I assume most in in this Facebook group know of Wal Thornhill's theory of gravity.
Wal proposes there is only an electric force and gravity is just a manifestation of it, enabling a bipolar behavior.
I propose gravity is a separate attractive force being dependent on the medium, just like the electric force.
Everyone knows the 2 inverse-square forces are similar but there is a notable difference between them: gravity is much weaker.
When there are 2 similar mutual forces with similar behaviors but one is much weaker, then probably each force is uniquely affected by the medium.
This post omits much but hopefully this has enough detail.
All excerpts are from Wikipedia.
Maxwell's equations define several properties of "free space" and those values define the rate of propagation of light through that free space.
Now, they can be considered properties of the medium, aka, the aether, which is whatever unknown "stuff" permeates the universe.
The medium defines the rate of propagation of the synchronized electric and magnetic fields within light.
Most know light travels slower through glass or water than through air or space.
The diffraction index is the factor defining the change in light velocity by the medium.
Essentially, the medium has a measurable resistance to the changing of electric and magnetic fields. During the propagation of light, both fields are oscillating or in continuous change.
Light is more complicated then that simple statement because different wave lengths have different behaviors like X-rays which can be either penetrating or shielded by different media.
At the foundation of Maxwell's equations are 2 constants which define how the medium affects changes in an electric field or a magnetic field:
the permittivity of free space, ε0, epsilon-nought
the permeability of free space, μ, mu
These factors become Coulomb's constant.
The Electric force is described by Coulomb's law.
F = ke * ( (q1 * q2) / r^2
where ke is Coulomb's constant (ke ≈ 8.99×10^9 N⋅m^2⋅C^−2), q1 and q2 are the signed magnitudes of the charges, and the scalar r is the distance between the charges. The force of the interaction between the charges is attractive if the charges have opposite signs (i.e., F is negative) and repulsive if like-signed (i.e., F is positive).
In very simple terms, there is a force between any 2 charges. This electric force is reduced by 2 factors:
1) ke from the medium,
Note: The units of ke are essentially a ratio of force in an area relative to charge.
2) r from the distance.
Free space defines a factor within ke resulting in a force reduction between charges.
After noting the role of free space in electromagnetism, next, the force of gravity is considered, .
The gravity force is described by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2
where F is the gravitational force acting between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the centers of their masses, and G is the gravitational constant.
The measured value of the gravitational constant is approximately 6.674×10^−11⋅m^3/kg⋅s^−2.
One nust note the mix of units in the force equation. There are seconds in its constant but not in the value it multiplies, which has only these units: kg^2 / m^2.
The equation has no time variable.
Wikipedia has a topic Cavendish Experiment describing how G was initially calculated using the oscillation of a torsion bar.
Its current accepted value is by measurement, not by a calculation using defined "free space" parameters.
I assume the seconds in the units of ke are just a remnant from measurements during experiments.
Dropping the s^2 from the constant (again, there is no time value in the equation) leaves only:
This factor defines a ratio between:
a) a distance (though this m^3 in the numerator implies a distance is being treated as a volume) and
b) a participating mass, with kg in denominator.
This factor is essentially a ratio of distance per mass.
The multiplication results in less force per kg, because the G value is much < 1
Instead of "Gravitational constant" this factor could be named "Gravitational Gradient" because the force reduces over distance, based on the medium.
This ratio must considered a "free space" behavior for a gravity field.
Electric and magnetic fields required individual free space parameters.
A gravity field requires its own free space parameter.
New Theory of Gravity:
I propose the instantaneous force of gravity is the result of a gravity field around every proton and electron.
Both particles already have an accepted electric field. The 2 fields around both particles are different though the resulting mutual force affects both participants.
The electric field is either attractive or repulsive while the gravity field is only attractive.
This simple assumption means all of Maxwell's equations for an electric field and its mutual force also apply to this gravity field and its mutual force.
Gravity is not electrical so permittivity for a capacitance in free space does not apply.
For gravity, open space is just a "resistance" to the force. That word is used in the definition of mass. The distributed free space resistance for this particular force explains why the force of gravity is different between the masses of proton and electron compared to the force between their charges.
This gravity field is NOT the gravitational field around a sphere of uniform density causing free fall acceleration to smaller bodies near its surface.
Calling it a gravity field compared to an electric field is appropriate when one applies Maxwell's field equations.
Anti-gravity becomes theoretically possible by changing the particular gravity-related characteristics of the medium between the masses.
Isaac Newton was quoted as saying:
“You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it.”
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy is a work in three books by Isaac Newton, in Latin, first published 1687.
Newton defined the behavior of F = ma.
A definition of mass:
Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.
With the publication of "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" in 1865, [James Clerk] Maxwell demonstrated that electric and magnetic fields travel through space as waves moving at the speed of light.
Isaac Newton (178 years earlier) could not know how an electric field works so he could not propose a gravity field.
The field from an electric charge permeates free space. This is not a behavior which moves. Each field is reacting to fields from other charges elsewhere in space.
Each charge field is diminishing with distance. Their mutual interaction results in a mutual force.
A gravity field from a mass must behave the same as from a charge. The difference is an electric field has polarity and interacts with only other electric fields, or with a magnetic field.
Gravity field is not affected by an electric or magnetic field.
Gravity, with fields of its participants being pervasive, is instantaneous and does not propagate.
Gravity is also simple. Changing electric and magnetic fields create the other. A moving mass does not create another field.
The universe has pervasive charge fields and gravity fields, with "lines" to describe its relative strength.
This theory does not change Newton's gravity equation. It only tries to explain its gravitational constant.
Relativity broke Newton's valid application of the force of gravity. Relativity must be dropped by physics. Wikipedia essentially claims space-time rules and Newton's force is irrelevant, which is such an incredible mistake. Even more so when one realizes relativity applies only to a moving observer becoming quite irrelevant to sciences like cosmology.
Dogma prevails. Any unified field theory must ignore relativity.
I am inclined to post this rudimentary theory just because I can't believe this simple pervasive gravity field, like a pervasive electric field, has not been pursued.
Perhaps it will fail with any number of behaviors like the density of gravity field lines coming from many sources.
Gravity has complex behaviors like orbital resonances.
Free fall acceleration resulting from one large sphere of uniform density acting on a smaller body could be quite the challenge in calculus.
However, I suspect this path is more productive because gravity has a consistent behavior through many experiments and accurate slingshot trajectories. The alternative as a bipolar behavior, or both attractive and repulsive, is more complex after a first impression.
Maybe I just don't understand gravity and it really is bipolar.
For now, I propose a simpler fundamental behavior for gravity. I will pursue my conjecture.
I could be wrong but I suspect gravity is always attractive.
Perhaps one observation either confirms or denies Wal's theory.
Do all solid or liquid bodies have a hollow center?
I feel Wal's theory requires that question.
Helioseismology implies the Sun's core is solid. Robitaille describes the sun as a sphere of condensed matter, with the core solid and the rest liquid up to the solar atmosphere. The lattice structures change with depth but overall the density is almost uniform.
If the Sun were hollow the mechanism for heating the photosphere is not clear.
As Wal pointed out, the "ringing" of the Moon noted during an Apollo mission could be explained with a hollow Moon.
We know nothing of the internal layers in the Moon. We have sampled the Earth down to a very limited depth compared to its size.
Earthquake waves traveling through layers of the Earth are apparently not explicitly defining its core.
It is impossible to sample the deep interior of any celestial body.
We can measure only changes in orbits of probes and assign those changes to gravity, leading to a conclusion of "mass concentrations" on some bodies.
Wal's theory is not fully confirmed.
Wal suggests an aether of neutrinos for light. These particles of a tiny mass are intervening matter in the medium and so are not a resistance to the force of gravity between the participating objects and their gravity fields.
Neutrinos could not define a gravitational gradient for free space.
I suspect the free space parameter for gravity has a different origin. "free space" remains a mystery.
I have an unrelated observation, which must be stated.
Free space parameters are defined by the universal medium, or the aether. It is impossible to know whether these values are consistent throughout the observable universe. A plenum of neutrinos could be disturbed.
Facebook is not an academic forum but this group has a few sharp individuals.
I am curious for feedback from the group.
If I am wrong then maybe a productive discussion will follow. Gravity is interesting.
My calculus skills have aged, as I have, but I will do what I can...