Hypothesis: The following model could behave with characteristics similar to those of gravity and inertia.

The universe is a flat, generally empty, void containing areas of matter, that consist of massless, electric charges clumped into various groups, combinations and orbiting systems. Electrons, atoms and planets are examples of such systems. Gravity is caused by an imbalance in electrostatic attraction in those systems. Inertia is a closely related effect. Mass is the measure of these effects. Weight is a force generated by these effects.

It is not the scope of this paper to explain the exact construction of matter. What is of concern here, is the relative distribution of charge in a neutral object or system. Most charged particles attract and join with oppositely charged objects or systems. This process tends to neutralize, in some ways, the electrostatic charge of the resultant combined system. It is the author's suggestion that even after these unions, there are still distinct areas of active charge in these electrically neutral systems, that can react with other neutral matter. These charges cannot occupy the same position so there is separation of charged areas. If there is separation of charge, there are more positive areas and more negative areas.

This speculation is, in part, based on an idea originally proposed by Arnold Sommerfeld, that electron orbits can be slightly asymmetrical in nature. Sommerfeld then went on to use Kepler's Laws to predict the nature of these orbits. Most researchers, however, believe that Kepler's Laws work only on larger objects where "classical" physics applies. Sub-atomic matter does not orbit like large heavenly bodies. A comet or planet in an elliptical orbit spends much of its orbital period floating along at the distant reaches, before "falling" and accelerating towards its star, speeding by it at the nearest point, then slowing down as it moves away. When it is farthest away, the comet or planet spends proportionately more time pulling in that direction. Over a complete solar orbit, the star is pulled equally by the orbital in all directions on the plane. It has to be balanced in this closed system.

Negatively charged quantum orbitals (with wave characteristics, perhaps standing wave characteristics) may not have the option of constantly speeding up and slowing down when their orbits are repelled by the presence of other negatively charged orbitals. We do not know the exact nature of these orbitals, but it is considered useful to visualize electron clouds as rings or complete shells. And rather than a deformation of its shape, it may be better to think of the electron shells as retaining their normal shape, but being merely offset slightly by the presence of other repelling orbitals. Electrons remain near their normal energy levels, but they are pushed nearer to the nucleus on one side and bulge out farther than normal on the opposite side. As with gravity, the inverse square law for distance also applies to electrostatic attraction so there is an imbalance because of these different distances. This imbalance in attraction is not compensated for, by a longer period in the more distant sections and a short duration when closest. A proper quantum expression might read "An imbalance in the statistically averaged distribution of charge in the orbital cloud is the source of a force action."

Mechanism of Gravity: As two electrically neutral atoms are moved nearer to each other, the electron shells of both atoms feel the mutual repulsion of their negative electrostatic charges sooner and more strongly than the much farther apart, positively charged nuclei. The shells are offset, pushed in towards the nucleus on the sides facing the other atom, and bulge out on the far sides. The positively charged nucleus would be more attracted to its own electron cloud where it is pushed in, and less attracted to the more distant, bulged out section at the rear. The net result is that the nuclei want to move closer towards each other. They are not really attracted to each other, but are attracted to their own "pushed in" electron shells, which are being repelled by other electron clouds. Gravity therefore is not a true direct force. Gravitational attraction is the result of an imbalance in orbital-nuclear attraction caused by the mutual repulsion of orbital clouds. A clump of matter wants to stay together, and from all sides it displays bulging orbits. The more "massive" (see mass below) an object, the greater is it's electrostatic distortion field. The total body is electrically neutral, but the bulging orbitals create an external field that distorts the orbital clouds of other electrically neutral matter. It is not an Es or Em field, nor is it "curved" space/time. It is a field caused by the imbalanced distribution of charge in electrically neutral matter. The negatively charge is offset, and closer to the surface than the positive charge. This offset of charge creates a distortion field that affects and attracts other matter.

A large object, with its electron shells bulging in a direction radiating from the centre of gravity, emanates a strong, distortion field to the rest of the universe that is difficult to shield. Matter at the centre of the object is compressed, but in a neutral gravitational position. It is being squeezed by all of the matter around that centre of gravity. Every object has a centre of gravity. Every planet, every grain of sand has a neutral position near it’s centre from which the direction of it’s gravitational field radiates. An atom at that point is equally surrounded by the other matter in the object. It has a symmetrical electron cloud. This centre of gravity acts as a back-stop for all the matter above it in all directions. Electrons in matter at this centre are still near their normal energy levels, but are uniformly collapsed inwards slightly, towards each nucleus. With that matter under great pressure the electron shells are pushed close together. There is strong repulsion between electron clouds, which forces electron clouds in matter above them to bulge outwards.

And these neutral gravity positions are dynamic. They move as objects change shape and size. Two equally large objects approaching each other, pushing at each other's electron clouds with their own distortion fields, would have the effect of forcing the central, neutral gravitational positions of each object towards the surface of the object in the direction of the other object. This has the effect of increasing the amount of matter with repelled negative charge,(rear budging orbits), on the far side of the closing neutral positions. That means that more and more matter is attracted toward the other object. When the objects meet and join, one new, single centre of gravity exists near where the surface was between the two objects. There are two distinct parts of gravitational interaction. One is the creation of a field. The other is the creation of a self-force in reaction to that field. This movement of the centre of gravity is an important self force reaction to a field.

The theory fits some well known, gravitational properties:

-Gravity always attracts. This model cannot repel. Virtually all atoms have a positive nucleus and negative orbitals.

-Shielding is difficult, because any matter in between objects, is deformed appropriately, then adds to the total field strength. The more material, the more shells bulging away from the centre of the mass, and the greater the distortion field reaching out to influence other matter.

-Distance diminishes the strength of this apparent force but the range is infinite. Perhaps researchers who predict and detect a "Zero Point" field or an "Aether" in empty space are really finding a sea of gravitational fields. The strength and direction of these fields varies everywhere in the universe due to local and long-range influences.

Mechanism of Inertia: Using the above theory of offset orbital clouds, the elusive explanation of inertia is now possible. Remember the building blocks of matter have no mass, just charge. Atomic inertial reaction is a self-force caused by the offset of electron shells from contact with other matter. Nuclei do not instantaneously change velocity when their orbital shells are mechanically pushed. Very few things happen instantaneously. Before a nucleus can respond, the low-mass electron cloud is offset, pushed in towards the more massive nucleus from the direction of the outside mechanical force, and it bulges out at the rear. The nucleus is attracted towards an on-coming force for the reasons given earlier (attracted to the closest part of it's own electron cloud). It displays a "resistance to a change in motion". This behavior defines inertia. Each atom is like a miniature accelerometer, with a relatively "massive", high inertia, nucleus floating inside a very active, " low-mass", low inertia, but equally and oppositely charged, cloud of orbitals. Larger clumps of matter react in the same way. When the force is removed, acceleration ceases, and inertial reaction stops. The nuclei spring back to their normal position at the centre of the again symmetrical, electron cloud, and the atom moves off at an altered velocity. Most inertia is atomic because there is much more charge separation than in smaller sub-atomic systems. Quantum orbital deformation is not applicable to larger compounds. The effects of atomic inertia increase through the periodic table, with the atomic mass. Inertial reaction will be defined here as "weight".

Unified? Gravity and inertia can be considered the same self-force reaction to two types of outside influences. Gravity is a long-range orbital repulsion influence while mechanical force is short-range orbital repulsion influence. Gravitational attraction could be viewed as a kind of inertial reaction to the long range effect. Orbital clouds are offset, repelled by either a distortion field, or actual contact. Both cause a force action towards the source of the influence. A physical force must be transferred throughout the object causing compression and other acceleration effects, but a gravitational field affects every particle in the reacting object (almost) equally. The gravitational source creates an acceleration field that affects every atom in any size object the same way provided they are the same distance from the centre of gravity.

So is there inertial reaction to gravitational acceleration? No. As stated above, acceleration due to gravity is an inertial reaction, to a distortion field. You cannot have an inertial reaction to an inertial reaction. There is inertia reaction (weight) due to gravity only when an object is held up from its weightless gravitational acceleration (free fall) to the centre of gravity of the gravitational force. This is done on earth by the earth's surface.

What is Weight? As stated above, there is no inertial reaction to gravitational acceleration. All objects in the universe prefer to travel in a free fall path. They can accelerate due to gravitational fields, but remain weightless. Objects would require constant course corrections, using thrusters or other means if trying to travel in some artificial straight line through space. Weight is an inertial reaction present only when objects are accelerated away from their current free fall trajectory.

Equivalence: -We could use Einstein's famous "lift" to illustrate a point, only ours has sensitive accelerometers to detect any outside forces. Our elevator also has a rocket booster attached and travels through space. When in space with the engine off, we are in a weightless, free fall that would continue indefinitely, until we come so close to another body that we either go into orbit, are inescapably drawn to the centre of it's gravity, or simply collide with another object. Whenever the engine is turned on and generating a steady force, we are accelerated away from our free fall path (which is updated continuously). If the acceleration generated is 9.8 meters/sec^2 in any direction (front, back sideways, up, or down), then in our elevator, we experience something very similar to our "weight" on earth. The important point is that it is the acceleration away from the preferred free fall path that causes these inertial effects. The only relevant vector is the radial displacement from where the elevator would have been, at that same moment, had it continued on it's preferred free fall path. When the engine is turned off, acceleration ceases and we are now on a new free fall path. The inertial reaction during acceleration is equivalent to the "weight" of the entire elevator, and is equal to the force generated by the engine.

-Our elevator came too close to the earth and is now captured by the gravitation field. It free falls weightlessly towards the centre of the earth. Fortunately it was equipped with a parachute and it landed safely on the earth's surface. We notice, after touch down, however, that our accelerometers tell us that we are experiencing another 9.8 meters/sec^2 acceleration. This is the measure of the gravitational field on the surface of the earth, of course. If we had been allowed to continue on our free path fall through the surface of the earth towards the centre of gravity, then the weight we are experiencing would disappear. We could correctly say that the crust of the earth is preventing us from continuing on our weightless, free fall path through the universe. In this case that is towards the centre of the earth. Relative to the earth, the elevator's free fall path would have been an acceleration of 9.8mps^2 downward. The ground is keeping our mass from the preferred free fall path at an equivalent rate upwards. We are being accelerated upwards at a rate of 9.8mps^2. Just as in space, due to that acceleration, we feel an inertial reaction similar to our normal weight on earth.

What is Mass? Mass is not the amount of matter in an object. It actually requires at least three definitions:

Inertial mass is the measure of the ability of an object to react against a physical force. If you apply a specific force (using other matter) to an object and measure the acceleration, using the familiar m = f /a, the mass can be found. One could say "That object has a resistance to acceleration of 2 kg."

Active gravitational mass is the measure of the ability of an object to generate a gravitational field. If you know your distance to a gravitational source, and the acceleration you are experiencing, then transpose the field equation g= Gm/d^2 to m= g d^2/G

Reactive gravitational mass is the measure of the ability of an object to generate self-force in a gravitational field. Using the famous f=Gm1*m2/d^2 we can calculate reactive mass: mass2 = f X d^2/ G X m1

"Inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are still equivalent, and most of the old equations seem to work in this scenario. Mass is, however, only a measure of these three properties of a system of point charges. It does not quantify the actual amount of matter or complexity of a system. We may find that simpler, smaller systems can display more mass reaction then larger, complex systems, which due to their construction, have little ability to react with other matter. Other fields can have similar effects and a mixture of effects depending on the reacting material. Particles attracted or repelled by any field never display extra inertial reaction. Some fields only affect certain things. Objects are often a composite of different materials. Reacting material, in a composite, must also drag the attached non-reacting material which will, of course, have an inertial reaction.

What is the "Universal Gravitational Constant"? The constant G is a kind of conversion factor by which we multiply the mass of the gravitational source to arrive at the strength of the acceleration field (g) generated by that mass. And since it is weakened with the square of the distance from the centre of that mass the complete field equation is g= G m/d^2.

Sub-Sub: On the sub-atomic scale, how does the above theory explain plasmas, or particles smaller than atoms that react to and generate a gravitational effect? The only answer I have is that everything is made of much smaller bits, waves, systems and combinations of point charges. Have we discovered the smallest particles? We do not know the internal structure of electrons and protons? If things are not stuck together, then they could be in orbits around each other. If they are stuck together, then they are just a different particle/wave/thing/ perhaps spinning around. Maybe spinning particles are smaller orbiting systems. Two or more points of electrostatic energy bonded by electrostatic forces spinning around each other are in a kind of low orbit. If things are in orbit, then there should be separation between higher and lower orbiting charges and those charge structures can be deformed. Again most gravitation and inertia is atomic because there is much more charge separation than in smaller sub-atomic systems.

Perhaps other forces are really the same principle working on a very small scale. Picture something in an orbital cloud around something in orbit around the centre of an electron. Maybe all matter is various combinations, systems and structures of only two different, mono-pole, point charges (or one dipole), and all of the forces are caused by those charges. You cannot get much more primordial than one or two building blocks with one basic force. Black holes and the light lensing of photons by massive bodies could be explained if photons are themselves systems of point charges reacting to strong gravitational fields. On the other hand, an electrically neutral quantum thing, (however complex) having no spin or orbital cloud (or an equal binary orbiting system with charge centres at the same altitude) might display no mass at all. Barring a direct collision, it would pass by other matter without interacting and provide little evidence that it ever existed. A neutrino perhaps?

And how about a new law of motion: An object will continue on its weightless free fall path through the acceleration fields of the universe unless acted upon by an outside force, causing it to be accelerated away from its current free fall path.

Outside non-gravitational force = mass X radial acceleration from where it would have been

How do we use this information? The answer appears be high voltage. Experiments by T.T. Brown, and more recently by JLN Labs seem to indicate that high voltage static DC charged devices can exhibit lift and thrust. Charged capacitors have generated forces towards the positive pole. That would seem to fit this model by reacting to the distortion field created by the bulging atomic orbits of earth matter. On a planet's surface, one would expect to experience a negative distortion field. The positive side of a capacitor system/device would be attracted towards where ever it was pointed.

Well, that's it and of course it is wrong in many ways. I have already revised it 34 times. But it is a relatively simple concept that seems to fit together. My hope is that some expert will find part of it useful. This is for public consumption. No credit is requested.

Thank you for taking the time to review this page.

Brian Mills, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. [email protected]

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/georgia/27/index.html