Evidently, the True Source of Gravity.

                                          Copyright © 2008, 2009, 2010 David V Connell.

      The emergence of Relativity around the turn of the 20th century, in particular Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SRT [1]), gave physicists a new dimension for research into the fundamental laws of nature, but also created new opportunities for making wrong assumptions and other mistakes. Gravity is certainly no exception, (next to Relativity?) it is probably the most misunderstood subject in physics, as you will see.
      Without gravity there would be no up, no down, no atmosphere, no people, no planets, no stars, but just possibly a thin soup of basic mass particles pervading all space. That could have been a possibility, but it omits another fundamental fact; that charged particles also exist and they attract and repel each other, so they will form into atoms and a variety of larger objects. The existence of charged particles or gravity precludes the thin soup theory. It has been assumed by many that gravity is an inherent property of basic mass, but it could be a byproduct of the charged particles. We will see.
      We begin this analysis by listing some of the known facts, postulations and assumptions associated with gravity:-
      1. It is an attractive force (F) between objects made of mass.
      2. It obeys an inverse square law with distance (d) between objects.
      3. It is an inherent property of mass and has led to the concept of "gravitational mass".
      4. Gravitational mass has been 'found' to be equal to inertial mass (which is the constant of proportionality between force and acceleration).
      5. A gravitational field affects the frequencies of e/m radiation emitted in it or passing through it.
      6. Newton's Law of Gravity, derived from Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, incorporates the first three items above. It is expressed mathematically as
                                                  F = GmM/d²,
where m and M are gravitational masses and G is the mathematical factor of proportionality (which is expected to be a universal constant).

      Let us consider item 5 above. By the principle of Conservation of Energy, one of the relativistic effects of moving an object to a higher gravitational potential is an increase in mass, which causes, as predicted by Bohr's frequency equation [2], the same proportional increase in the resonant frequencies of the object's emitted spectrum, and this is confirmed by experimental observations [3]. That is, the increase in mass is confirmed to be the cause of the increase in frequency. Mass is a form of energy, so an increase in mass requires the addition of energy, which in this case comes from the work done to move the object to the new location against an opposing force. Therefore the increase in mass could be caused by ANY conservative force opposing the movement of the object, and must not necessarily be due to gravity.
      Therefore we can safely say that a change of gravitational field strength does not directly cause relativistic effects, but the addition of energy does. A gravity field is not an energy field and cannot supply the energy needed.
      The difference in the cause of the frequency change is important because of the assumed effects. If no external energy is applied to an object and the gravitational field strength is changed, as could be caused by moving a large mass much closer to a test object, no relativistic changes should occur to the test object, contrary to popular belief [4]. Similarly, for an object in free fall in a gravitational field, no external energy is being supplied so there can be NO relativistic effects, even though the gravitational field strength IS changing. By the principle of conservation of energy, to an observer in an external frame of reference the apparent mass (PE) of the falling object reduces as the KE increases, unless the object is brought to rest, when the kinetic energy becomes zero and the apparent mass returns to its original rest value.
      Another consequence of the different cause of frequency change is that a ray of light will NOT be bent on passing through a gravitational field. A ray of light is not made of matter so has no potential gravitational field, and gravity requires two such fields to interact to cause attraction. For gravity to affect light takes a strong imagination. It is unfortunate that experiments have, in the past, been misinterpreted, or observational data carefully selected, to apparently agree with the then accepted theory. And some desirable experiments have just not been made. The spectrum of radiation from a stationary light source is emitted at a lower frequency only when its energy level (potential energy) is reduced, such as when it is moved down a gravitational potential (which reduces its mass too). The Doppler Effect (reduced frequencies) of relative motion is not a Relativity effect (in the context used herein), as it does not affect the frequency of the emitted radiation.
      Now let us consider the equation in item 6 carefully. It involves two objects and the distance between them to obtain the total force of attraction,and the assumption was made that it is proportional to the product of their masses, so masses are used in the calculations. Hence, the derived value of G incorporates the relation between mass and the attractive force of those two objects at a particular gravitational potential, and also assumes the relation is constant. Hence it may not be a true universal constant if, say, it also varies with the substances comprising the objects, or with altitude.
      Now, it so happens that when the known relativistic effects due to adding energy to an object without resulting motion, as discussed above (mass and frequency increase by a factor gamma and lengths decrease by the same proportional amount), are applied to the dimensions of G (M^-1L³T^-2 ), it is found that the its value is reduced by gamma squared if the objects are mass, but not changed if non-relativistic sources replace the mass. This fact has been overlooked or ignored for many decades. Since the value of G should, indubitably, NOT CHANGE in these circumstances, the attractive force must emanate from a non-relativistic source. The masses of the two objects still increase in the above experiment from the work done, but the force of attraction of the objects at the same distance apart does not change, so the "home frame" values of mass could be used in the calculations, or better still, the ratios of their weights to a standard weight in a gravity field should be used as these are obviously directly proportional to their attractive potential, and are independent of the substances.
      Hence gravitational mass does not exist and experiments purporting to prove equality with inertial mass must (unwittingly) be guaranteeing it by mistaking inertial mass for gravitational mass and therefore comparing two inertial masses, thus always obtaining highly accurate equality.

      This leaves us with the question "what is the non-mass cause of the attractive force emanating from matter?".
      The answer to that question can only be the attractive force of unlike electrostatic charges being very slightly larger than the repulsive force between like charges, supplied by the nucleons and electrons in atoms, as proposed by Kopernicky[5] and demonstrated by experiments such as the "Inchworm" experiment many years ago, but ignored for whatever reasons.
      A more recent paper supporting electrostatic gravity [6] is that by Morton F. Spears (deceased), who derived an equation for gravitational force that includes an expression for the value of G in terms of electrostatic parameters, and also points out some of the practical problems in its accurate measurement due to the electrostatic properties of the medium between the attracting objects. Thus, without corrections, a value derived using the Earth as one of the objects would differ significantly from one derived from two objects separated by a relatively large distance in air.
      Thus the weight of an atom is dependent on pairs of electrostatic charges of opposite polarity (dipoles) associated with it (e.g. protons and electrons), and its inertial mass is the actual structural mass. Therefore, objects without electrotatic dipoles cannot produce a gravitational field; particles with only one type of charge have an electrostatic field only, billions upon billions of times stronger. Since it is known that a neutron has weight it is necessary that it has both types of charge, separated by some distance, to produce a potential attractive force.
      Thus, the potential gravitational attraction attributable to an object should be proportional to the number of nucleons in the object (its mass number), except that small variations per nucleon could be expected to occur due to different configurations of the dipoles for different substances. Replacing the masses in Newton’s equation with the numerical values of their weights (Ww) relative to a standard weight, thereby incorporating any differences due to different substances, produces
                                                  F=GWw/d²
      This keeps the same numerical value for G in Newton's equation since, in practice, masses were assumed to be proportional to their weight; substance differences are not then relevent and should not affect the calculated value.
      The dimensions of G become ML³T^-2.
      The relation between mass number and inertial mass (at the same gravitational potential) could vary between substances and if this were so, their ratio would not be constant between different substances, which is true, even when allowance is made for the binding energy of nuclei. It is remotely possible that this ratio incorporates the variation in attractive force for different substances, such that atomic mass varies with attractive force causing, since g = F/m, g to be the same for different substances. This remains to be tested.

      Since gravity is involved in the condition known as "free-fall", it is discussed here. From the principle of conservation of total energy, since no energy is being supplied, there can be no mass increase and therefore no relativistic effects (which are in an object's own frame of reference). As for its motion causing relativistic effects (a popular belief), we note that motion and therefore kinetic energy can only occur in external observers’ frames of reference, so cannot produce any relativistic effects. It is obvious that from all points of view the same object can only have the same total energy, so, for objects in free-fall, increases in kinetic energy in external frames of reference must be accompanied by decreases in potential energy, the total staying constant. Speed itself is a concept and, without magic, possesses no known means of changing mass to cause relativistic effects (as demanded by Bohr’s equations).
      Therefore, the “relativistic Doppler” equation and relativity corrections for eccentricity and speed changes should not be applied to clocks in orbiting satellites of surveying systems. Practical evidence for this follows.
      As shown above, the resulting law of gravity computes the same as Newton’s classical equation (i.e. with non-relativistic masses) that existed before relativity theories,such as Einstein’s SRT (Ref.1), were produced, and as there are no relativistic frequency effects in bodies in free-fall, the frequency shifts of radio signals from spacecraft Pioneer 10 and 11 predicted by SRT should not occur, and it was found to be so by Renshaw [7]. In 1999 he showed that the apparent problem of disagreement between the actual frequencies and the SRT predicted frequencies did not exist if Newtonian equations (pre relativity) were used in the prediction calculations.
      It should now be accepted that the equivalence of mass and energy determines the change in mass, and Bohr’s equations (which are easily shown to be applicable in all frames of reference) then indicate the other changes relative to that change. Attributing those changes to gravity and speed was unfortunate as they have often been applied in incorrect circumstances, as shown above.

      The new dimensions of the constant G, are the same as for the product hc, and that set of dimensions may be shown, by eliminating m between the Bohr relations for frequency (f is proportional to m/h³; and orbital radius (length) is proportional to h²/m) (Ref.2), to be constant in all frames, so both are universally constant.The Newtonian dimensions of G enabled unique combinations of the three apparent constants of nature (c, h, G) to define absolute values of mass, length, time, etc. (known as Planck units)[8], but can no longer do so. The Planck mass (hc⁄G)^0.5 is now dimensionless and the other Planck units are meaningless. Thus, the principle of relativity is now preserved, whereas it was violated by the existence of absolute values, and physics research must be re-routed in this area. Since h and c were shown in Natural Relativity[9] to be relativistic in moving frames, G is now the only individual universal constant.
      It is postulated that neutrons are needed in nuclei to provide the necessary binding forces, with their negative charges placed against and interposed between the positive charges of multiple protons. If neutrons had no charges (just inert mass) they would not provide any binding force to prevent disintegration of the nucleus due to the repulsive forces of the proton charges unless a new attractive force was invented. Hence, there must be approximately the same number of neutrons as protons in a nucleus (except where there is only one proton), and more where rules of configuration (complicated structures) demand it, the remaining unbalanced positive charges on the neutrons replacing the electrostatic role of the protons in the atom.
      When sharing their negative charge with several protons, neutrons would be expected to form weaker bonds, leading to less stable nuclei. It is probable that the opposite charges on protons and neutrons in the nucleus are in near-contact (but do not destroy each other). These near-contact forces are far greater than those from separated charges, probably being the source of the "strong force", while the positive charges on the neutrons are relatively well separated.
      Thus, the necessity of a neutron having weight from a non-relativistic source gives some insight into the construction of neutrons and nuclei. Different nuclear structures are expected to give rise to differences in attractive forces for the same mass number (different substances) as well as in binding energies, so a possible connection between them could be a subject for investigation.

                          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
      When applied to accepted laws of physics, confirmed relativistic changes to the dimensions involved can be crucial tests of the validity of those laws, as demonstrated by the fact that they have revealed the source of gravity not to be mass. It is a logical necessity that a non-relativistic source of gravity closely associated with matter must exist, and the discovery of the Kopernicky theory, plus Sears work, enables a sensible theory of gravity to be formulated, which is based on known cause and effect instead of postulations. The source of gravity now appears to be a tiny difference between the forces of electrostatic attraction and repulsion (in favor of attraction) between electrically neutral matter separated by macroscopic distances, the charges on the nucleons and electrons supplying those forces.
      Newton’s law of gravity simulates the new law if the masses of the two attracting objects are replaced in his equation with the ratios of their weights to the standard weight (as actually happened in practice). The dimensions of G change to ML³T^-2 , and it then becomes the expected universal constant.
      The product hc has the same dimensions as G, so both are universal constants and the ratio (hc⁄G)^0.5 is now a dimensionless number, whereas it appeared to define an absolute mass (the Planck mass), violating the principle of relativity. All the “Planck units” are now meaningless.
      The facts that G would not stay constant with change in altitude if gravity emanates from mass, and that the Planck units do not conform to the principle of relativity, were clues from the past that have been ignored. That those faults are now revealed and corrected is logical evidence that this theory is superior to other theories postulating that gravity is caused by mass (by distorting space!) and somehow affects electromagnetic radiation.
      Gravity is the tendency for matter to physically attract other matter. No more, no less. Other properties that have been attributed to it, such as relativistic effects and bending of rays of light, are clearly mistaken conclusions from a relativity theory with incorrect postulations in its foudations.
      Adding in the facts that relativistic changes are due to additions of energy instead of motion or gravitational fields, it should come as no surprise that the present state of disagreements between subatomic and quantum physics on the one hand and fundamental physics on the other hand, have existed. The above findings should instigate a thorough review of the whole situation; the foundations of many theories in use today have, unfortunately, been unconfirmed postulations and assumptions.

      Thus, gravity is either a mysterious property of mass from an unknown cause not complying with the laws of physics, or, more probably, a tiny side-effect of electrostatic interactions between atoms that complies with those laws. The choice seems obvious.

As Einstein said in 1920 (the Leyden address),
"Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation."

And, by Michael Faraday (1830's),
"Universal gravitation is merely a residual phenomenon of electrical attraction and repulsion."

It seems that a hundred and seventy years have been wasted on other theories.

Inertial (real) mass weighs nothing, and fictitious gravitational mass has weight!
Gravity was a little strange, indeed, but is now much clearer; it also agrees with Michael Faraday and fulfills Einstein’s wish.

References.
     1.   H. Semat, Introduction to Atomic and Nuclear Physics, 4th edition, (Chapman and Hall, London, 1962), p. 30.
     2.   H. Semat, Ref. 1, p. 233.
     3.   R. V. Pound and G.A.Rebka, Phys.Rev.Lett. 4, 337 (1960).
     4.   Max Born, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, (Dover Publications, 1962), p.273.
     5.   J. J. Kopernicky and W.L.Hughes, Galilean Electrodynamics 16, 83-90(2005).
     6.   M. F. Spears, Galilean Electrodynamics 21, 23-32 (2010)
     7.   C. Renshaw, Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf. 2, 59-63 (1999).
     8.   R. M. Wald, General Relativity, (University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp.378-9.
     9.  D. V. Connell, Phys. Essays 22, 3, 402-412 (2009).