Mass, Matter, and Real Gravity.
Copyright © 2008 - 2013 David V Connell.
As Einstein said in 1920 (the Leyden address),
The emergence of Relativity around the turn of the 20th century, in particular Einstein's Theories of Relativity (SR and GR ), gave scientists a new dimension for research into the fundamental laws of physical nature, but also created new opportunities for making wrong assumptions and other mistakes. Gravity, the apparent tendency for material objects to attract each other, is certainly no exception, it is probably the most misunderstood subject in physics, as you will see, relativity being the main contestant for that dubious honour.
"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."
As shown herein, it seems that a hundred and eighty years have been wasted on other theories.
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 of space. That could have been a possibility, but it omits another fundamental fact; that electric charges also exist attached to mass, and they attract and repel each other, so even without a force of attraction between the particles due to mass they could coagulate, form into atoms and a variety of larger objects (composed of matter). The meaning of "matter", as used herein, therefore refers to conglomerations of mass and electric charges, the latter having no mass.
In his “Principia” (1687) , Newton defined mass as the quantity of matter, and in his Law of Gravity he assumed that the force of attraction was proportional to that mass, i.e. was due to matter. But mass now refers to the specific substance (now known as inertial mass), from which, it is widely agreed, all particles are composed. Thus, it is now wrongly assumed by most that gravity is a property of (inertial) mass instead of matter, and the results of that difference are explored in this article.
We begin this analysis by listing some of the popular facts, postulations and assumptions associated with gravity (some true, some not true):-
1. It is an attractive force (F) between objects made of mass, or matter.
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 change in the gravitational field strength causes the mass of objects in that field, and their natural frequencies of e/m radiation, to change.
6. Newton's Law of Gravity, derived from Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, appears to incorporate the first three items above. It is expressed mathematically as
F = GmM/d²,
where m and M are the masses of two objects and G is the mathematical factor of proportionality (which is expected to be a universal constant).
The principle of Conservation of Total Energy (CTE) states that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, and includes the principle of Equivalence of Mass and Energy, i.e. mass is potential energy (PE) and may be considered to be a very highly concentrated form of energy (m=E/c²) (see Moving Frames of Reference for a derivation).
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 , the same proportional increase in the resonant frequencies of the object's emitted spectrum, and this is confirmed by experimental observations . 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. This is confirmed by the final algorithm for the frequency change in experiment . 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. There is no known physical method for gravity to change mass without employing energy. A gravity field is not an energy field and cannot supply the energy needed.
Therefore we can safely say that a change of gravitational field strength does not directly cause relativistic effects, but the addition of energy does.
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 in the test object, contrary to popular belief . Therefore, 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. When the object is brought to rest the kinetic energy becomes zero and the apparent mass assumes the rest-rest value appropriate for the new altitude.
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 has no matter, so has no potential gravitational field, and gravity requires two such fields to interact to cause attraction. To believe that gravity affects light requires mistaken logic or the fantasy of distortion of space itself. 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 different frequencies only when its energy level (potential energy) is changed, such as when it is moved up or down a gravitational potential. The Doppler Effect of relative motion is not a relativity effect (in the context used herein), as it does not affect the frequency of the emitted radiation.
Let us now 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. 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 gamma), 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. THE VALUE OF G SHOULD, indubitably, NOT CHANGE in these circumstances, so the attractive force must emanate from a non-relativistic source. The masses of the two objects would still increase in the above experiment from the work done, but the force of attraction of the objects at the same distance apart would not change, so the ratios of their weights to a standard weight (w) in a gravity field could be used instead of masses as these are obviously directly proportional to their attractive potential, and are independent of the substances. The numerical values would be the same as previously used, but the dimension of "mass" would be eliminated from equation (1), causing G to be a universal constant.
Therefore, as gravity is not due to mass, 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, therefore always obtaining highly accurate equality, which disposes of item 4 above.
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 (approximately 1 part in 1035) than the repulsive force between like charges, those forces being supplied by the nucleons and electrons in atoms, as proposed by Kopernicky and demonstrated by experiments such as the "Inchworm" experiment many years ago, but ignored for whatever reason.
A more recent paper supporting electrostatic gravity  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 the pairs of electrostatic charges of opposite polarity (dipoles) associated with it (e.g. nucleons 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 gravitational field.
Thus, attractive force attributable to an atom should be proportional to the number of its nucleons (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 (2)
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 same as the universal constant hc.
Due to the Earth’s attractive force, the downward acceleration (g) of an inertial mass (m), from Newton’s second law of motion (g = F/m) and eq. (2), is
g = GWw/mD² , (3)
where W is the effective relative weight of the Earth, which is determined from the measurements of the other items, and D is the effective distance to the center of the Earth. The relativistic change in g due to the mass m becomes proportional to gamma-1 instead of gamma for an increase in altitude; that is, it now increases the effect of a change in the distance D. However, the relativistic effect is much smaller than the estimated change in D² (approx. one part in 1010 per km smaller) or the accuracy of the other variables.
The postulation that g is the same for all substances  was clearly based on the assumption that the gravitational mass m in eq. (1) (now w) had the same numerical value as the inertial mass m in eq. (3) (the principle of equivalence, which was adopted as true by Einstein ). But, gravitational mass does not exist, so if, for a given substance, we now replace W in eq.(3) with mass number, and replace m with atomic mass (these being proportional changes), we see, from tables of these quantities, that different substances should give rise to different values for g, the variable individual mass defect values creating the differences.
“It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.” – Albert Einstein.
Bodies containing a mixture of many different substances could produce a near constant value for g. This could be a possible subject for investigation, but, now, is hardly a valid feature on which to build a theory of gravity, as happened with GR .
Since gravity is involved in the condition known as "free-fall", it is discussed further 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 can only occur 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 from all points of view that 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 (i.e. mass), the total energy staying constant. Speed itself is a concept and, without magic, possesses no known means of changing mass to cause relativistic effects. Speed is often the result of applied energy (in external frames of reference), which has resulted in the assumption that speed is the cause of relativistic effects, instead of energy.
Therefore, the “relativistic Doppler” equation and relativity corrections for eccentricity and associated speed changes should not be applied to clocks in orbiting satellites of surveying systems, which are in free-fall. 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 matter) that existed before relativity theories 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 such theories as GR, should not occur, and it was found to be so by Renshaw . In 1999 he showed that the apparent problem of disagreement between the actual frequencies and relativity predicted frequencies did not exist if Newtonian equations (non-relativistic, e.g. eq.3) were used in the calculations instead.
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 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) , but, as the new dimensions of the constant G are the same as for the product hc, the Planck mass (hc⁄G)0.5 is now dimensionless so cannot define a unit of mass, and the other Planck units become meaningless. Thus, the principle of relativity is now preserved, whereas it was violated by the existence of absolute values, and physics theories and research must be re-visited where Planck units have been involved.
Since h and c were shown in Natural Relativity  to be relativistic in moving frames, the gravitational and Coulomb force constants (electrostatic and magnetic) are the only known individual universal constants.
It is postulated that neutrons are needed in nuclei to provide the necessary binding forces, with their negative charges at one end of an elongated particle placed against and interposed between the positive charges of multiple protons. If neutrons had no charges (just inert mass), or had charges very close to each other, they would not provide any binding force to prevent disintegration of the nucleus due to the repulsive forces of the positive 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, and positioned on the outsde of the nucleus mass.
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 (electostatic charges) gives some insight into the construction of neutrons and of nuclei. Different nuclear structures could be expected to give rise to small differences in attractive force per nucleon for different substances as well as differences in their 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.
The masses in Newton’s law of gravity are replaced with numbers related to the actual forces of attraction. The dimensions of G change to ML3T-2 , and it becomes the expected universal constant. The product hc has the same dimensions as G, so both are universal constants and 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 system of physics is superior to theories postulating that gravity is caused by mass (or by distorting space, in one theory!) 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 superfluous, have no evidence to support them, and often appear to have been the result of jumping to wrong conclusions, or attempts to confirm other theories.
Adding in the facts that relativistic changes are due to additions of energy, instead of motion or gravitational fields, and gravity not existing at subatomic level, 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, which are now often assumed to be facts.
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.
Inertial (real) mass weighs nothing, and fictitious gravitational mass had weight!
Gravity was a little strange, indeed, but is now much clearer; it also agrees with Michael Faraday and fulfills Einstein’s wish.
1. M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 2nded. (Dover, New York, 1962)
2. I. Newton, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (the Principia), (1687).
3. N. Bohr, “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules“, Philos. Mag. 26:1 (1913).
4. R. V. Pound and G.A.Rebka, Phys.Rev.Lett. 4, 337 (1960).
5. H. Semat, Ref. 3, p. 474.
6. J. J. Kopernicky and W.L.Hughes, Galilean Electrodynamics 16, 83-90(2005).
7. M. F. Spears, Galilean Electrodynamics 21, 23-32 (2010).
8. D. Halliday and R. Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1988), p350; M. Born, Ref. 1, p.312.
9. C. Renshaw, Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conf. 2, 59-63 (1999).
10. R. M. Wald, General Relativity, (University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp.378-9.
11. D. V. Connell, Phys. Essays 22, 3, 402-412 (2009).
click here to return to CONTENTS.