What is Gravity?


Starting from a search on the internet for the query "What is gravity" it becomes clear that the honest answer is "we don't know". Here's what NASA has to say on the subject:




This is not a very satisfying answer. But what other theories about gravity exist that might be able to answer this question.


The closest thing we have from mainstream science is Einstein's explanation of gravity. This always has to do something with rolling a bowling ball on a sheet of rubber. The main problem with this analogy is that it relies on the force of gravity to explain gravity. This analogy assumes the presence of a gravitational downward force to cause the ball to warp the rubber sheet. If you put this ball and sheet on the space shuttle with no gravity - suddenly this doesn't work any more. The logic is pretty circular. But it is just supposed to be an analogy - and a bad one at that.


The more technical explanations of Einstein's gravity has to do with the funny notion that gravity is not a force. As strange as that seems, it is like when you are in an elevator that suddenly accelerates upward, you feel a force on your feet, but there is no actual downward force pushing your feet down as if there were a rocket tied to the top of your head. This all happens due to the geometry of the situation.


The other notion from Einstein is that of warped space. In this explanation, a straight line is whatever path an object naturally takes from point A to B. In the case of a cannon ball rising and falling to the Earth - hey, that wasn't a parabolic curve, that was a straight line according to the cannon ball. And when you drop a ball and it accelerates downward, it isn't really accelerating, it is going the same speed, it is just that the space beneath the ball becomes more compressed as it drops, so it just looks like it is going faster. Gravity is just due to all this warping.


Does all of this sound hard to believe? Well, I'll admit I'm no expert on Einstein and most of what I read made no sense whatsoever, but what little I could glean that did make sense, I have tried to relate. There is a quote about Einstein on how someone had listed to Einstein trying to explain his theories for an hour and after an hour, he was convinced that Einstein knew what he was talking about (of course he himself still had no clue).


This, of course, remains the basic problem behind Einstein's explanation of gravity. Even though the equations he derived describe the world with complete accuracy, the basics behind it seem to be sheer lunacy. I think the problem here isn't that Einstein's theory is complex or fundamentally hard to understand, so us laypeople can't possible comprehend it. Rather, I think the theory just doesn't make any damn sense. I mean in the "logically impossible" sense of the word. It is like saying A > B and B > A. Those two can't be true at the same time. And if Einstein's explanation is really good, why do most honest scientists say "they have no clue"? Also, even if this is totally correct, it doesn't say how this warping works or how we could manipulate it. We'll never get an anti-gravitational car out of this theory.


Another mainline explanation comes by the way of string theory. Everything is made out of these 'strings' and dimensions. Usually this comes with a blackboard of equations which somehow relate gravity to the rest of the known forces and shows that gravity should be weaker compared with other forces. The problem here is that an equation does not explain anything. So what if you have an equation which relates the magnetic force to gravitational force? This still doesn't give you clue one as to why either of these forces attract. At best it seems string theory would setup equality among the forces and would serve like a multiplication table where you could put in any 2 numbers and get the right answer, but still wouldn't have a clue about what the multiplication operation was all about.


Even further out in the mainline are theories related to string theory like the one promoted by Lisa Randall, that says that gravity is a force that is leaking out of another dimension. Well, I find it hard to believe that anyone takes this seriously. Just what is this force which leaks - electrostatic, magnetic, strong, weak - what? Where is this dimension and how do we find it? This just seems more like science fiction than science. For a summary of string theory, see: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-string-theory.htm


I think a fundamental problem with these types of theories is that they always postulate the existence of something like 'strings' or extra 'dimensions' or warps which we don't already know exist. I think this is replacing the question of 'what is gravity' with the equivalent question of 'what is x'. This really doesn't explain anything. I could say that gravity is created by green Martians in their gravity factory. Of course, without any proof of green Martians, you wouldn't believe me, would you? Neither should you believe in gravity caused by 'strings'.


If you have a theory which reduces to something else, then the thing it reduces to should be something that we know exists. So you could have a theory of gravity which reduces to the question of 'what is an electron?' or 'what is the electrostatic force' or 'what is an apple?'. Each of these we know exists, so we have made some significant progress, even though we still might not know how an electron, electrostatic force or an apple works. A theory should not reduce down to something completely unknown and unproven.


So if mainline science doesn't have the answer, what do the cranks and crackpot mad scientists have to say?


One theory can be found in the book "The Final theory" by Mark McCutcheon. I like to call this theory the exploding Earth theory because it says that gravity is actually caused by the Earth expanding and rushing up to meet any object released above it. Drop a ball on a table - didn't you just see the table rush up to the ball when you released it as the Earth rapidly expanded in diameter? We just don't notice it since everything is expanding at the same rate. This is somewhat similar to Einstein in that gravity is not a force. The whole book is dedicated to exploring this idea in detail and relating it to the other forces in nature, all due to the same universal expansion of all objects. Heck, if you believe in the expansion of the universe, why not the expansion of all objects in space? This does lead to some odd predictions such as gravity only depends on the diameter of an object, so a Styrofoam Earth will gravitate as much as a lead Earth. Who knows - do you have a Styrofoam Earth to experiment with - no? Well, I guess it will be hard to disprove this theory.


But once again, this theory suffers from the same problem that it reduces to something we do not already know exists which is this massive universal expansion. Why would all matter continuously expand? How could you prove such a thing? Without any direct evidence for the existence of the expansion, this leaves this theory unprovable, but it does give you some creative ideas about how you could explain gravity. For more information about this theory, see: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/


The other major theme for alternative gravity explanations is the 'push theory' of gravity. In this theory, we are not being attracted to the Earth by a 'pull', rather, there is a force coming from all of space which is pushing us down onto the Earth like standing under a waterfall. In this theory, there are particles randomly distributed and raining down on all objects in space. When objects are nearby, they produce a shadow effect which decreases the pressure of the force between objects, thus causing them to come together due to the lower pressure between the object - a kind of vacuum. Of course, this theory like all the other postulates the existence of a particle that rains down on us which we do not know exists or have evidence for. But it provides yet another possible way to explain gravity. For more information about this theory, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation


Finally, there is the joke answer: "What is gravity? There is no gravity, the Earth just sucks."


So what is the answer to the question of 'What is gravity?'. I think that if you are searching for the answer to something and you ruled out all reasonable and even unreasonable explanations, then the true answer must still lie in something that you have incorrectly ruled out before. I think that this is the case for gravity in that we have ruled out the most obvious of explanation for gravity -out of hand- and with no legitimate reason.


What is this most 'obvious' explanation?


The obvious explanation is that "gravity is directly caused by the electrostatic force".


This isn't so impossible to believe, after all both the electrostatic and gravity forces create an attractive force. Both act across unlimited distances. Both drop off in strength 1/r^2. The types of reactions they cause matter have are very similar. Plus, we know the electrostatic force exists. We can easily see the electrostatic force in action when we rub a balloon on our head and stick it on the wall. The electrostatic force can undoubtedly create an attractive force like gravity. I mean, what's harder to believe - that gravity is an aspect of an attractive force that we already know of, or is it easier to believe in 'strings', leaking gravity, or the exploding Earth?


Well, if it is so obvious, why is it so completely rejected by the scientific community without even a thought. The key here is 'rejected without a thought' - meaning that this idea is seemingly ruled out by even more 'obvious' means using what I would call 'paper-napkin' calculations and arguments which do not go into any depth. These are casual calculations you might quickly write on a paper-napkin over a dinner discussion and serve as a 'slam-dunk' argument against an electrostatic gravity.


For example, gravity cannot be caused because the electrostatic force because we know the electrostatic force is both attractive and repels, but gravity is only attractive. Therefore gravity must be different from the electrostatic force. This is just as far as this argument goes, nothing else backs it up as it is 'obvious'. We all believe it and go 'yeah, that must be right' - without another thought.


But it is not so obvious. Everyone knows that opposite charges attract but what does a charge do to a neutrally charged piece of matter? The answer is - it also attracts it unconditionally. This is what most people don't know, all neutrally charged matter is attracted to large point electrostatic charge. It doesn't even matter what polarity the charge is, positive or negative - if you put a ball of charge in the center of a room, everything will be attracted towards it - just like gravity. So the electrostatic force can act like an all attractive force. And as for gravity only being an attractive force, what happens to helium balloons? In this case, the balloon is actually being repelled from the Earth gravitational field. If you turned off the Earth gravity field, the balloon would remain stationary. You might say this has to do with buoyancy, but the point is, the effect of gravity depends on the material that an object is immersed in. We feel downward gravity because air is not as dense as us, but put us in a pool of mercury and we would feel and upward gravity. So it isn't even that clear that gravity is only an attractive force.


Another reason to reject an electrostatic gravity is because gravity is so much weaker than the electrostatic force. Gravity is only 1/1(followed by 40 zeros) the strength of the electrostatic force. So of course, it couldn't possibly be the same thing. Or could it? The simple explanation here is that gravity is a diluted electrostatic force. If you took a group of 1 x 10^40 atoms and removed just one electron from that group, it would produce a force which is exactly equivalent in force to gravity. The magnitude of the force is actually irrelevant, you can always dilute a stronger force into a weaker one by spreading it across more mass. No need to resort to leaking dimensional branes to work out the weakness of gravity.


So if gravity is the direct result of the electrostatic force, how does it operate as gravity?


I feel that the electrostatic gravity can operate in 2 possible ways. The first is the most simple and preferred theory which is that the Earth and all celestial bodies are all slightly positively charged. As I mentioned before, the loss of 1 electron for every 1x10^40 neutral charge pairs is enough to generate a force equivalent to gravity. The reasons for the electron loss is due to the fact that electrons are easily lost in matter. If you rub anything against anything else, you cause electron loss, so it is not unexpected that all celestial bodies would lose some charge to space, leaving all objects positively charged. This charge isn't much, but since electrostatic charges act as if they were summed up in the center of a planet, they do sum up to quite a large charge and create a huge force on the surface of a planet. As neutrally charged matter, you - me and everything around you is attracted to this charge by the same force that causes your socks to stick together in the dryer. Such an electrostatic force would be indistinguishable from what we call 'gravity'. So we can see how a normal electrostatic force could potentially create a gravitational field. Notice that I haven't used anything that we don't already know exists and behaves - I've got nothing up my sleeves.


Of course, the obvious objection is that if everything is positively charged, then the sun, Earth and moon should all be repelled from one another - right? Similar charges repel. So while we might be attracted to the Earth, it should speed away from the sun. So this couldn't possibly be right.


Be careful with those paper napkin calculations. Remember that neutrally charged matter which makes up 99.9999999% of the matter in a celestial object is attracted to any point charge source. To the Earth, the sun appears as a point charge source and almost every bit of matter in it is attracted to that source. A tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth has a net positive charge (.0000 -follow with about 38 zeros ... 01%) which is actually repelled from the sun, but it is such a tiny fraction that it is overwhelmed by the abundance of neutrally charged matter attracted to the sun. So it is possible two objects which are net positively charged to still be attracted to one another. What is neglected in the 'obvious' objection is that neutral matter is attracted to point electrostatic charges.


Another objection would be that if the earth is so electrically charged, how come we don't notice it. If there were a million volt electrical charge under my feet, wouldn't we get electrocuted?


Well, first the degree of electric charge is extremely small - so small as to be un-measurable for any reasonable sized mass. Mainstream science will tell you that the Earth is completely neutrally charged. What this really means is that to the degree that we can measure a charge on the Earth (which is limited), it has no charge. But even the tiniest of imbalance of charges add up to a very large effect. The reason why we don't get zapped is that the electric charge is very diffuse and distributed all over the Earth. A charge all the way on the opposite side of the Earth isn't going to be able to migrate across the Earth to zap your feet. However, that charge, due to the laws of electrostatics acts as if it and all the other charges in the Earth were located at a singular point at the center of the Earth. This is quite a remarkable effect. The result is that you get a strong summed up electrostatic field, but without the charges being anywhere nearby. It is like the field is disconnected from the actual charge. For details on how this works, see:



(This is for a hollow sphere, but the Earth is just a series of spheres within each other - the force still sums to the center) This is yet another law with is applicable to both electrostatics and gravity.


This is the major difference from electrostatics we see in our normal lives and gravitational electrostatics. For example, we can create a high electrical charge on a VanDeGraff generator, but it will zap you if you get close enough. We normally cannot generate high electrical fields without it attempting to discharge due to the high local displacement of charges.


Another fact supporting the charged Earth is that we do 'in fact' measure the electrical charge of the Earth. It is a well known an accepted scientific fact that the voltage potential from the ground to the stratosphere is at least 300,000 volts. For details on this:




Even on the ground the voltage potential difference is about 120 volts per meter. This is electricity that can actually be harvested out of the air by placing one wire in air and another wire in the ground. A voltage potential will build up between these 2 wires that can be used to power something. Just where does this electric field come from if the Earth isn't charged? I'd say it makes a lot more sense to say that the electric field is directly generated by the charged Earth.


When lightning strikes, it is typically returning electrons to the Earth as negative charges are attracted to the positively charged Earth and is a simple explanation for why lighting strikes occur across the Earth constantly. It can also be seen that in thunderclouds, the positive charges migrate towards the top and the negative charges migrated towards the bottom. Mainstream science currently has no accepted reason for why this charge separation should occur, but if you think of the Earth as a positively charge ball, it becomes obvious that the positive charges should be repelled to the top of the clouds. So there is plenty of evidence that the Earth carries a large electric charge.


A simple consequence of this theory of gravity is that if the Earth is just a positively charged ball, then if we charged something up with sufficient positive charge, it should be repelled from the Earth. So if I managed to charge up my car enough, I could get it to float away - so this is a possible way to anti-gravity cars. However, the reality is that it is nearly impossible to accumulate enough charge on a car (probably several million volts would be required) before it would immediately discharge to the ground. However, it may be possible to levitate lighter things such as a soap bubble.


I conducted an experiment where I blew soap bubbles while I was connected to a VanDeGraff generator which created a positive charge on the dome. In this experiment, some of the bubbles did seem to rise rapidly as if they had been filled with helium. To check to see if this was just the result of bubbles being repelled from the VanDeGraff generator, I reversed the polarity on my generator so I blew negatively charged bubbles. The result was not only did they just all drop to the floor, but they seemed to drop faster. This both supports the idea that the Earth is radiating a positive charge field and that gravity can be negated through electrostatic means.


So what is still wrong with this picture? While much of what I have related makes perfect sense, there are some serious issues with this simple electrostatic gravity picture. If you do some more paper-napkin calculations about how neutrally charged matter should be attracted to a point charge, you find that the force that should be generated could not possibly be a 1/r^2 force. Attraction of opposite charges is 1/r^2 like gravity, but the attraction of neutral matter is caused by the slight dipole separation of charges within matter. According to calculations, this should drop off as 1/r^3 or greater. Planets would not be able to maintain their orbits with such a force. So we can completely discard this idea of electrostatic gravity, right?


Once again, be careful with those paper-napkin calculations - these are after all, calculations. We do not know all the microscopic structures of subatomic particles, so we are making numerous assumptions, all of which could be fatally wrong. The only way to know for sure how a force works is to measure it by experiment. Despite a lengthy search on the internet for experiments which relate the attractive force of a point charge to a large neutrally charged mass, I could find none, nothing, zip, nada, zilch. I find it quite odd that I can find nothing about this important attractive force.


So, I did my own experiment using a VanDeGraff generator to determine the distance required to levitate a small mass. By varying the mass, I would work out the relationship between force and radius. My initial experiments confirmed a 1/r^2 relationship. But then I discovered that the pin I was using to hold up my small test mass was allowing the mass to become charged through induction because the positive field forced all the positive charges out of the mass leaving the mass negatively charged. I was still measuring the force of oppositely charged particles.


So I then supported the mass with a plastic whisker which prevented the charge from running out of the mass. The force appeared to be much weaker and aI got a result which looked like 1/r. I have later come to realize that the curves you get for 1/r and 1/r^2 look nearly identical for a radius up to 10. You really have to have a radius of at least 12-18 to be able to tell the difference between 1/r and 1/r^2 and my experiment may not have gone into this range. So I still don't have a conclusive experiment to show that the force relationship between a point charge and a lump of neutral matter is 1/r^2 despite whatever the calculations might lead you to believe. The important point is that you can NEVER rely on calculations alone to determine physical behavior. So until someone shows me an experiment showing otherwise, it is still possible for the simple electrostatic gravity to work as 1/r^2.


I also took another approach to the problem. The reason why we think gravity is a 1/r^2 force is because Newton worked out the centripetal and gravitational forces balance out if gravity is a 1/r^2 force. I needed to make gravity a 1/r force to match my experiments and the only way to balance out the equations was to change the formula for the centripetal force. I was unable to find any experiments directly measuring the centripetal force relationship so once again, I did my own experiment. I did this by attaching a metal ball to a magnet and placing it on a cantilever to spin it around. I varied the radius and observed how fast it rotated when the magnet let go of the magnet. By using the data, I could work out the centripetal force relationship. My initial experiments conflicted with the accepted formula. This is where I discovered that for radius less than 7, 1/r and 1/r^2 look nearly identical. I redid the experiment with much larger radius and this did confirm the accepted formula. So I don't think I will find the answer in this manner.


I bring up these two experiments to show that you don't need multi-billion dollar accelerators to do gravity research. These are things you can do in your own garage with minimal setup. It also points out how you should never blindly trust something you see in a textbook. Do your own experiments.


While the Earth as a positively charged ball is by far the simplest explanation, there is another possibility for an electrostatic gravity. A proton and an electron are not the same kind of particle. The proton is over a 1000 times more massive than the electron and protons cannot be easily stripped from an atom. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that this difference might cause a very tiny difference in how their electrical charges work. It turns out that if you make the assumption that strength of the repelling force between similar charges is just a tiny bit weaker than the attractive force between opposite charges, you get an all attractive force of gravity between all neutrally charged matter which must have a 1/r^2 force relationship. This immediately fixes the problem of the electrostatic gravity not being 1/r^2, so mathematically, it works out perfectly.


However, it is not as simple as the positively charged Earth theory and it would fail to explain why the Earth has an electric field if that electric field doesn't cause gravity all by itself. I prefer theories which explain multiple phenomenon as being aspects of the same phenomenon, so the charged Earth theory is more attractive. It would also be easier to reverse gravity if it is due to a simple positive charge. If gravity is due to the tiny difference between attraction and repulsion between charged pairs, then it is probably impossible to create they type of field using electrical means.


Now, I know, if there are any full time employed scientists out there reading this, you're just sitting at the edge of your seat going, NO! NO! NO!, that's got to be wrong - that's completely crazy - you're never going to be able to prove any of this!


Just hold onto your hats ... ask yourself, why do you react like this - honestly? Would you rather believe in strings and gravitons and multi-dimensions? Instead of thinking of all the things that could be wrong about this or that you know are wrong about this - think about how you could address and remove those issues. I have already shown several common 'obvious' objections which are easily overcome. If you could overcome those objections, then the prize would be answer to the question of 'What is gravity'. Not only that, it would be a very simple and beautiful theory that you could explain to a first grader.


Anyone who could conclusively describe the nature of gravity would be more famous than Einstein. Conventional science has been kicking this question around for centuries without a clue. Here is a dead simple explanation which immediately unifies gravity and the electrostatic force as one. So just stop it with the negative and start thinking about positives of how to solve the problems an electrostatic gravity presents.


Unlike other gravity theories, the electrostatic gravity reduces to an aspect of the well known and accepted electrostatic force. You are not required to accept anything which is currently unknown and so this gives the theory a viable base. However, this still leaves us with the question of how the electrostatic force works. We are now back where we started and instead of ‘what is gravity’, we have the question of ‘what is the electrostatic force’. So while some progress has been made in understanding what gravity is – the fundamental question of why things attract hasn’t been answered. Why should a proton attract an electron?


In the Standard Model, the electrostatic force is created by force carrier particles. The way these are supposed to work is that each bit of matter sends back and forth these force carrier particles and the more they send, the more they are attracted. Normally, we would think that if you are passing an object like a basketball between two people that the act of passing the ball faster and faster would be a repelling force, but according to the Standard Model of particle physics, they attract. For the electrostatic or electromagnetic force, these force carrier particles are called photons. Photons are also what we refer to as light.


So how can light bouncing back and forth between particles ever possibly cause an attractive or repulsive force? Does this make any sense at all?


The key is to understand what causes attractive and repulsive forces in our common experience. If you take a vacuum cleaner and point it at an object, you can see that it attracts objects to it. So we can easily understand attractive forces appear when an object is between a region of low pressure (the vacuum) and higher pressure (normal room pressure). Similarly, if we take leaf blower, we see that objects are repelled from a region of high pressure.


Therefore, we should try to understand the attraction of a positive and negative charge as somehow creating a region of low pressure between the charges which causes them to be sucked together. Similarly, we should understand that the repulsion of similar charges as somehow creating a region of high pressure between the identical charges.


In order to have regions of high or low pressure, we need some sort of medium like air which can fill all of space. But since we know that the electromagnetic force works even in a complete vacuum, it can’t possibly be air that creates the high or low pressure. It must be something else which is very difficult to detect.


I would propose that space is completely filled with particles like air filling a room, but these particles are made up of positron/electron pairs. We know that positron and electrons exist and what their properties are, but what we haven’t properly recognized is what happens when they collide. Standard science tells us that they annihilate each other and are converted entirely into energy. I don’t believe that this is the case because matter simply cannot disappear or be converted to energy. Neither can energy be converted into matter. What really happens it that as the positron and electron accelerate on a collision course, they attain the highest possible speed which is the speed of light. Upon collision, they release the kinetic energy of the collision which just happens to be E = mc^2 and it forms a new particle I call a poselectron. The poselectron forms the fundamental unit or quanta of space. This is the medium which transmits the electromagnetic wave across even a pure vacuum. If you hit a poselectron with mc^2 worth of energy, you can break the positron/electron bond and you get pair production of a separate positron and electron. These mass particles did not appear out of nowhere or were “converted” from pure energy – the mass particles were there all along.


So now that we have a medium capable of creating regions of high and low pressure, how do we make the pressure between a positive and negative charge lower?


One characteristic of almost anything is that everything has a resonant frequency. So if you hit a bell, it will ring out its particular resonant frequency. No matter how hard or how frequently, you hit the bell, it will always ring out with the same frequency. Positrons and electrons also have a resonant frequency. It is probably extremely high, perhaps in the range of 10^20 Hertz. So as positrons and electrons are jostled about by the ambient thermal energy, they are ringing out like tiny bells.


Positrons and electrons ring very similarly, except that they are 180 degrees out of phase which means that the waves from the positron are cancelled by the waves from the electron. So between a positron and electron, the waves are cancelled, which creates a region of low pressure between them. This causes the particles to appear to be attracted to one another. Similarly, between two positrons, the waves add up creating a region of high pressure between them which pushes the particles apart. So we have attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of similar charges. If you think this idea is far fetched and could never work in the real world, this very effect has been experimentally demonstrated using pulsing balloons in a water tank. The force works out to be a 1/r^2 force just like the electromagnetic force.


So now we have a clear commonsense picture of what causes the attraction and repulsion due to a simple pressure differential. We can now see that the “photons” which are really just electromagnetic waves, really do cause the attractive/repelling force. The photons don’t go back and forth as is stated in the Standard Model, but they just go forward like waves in a pond and interact with other waves to create pressure differentials.


This also shows the “energy source” for the electromagnetic and gravitational source. Mainstream science will deny that the forces we observe in electrostatic, magnetic and gravity fields require an “energy source”. However, if you consider a particle moving in space and the only way to change its speed or direction is by the application of some “energy” from somewhere. Particles simply don’t change their motion by themselves. The source of the energy comes from the surrounding ambient thermal energy – which is quite abundant at room temperatures. The speed of an air molecule at room temperature is something like 3000 mph. That’s a lot of energy.


A prediction of this theory would be that if you managed to remove all of the ambient thermal energy of an object and reduce its temperature to absolute zero, all electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational fields would cease to exist. We do see some odd behavior of materials which are close to these temperatures like the superfluidity of liquid helium – a fluid capable of flowing up beaker walls seemingly in defiance of gravity. There have also been experiments showing that the ionization energy of an atom (the amount of energy it takes to remove an electron from an atom) drops in ultracold environments. Perhaps this is due to a weakening of the electrostatic force at these temperatures.


So now we have a complete picture of gravity. What is gravity? Gravity is caused by the electrostatic force and the electrostatic force is cause by phased waves generated by positrons and electrons. That is the entire explanation in a single sentence.


This is fully mechanical explanation which should be fully testable. It should be possible to find the poselectron sea and determine its characteristics. It should be possible to find the resonant frequency of positrons and electrons and show they are out of phase. It should be possible to test for a net charge on the Earth. It should be possible to test whether a tiny imbalance exists between opposite and similar charges. It is critical that a theory can be proven wrong by experiment. Otherwise, I could say that gravity is caused by Martians living in a dimension which we cannot access. There is no experiment that can be performed that can show that this is wrong. Because of that, this theory is not built on a testable foundation and is virtually worthless. It still might be true, but a theory which does not rely on untestable postulates is much better.


Because I have not resorted to postulating the existence of anything that we don’t already know exists, there is nothing new that needs to be discovered – only the behavior of existing particles needs to be confirmed. Everything has been built up out of positrons and electrons and their known characteristics – I have not “built castles in the air”, but have started with particles which are very familiar to physics and I have not used any behaviors which cannot be readily demonstrated in a physical experiment.


This explanation of gravity is only a small part of an interwoven explanation for most physical phenomenon which puzzles science today. Everything we see and observe should be directly derivable from the properties of only positrons and electrons. For more information on this Theory of Everything, see: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html



You are visitor: Hit Counter by Digits Since 6/18/09 (Hit Counter by digits.com)