The Natural Source of Gravity.

GRAVITY - WHERE DOES IT COME FROM ?
This article shows that the source of gravity must not be due to mass itself, but attached to it, in such a way that gravity is not relativistic. Gravitational attraction is therefore not due to inertial mass and must be a non-relativistic side effect of the atoms comprising objects, as in the Kopernicky theory of gravity. Hence, the source of gravity is electrostatic in nature, and the attractive force is proportional to the number of nucleons in objects, not their mass.
Note.
It is pointed out here that invalidation of a theory must come from UNDISPUTED physics, logic, or experiment, NOT from conflicts with other theories and postulations (disputed or otherwise) or false beliefs, so, reader beware, there could be several such conflicts herein. A theory is viable if it could be true.

The Necessity of New Source of Gravity.

Newton's well known law of gravity is force F = GMm/d², where G is the universal gravitational constant, M and m are two massive objects attracted to each other by the force F , and d is the distance between the masses. Hence, when experiments are performed to measure G (=Fd2/Mm) at two different altitudes, work is done to overcome the Earth's gravitational attraction in moving to the higher location, increasing the potential energy (PE) of the two objects (which, from the equivalence of mass and energy, is mass), and theories of relativity predict that masses become gamma times their original mass, where gamma is calculated from the work done in overcoming the increase in altitude. Also, the resonant frequencies of objects will increase by gamma and their lengths decrease by gamma as predicted by General Relativity (GR), agreeing with Bohr's equations [1] and other theories, and the frequency change being confirmed by observations [2].
Applying these relativistic changes to the dimensions of G results in the value of G changing to gamma-2Go, but this is not acceptable for a local constant, as the frame of reference of the experiment has not changed. It violates a principle that physics constants of proportionality have fixed values in an inertial frame of reference (the Principle of Local Constants). Other constants, such as c and h do stay constant. This situation has been ignored for many decades.
However, the above assumes that the source of gravity is mass and therefore the two masses (M and m) are relativistic (their values change with altitude). For G to be constant it is essential that the source of gravity is not mass, therefore not relativistic, the undesirable factor gamma-2 is then eliminated and G becomes equal to Go at any altitude. There appears to be no possible alternative.

The Solution.
The above postulation requires a non-relativistic property closely associated with mass to be the source of attraction rather than mass itself, as that is known to be relativistic and remains so. Text books assume G is constant, yet also assume masses are relativistic. The two assumptions are not compatible.
Just what the source of gravity could be was only conjecture until the recent discovery of a paper by Kopernicky and Hughes [3], published in 2005. This offered a very convincing theory that a tiny difference between the forces of electrostatic attraction and repulsion between electrically neutral atoms separated by macroscopic distances (in favor of attraction) could be the source of gravity and apparently leads to an inverse square law of attraction between objects at distances of separation greater than a millimeter or so. Atoms are made of relativistic mass and have electric charges attached to their component parts, which (charges) are known to be non-relativistic, so those electric charges are a very likely (and only?) candidate for the required property, and the potential attractive force of an object becomes proportional to the number of electrostatic charges N in the object. According to Kopernicky and Hughes, at much lesser distances of separation the resulting electrostatic forces become repulsive and far greater than gravity, so are of no interest here.
Thus the laws of relativity have revealed a flaw in our assumptions concerning gravity and have enabled that flaw to be corrected. It is a logical necessity that a non-relativistic source of gravity, such as this, exists. There are no other real candidates.
Also, the relativity changed mass in a moving frame could not affect the gravitational force between two objects, so G would become a universal constant, as expected from natural philosophical considerations.
Positive and negative charges need to be substantially equal in the Kopernicky theory, so neutrons must have one of each with their charges separated, not absent, otherwise they would weigh nothing and nearly all atoms would weigh less than half their present amount compared to hydrogen, which is plainly not true, so N becomes equal to the number of nucleons in an object.
It is now proposed that the masses in Newton’s equation are replaced with the ratios (w) of the weight of the objects to the standard weight, therefore directly proportional to their actual attractive potentials, in which case the law of gravity becomes F = GWw/d², where G is a universal constant and Ww is numerically equal to the supposed masses Mm in the original law.
At increasing altitude the inertial mass of an object is increased by gamma, but the force of attraction between two objects a given distance apart will not change (G is constant), so the ratio of mass to gravity will be increased by gamma.

Discussion.
Inertial mass (m) (real mass) is a store of highly concentrated energy, is a basic building material of all matter, it is resistant to acceleration and is relativistic (gains and loses mass, which has effects on lengths and frequencies of objects, as demonstrated by Bohr's equations [1]). That is, most of its properties are still the same, except that it does not emanate a gravitational field and therefore weighs nothing.
The international standard mass defines a mass of 1Kgm. It is also used to define Force by its weight, so it is also a standard weight, and, since they are compared by weight, copies are standard weights (they exert equal gravitational force). They could have exactly the same inertial masses as the standard only if made of the same substance, and when this is so they are also inertial copies.
Gravitational mass is a concept linking gravitational attraction to mass, but, since they have different relativistic properties the connection is invalid. Therefore gravitational mass does not exist. In this theory gravitational mass and inertial mass can be equivalent only if they are defined to be so, and then only for one substance at one gravitational potential. Experiments confirming that equivalence must have unwittingly compared inertial mass with inertial mass, or possibly made some other error. It should be noted that the Earth's force of gravity in the above experiments could be replaced by a spring or other conservative, non-gravitational system, so the mass change due to a change in altitude is NOT due to a gravitational field, but to the energy added, and is to inertial mass. Relativistic effects can not occur with fictitious mass, therefore experiments utilizing relativistic changes to gravitational mass for this purpose [4] could not be comparing the supposed two types of mass.
We now consider the role of neutrons in atoms. Neutrons are necessary in nuclei to provide negative charges in sufficient numbers to provide attractive forces with the positive charges of multiple protons to prevent disintegration of the nuclei. Hence, there must be at least the same number of neutrons as protons in a nucleus (except where there is only one), and probably more where rules of configuration demand it, the remaining unbalanced positive charge on the neutron replacing the role of the proton in the atom. Neutrons with no charges (just inert mass) would neither provide any attractive force nor insert sufficient distance between protons to prevent disintegration of the nucleus by the repulsive forces of the protons, unless a new attractive force was invented. It is probable that the opposite charges in the nucleus are in "near-contact" (do not destroy each other), and the positive charges on the neutrons are well separated. Are not "near-contact" forces far greater than those from separated objects?
If gravity also reduces at a greater rate than an inverse square law, which is quite feasible in the Kopernicky theory, there will be a distance beyond which the repulsive force of incoming radiation on a body will be greater than the gravitational attraction of distant bodies, creating stable equilibrium between stars and galaxies for the most part. The unstable equilibrium arising from long range gravitational attraction opposed by supposed relative velocities of recession do not sit well with common sense. Red shift of intergalactic radiation proportional to distance does have other possible explanations [5].
Thus, gravity is either a mysterious property of mass from an unknown cause not complying with the laws of physics, or a tiny side-effect of electrostatic interactions between electric charges in atoms, that complies with those laws. The choice seems obvious.
So, inertial (real) mass weighs nothing, and fictitious gravitational mass has weight!
Gravity was a little strange, indeed, but is becoming clearer.

References.
1. N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules“, Philos. Mag. 26:1 (1913).
2. R.V.Pound and G.A.Rebka, Apparent Weight of Photons, Phys.Rev.Lett., 4, 337 (1964).
3. J. J. Kopernicky and W. L. Hughes, Galilean Electrodynamics, 16.5, 83 (2005).
4. Henry Semat, Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics, 4th edition, (Chapman and Hall,
London, 1962), p.478.
5. D.V.Connell, "Redshift is Due to the Doppler Effect ... (Isn't It?)", Galilean
Electrodynamics, 21.2, 83 (2010).