraction and electric repulsion, and for good reasons. The discrepancy is in the order of a trillionth of a trillionth. Newton’s law, on the other hand, is all about the discrepancy. Inertial mass is Newton’s proxy value for the total number of positive and negative charge quanta in a body, and G is a proxy for k.
It should be noted that the logic used here to explain gravity is the same that was used to explain the enormous size of protons relative to electrons. Both phenomena are due to the difference between woolly on woolly and abrasive on abrasive interaction. Two seemingly unrelated phenomena have thus been explained by a single principle of theory.
Gravity and capacitance
The model presented here sees gravity as a function of total charge. The more charged particles there are in a body, the more gravity there is.
Neutrinos carry information about the total charge of a body into space where this information is communicated into gravitational force in collisions with neutrinos coming from other bodies. However, the information is not solely about how many charged particles a body consists of. It’s also about how electrically stressed these particles are.
Consider the following illustration of an uncharged capacitor to the left and a charged capacitor to the right:
The electrical stress of the charged capacitor pulls on every atom in the dielectric. We get more acutely positive and negative areas. The neutrinos that bump into these stressed atoms are more heavily impacted. They bounce back into space with more pronounced footprints than they would have had if they had bounced off of the dielectric in the uncharged capacitor.
This translates into more pronounced collisions in the aether, and hence a stronger gravitational force.
Charged bodies exert a stronger gravitational pull than uncharged bodies. This difference is only noticeable for large bodies, so we don’t have laboratory evidence for this. However, we do have a whole range of real world anomalies that can be explained with this model.
The difference in gravity between Mars and Earth is conventionally explained by suggesting that Earth has a super-massive core. This is problematic, because it’s unclear what this super-massive material might be. A difference in charge seems like a more level headed explanation.
There are gravity anomalies on Earth that correspond to fault lines and mountain ranges. Areas of great geological activity have stronger gravity than areas with little geological activity. There’s no good explanation for this in conventional geology. But we can explain it by suggesting that fault lines and other geologically active areas are more electrically charged than more restive areas.
We can explain why comets have weaker gravity than their rocky surface suggests. They are small, with little capacitance. They lack the extra gravitational force that comes with capacitance.
The implications of this is that spherical astronomical bodies may be hollow. There’s no need for super-massive cores if capacitance plays a role in gravity. This is especially true because hollow spheres make good capacitors.
This can in turn be used to defend the position that Earth is expanding, and that surface gravity is increasing due to this expansion.
The interested reader may want to read my book titled Universe of Particles for more on this.
Gravity and light
According to our theory, gravity is a force that operates on neutral particles made up of dielectric matter. Also according to our theory, photons are compact assemblies of 3 positive and 3 negative particle quanta. This makes them a special type of dielectric matter, and hence sensitive to gravity. A photon travelling past a massive body will experience a tug. There will be a tiny angular acceleration. This will have no impact on the energy of the photon, nor will it have any impact on its speed. It will simply make the photon curve around the object.
From theory, we can also note that photons moving in towards a massive body retain their energy, as do photons moving away from such a body. While massive bodies tug on incoming and outgoing photons, gravity does not change their energy. However, a local observer on the surface of a massive body will register the energy of photons as greater than what is reported for the same photons by an observer in space.
To understand this, we have to keep in mind that the aether is made up of a mix of neutrinos and photons. While photons are dielectric, neutrinos aren’t, so gravity pulls on photons, but not on neutrinos. This makes the aether close to massive bodies richer in photons than the aether farther away.
With more photons in the aether, there must be correspondingly fewer neutrinos. The aether is so dense that no particle can be introduced without other particles being expelled. This in turn affects the electric force close to massive bodies. Observed from space, the electric force is reduced due to fewer available neutrinos.
With a reduced electric force, the size of electrons and protons goes down. The reduced number of neutrinos inside these particles reduce their internal pressure, and hence their diameters and circumferences.
All of this can be detected by an observer in space. However, it cannot in any way be detected locally. This is because a reduced circumference of the electron corresponds to a reduction in the local unit length, and hence also a speeding up of local clocks.
Since everything in our physics relates back to particle quanta with 3 dimensions, size, motion and texture, all measurements related to speeds, distances, forces and energies remains constant when we try to measure them, regardless of whether me make our measurements in space or on the surface of a massive body.
The speed of light will be measured to have the exact same value everywhere. This is because the reduced size of our rulers on the surface of massive bodies are correspondingly matched with faster clocks. One unit time remains the time it takes a photon to traverse an electron, no matter what size the electron has. This in turn, affects processes of energy transfers in such a way that they too are locally measured to be unchanged.
A similar effect kicks in when we try to measure the electric force with a local set of measuring tools. The number of neutrinos in the local environment will always and everywhere affect unit length in such a way that the constant k remains constant. It is only when an outside observer looks at the measurements, using an outside ruler and outside clock that differences can be detected.
With two observers, one in space and one at the surface of a massive body, we can detect differences. If we beam in some light from space of a given energy intensity, it will be registered by a local observer as somewhat bluer on the surface than in space, not because any energy was accumulated on the way in from space, but because photons are measured to be bigger and more energetic by local rulers and clocks at the surface.
Photons are not hollow. They do not change in size in response to the composition of the aether. However, our unit length is the circumference of an electron, which does change in size, depending on the composition of the aether. This makes photons appear bigger to an observer at the surface where neutrinos are fewer and rulers are shorter as a consequence.
Consequently a photon can do more work on Earth than in space. All inertial matter is smaller on the surface of planets, and hence easier to accelerate than out in space. While this effect is tiny in the vicinity of Earth, it is relatively easy to detect close to the Sun.
The Mercury anomaly
Mercury, located close to the Sun, makes its rounds around the Sun faster than expected when measured with a clock on Earth. This anomaly has been known for centuries. It was a great puzzle until Einstein came along with his suggestion that clocks run faster on Mercury than on Earth, and that the anomaly is only an anomaly because of this difference. Measured with a clock on Mercury, it’s all the other planets that are moving a little too slow.
This is the same conclusion we arrive at from our independent line of reasoning. We have in other words discovered an alternative to Einstein’s theory. Instead of curved space-time, we have an aether with a difference in composition close to massive bodies, relative to space.