RECAPPING

It will be helpful to recap on our progress in Parts 1 to 4:

Part 1: We introduced the "Electromagnetic Theory of Gravity" "EMG" and postulated that all matter and all energy are built with electromagnetic fields (and electric charges since they are part and parcel of electric and magnetic fields). We incorporated into this theory the electric, magnetic and electromagnetic (emc) constants of space.

Part 2: Here we quantified the ideas considered in Part 1. Parts 1 and 2 together offer what is hopefully a well balanced introduction to some of the ways in which EMG is different from our current ideas.

Part 3: In this Part we introduced Einstein's Special Relativity and viewed it from a somewhat different perspective. We changed the equations to a circle format, so that they graphed as circles, in order to then extend the circle format to gravity as well. We introduced the notion of "energy/anti-energy" (which create forward and reverse time respectively), and prepared the way for the equivalent notion of "gravity/antigravity".

Our equation linking gravity potential and the speed of light was also changed to a circle format, from which we then extracted the notion of gravity/antigravity.

The circle equations of Special Relativity and gravity were then joined into a single equation which was now the equation of a sphere. From this we deduced the notion of the existence of a universal rate of time for all matter and energy in our observable universe. We also quoted some ET sources on the nature of natural gravity and artificial gravity. These quotes were by no means exhaustive, and in particular Daniel Fry's source speaks also of gravity inside the atomic nucleus and how gravity swings between "gravity" and "antigravity"

Part 4: Here we showed that the gravity potential has a finite upper limit, and we attempted to understand how Nature creates gravity fields and how they might be produced artificially. When Part 4 was finalized, Part 5 was envisaged as quite different from what it has become. It is likely that when the dust settles, Part 4 may need an extensive review as well.

THE QUESTION OF RELATIVE MOTION

A founding postulate of the Theories of Relativity is that there is no absolute state of motion, meaning that there is no one frame of reference which all inertial observers find to be at rest. EMG was based on a set of postulates which led to the spontaneous increase of the mass of bodies undergoing gravitational collapse. This change in mass can tend to infinity, and it is by no means a minute effect, as Equation (18) in Part 2 shows.

Since the conservation of momentum and energy are inherent in EMG, spontaneous changes in mass will be accompanied by spontaneous changes in the speed of the object undergoing mass change. We can now define an absolute rest frame as that of a mass which undergoes no change in speed relative to an inertial observer when undergoing spontaneous mass change.

This issue of relativity also comes up in the electromagnetic theory on which EMG is based - a theory that differs from Clerk Maxwell's in certain respects. Suffice to say for the present that in order to fully define the self-equilibrium of a photon or a moving charge it is necessary to assume that while electric fields can move through space in directions normal to the field vector and must remain at rest in space in directions along the field vector, magnetic fields are always at rest in space, intensifying and decaying at each point of space as an electric field passes by. This indicates that an "absolute" reference frame is implicit in EMG, and will need to be examined rigorously in due course. This examination is deferred to another occasion.

OUTLINE OF PART 5

Originally Part 5 was going to examine "massive (compact) bodies" and "negative gravity potential". Massive compact bodies (MCB) are defined as high density objects whose core density was of the order of nuclear mass densities and whose gravity potential approached the limiting gravity potential. They are subject to enormous relativistic pressures. General Relativity which was used to predict "black holes," found that as gravity builds, matter eventually went into a catastrophic collapse inside an event horizon. This infinitely compacted "singularity" was conveniently forever out of sight, and the question of what it might be doing did not need to be examined too closely. Our theory however set a finite upper limit to gravity potential and gravity can not prevent the escape of photons, so we have to explore these bodies in order to establish their role in cosmic processes.

In exploring the radial stability of bodies under extreme gravity with EMG, it was necessary to look at how subatomic particles, particularly neutrons resisted external pressure. Since our postulate defines all matter and energy as electromagnetic, we needed gravity on the nuclear and sub-nuclear scales because we had NOTHING else that would hold ANY particle together. Now, the cohesion of elementary particles is a subject that current particle theory neatly steps around. As soon as it assumes a "point mass" or "point particle" the source of its cohesion is inside that little singularity, and out of mind. I dare say that "strings" and "branes" have their own ways of stepping around this issue.

In the gravity equations the gravity potential is either zero or a positive number. When the potential is zero, the speed of light has our familiar numeric value, and for increasing potential the speed of light decreases, becoming zero when the potential reaches its limiting value, which is never actually achieved in the same way that any particle like a proton can never quite reach the speed of light. In the circle and sphere diagrams the square root of the gravity potential is scaled on one axis. Only a positive number has a "real" square root. Actually it has two, a positive and a negative value. "Gravity" corresponds to the positive square root and "antigravity" corresponds to the negative square root. Gravity draws objects together while antigravity moves them apart.

If we assign to gravity potential a negative value in our gravity equations, then they can no longer graph as circles with real axes. Indeed, the equations now graph as straight lines, with one axis scaling the gravity potential and the other the square of the speed of light. This graph allows us to consider the effects of positive as well as negative gravity potential.

Gravity potential has the units of Joules per kg ie energy per unit mass or the square of velocity, while the square root of this potential has the units of velocity, namely the escape velocity from that potential. These two variables are physically different, so their associated circle and line diagrams tell us different things, and apply to different physical situations.

For example, the line diagram calculates speeds for light greater than our known value when we make the gravity potential negative. Negative potential allows us to think about "empty" space and "universes" outside our universe, while positive gravity allows us to think about non-empty space. We are able to think about where the "stuff" of our universe came from, and possibly where it is "going".

THE PRESSURE EXERTED BY PHOTONS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

Electromagnetic fields do not have a net cohesiveness. They exert an expansive pressure equal to one third of the energy density of the field. In this respect both electric and magnetic fields behave the same way. 

Figure 19(a) shows a box containing an electric or magnetic field with the field lines directed along one side of the box. This field exerts tension along the field direction and compression in the two directions transverse to the field direction, a condition symbolized by the schematic of Figure 19(b). Figure 19(c) shows how the combined effect of three such fields occupying the same box is to exert an equal expansive pressure in all three directions. The energy density of each of the three fields is numerically equal to the net pressure, hence the pressure is equal to a third of the combined energy density of the three fields.

Another source of pressure is a trapped photon or photon-in-a-box. This photon travels from reflection to reflection, exerting an outward pressure, since it has momentum. Here too, the pressure generated by any collection of trapped photons is numerically equal to a third of the energy density of the photons in the box.

When the speeds of particles become comparable to the speed of light, they begin to behave like photons and their pressure factor drops progressively from two thirds to one third.

BUILDING ELEMENTARY PARTICLES

Since we have postulated that all matter and energy is made from electromagnetic (EM) fields, we are obliged to construct our models of all elementary particles using EM fields and trapped photons as well as any other EM devices we might be able to dream up. Any construction containing only EM fields with any associated charges and trapped photons will not stick together, as the above considerations clearly show. We are obliged to postulate that gravity fields exist on a subnuclear scale which have the needed intensity to hold such EM/photon structures together.

Figure 20 shows details of a hypothetical charged elementary particle. It comprises an inner charge, say positive, spread over a spherical surface, and another smaller charge of opposed sign on a larger spherical surface. The space between the two charges contains an electric field and and photons trapped within these superconducting surfaces of charge. The photons exert an inward pressure on the inner charge layer, holding it at that radius. They also exert an outward pressure on the outer charge layer so that this charge is also kept in equilibrium.

This configuration is not stable and would immediately explode. To make it stable we have an intense gravity field in the space between the two charges. This field may extend outside these charges as well, but for simplicity, we assume it exists in that space only. The gravity field attracts the trapped photons and the electric field (as well as any magnetic field due to a magnetic moment) inwards, and so holds it together. Gravity acts on the electric field, reducing its intensity towards the inner charge surface, causing some of the inner charge to become space charge between the two charge layers. Since the gravity force is proportional to the energy density, the same field will hold together high energy and low energy particles equally well. Analysis of this model confirms that such a configuration can indeed be stabilized by a gravity field.

Clearly, these considerations open up a huge new field of the study of elementary particles which we must defer, not only because it is peripheral to our central interest, but also because the required EM tools are not all present in current EM theory, and must first be developed.

5.2 POSITIVE GRAVITY POTENTIAL

GRAVITY AND ANTIGRAVITY

In Part 3 we listed a series of equations, (37) to (42) which graphed as either circles or spheres, in which the gravity axis scaled the square root of "2.P/(C.C)", which appears in these equations, and can take a positive or a negative value if "P" is positive. The square root of "P" has the units of velocity, and relates to the escape velocity or the impact velocity of an object. We could associate the positive scale with the escape velocity of an object at potential "P" and the negative scale with the impact velocity of an object. However this is a relatively trivial interpretation and we attribute gravitational attraction to the positive part of the scale and gravitational repulsion to the negative part of the scale.

The difference between gravity and antigravity is that with gravity, the gravity field pervading the space occupied by particles is allowed to penetrate into the EM fields that constitute these particles, but in the case of antigravity the external gravity potential is ejected from the space occupied by the particles' fields. The "antigravity" particles, like a bubbles of air submerged in water, experience a force towards lower gravity potentials, so they rise in gravity fields. The antigravity transition can be likened to the way in which a superconductor expels magnetic fields from within the superconducting space.

If we assume for the moment that the volume of space from which an ambient gravity field is excluded is variable, and/or the amount of decrease in potential is variable, depending on the amount of energy expended, there will be a point at which the particle is weightless and could just float, and others at which the particle accelerates upwards to varying degrees. The propulsive potential of this kind of antigravity is immediately obvious.

We have noted above that an intense form of gravity is the only force that our theory can provide, which is capable of holding elementary particles together, and so we have added to the already well known and relatively gentle "Universal Gravity" this equally universal gravity which acts on the nuclear and sub-nuclear scales. It is not immediately obvious what happens to the internal gravity fields of a particle when it makes the transition to antigravity. If the particle is to continue to exist in antigravity, its internal gravity field must remain. Conversely, if there was some way to switch off or reverse the internal gravity, the particle would disintegrate.

For the present we postulate only that under the right conditions, when a particle makes the antigravity transition, it may then float or rise in a gravity field, and that it no longer makes a contribution to the external gravity field. This means that the contribution which that particle previously made to the local gravity potential disappears, and the energy so released helps to power the antigravity transition.

Ejection processes are apparent in the images of many galaxies, and quasars. They may well be driven by antigravity processes, and by corollary, the study of the recession of galaxies may reveal something about antigravity. Likewise, the study of massive, compact bodies may also reveal to us the range of conditions that create antigravity.

COMPUTING THE GRAVITY POTENTIAL

Equation (13) in Part 2 tells us what gravity potential is, and Equation (43) in Part 4 tells us how the gravity effect of a given source at a given point in space is moderated by the presence of all the other gravity sources acting at that point. These equations are repeated here for convenience:

dP = g.dr (13)

g(m,P) = g(m).c.c/(C.C) (43)

At any point in space, the gravity potential "P" determines the local speed of light "c", as given in Equation (15) in Part 2, which may be written in the form:

c.c/(C.C) = 1 - 2.P/(C.C) (45)

Let "Pn" be the gravity potential which is calculated using Newtonian gravity, and "P" the potential calculated by our theory of gravity. We define "Pn*" and "P*" by:

Pn* = 2.Pn/(C.C) (46)

P* = 2.P/(C.C) (47)

and we can calculate "P*" with:

P* = 1 - exp(-Pn*) (48)

Thus, we can take on board a large block of Newtonian gravity into our theory. It is noteworthy that General Relativity does this too, but it does not recognize an upper limit to the gravity potential as we do, and hence contemplates the existence of "black holes".

PRESSURE GENERATING MECHANISMS

Before exploring the radial stability of massive bodies, we need to look at the force which balances gravity in these bodies - pressure. We distinguish five pressure generators; heat, quantum energy, trapped photons, EM fields and antigravity.

Trapped photons and EM fields have already been discussed, and we found that they generate a pressure equal to a third of their energy density.

Heat is the pressure generator in Earth's atmosphere and in stars. Heat is kinetic energy on the atomic and subatomic scale. The pressure developed by heat is two thirds of the heat energy density present. Note we are not counting the rest energy of the particles, only their kinetic energy due to their heat content. As the temperature of the gas or plasma is raised to the level where the kinetic energy equals or exceeds the rest energy of the particles, the pressure factor changes progressively from two thirds to one third, but the rest energy is still not counted.

"Degenerate" quantum energy is another source of pressure. It differs from heat in a number of ways, but most important for us is that while heat can escape from a star allowing it to collapse, degenerate quantum energy is permanently trapped in the body and supports it indefinitely, even when it has "cooled down". Dwarf stars are supported by the degenerate quantum energy of its electrons, and neutron stars are thought to be supported by the degenerate quantum energy of its neutrons.

Degenerate quantum states exist in the space outside the particles (electrons or neutrons) that occupy them, and in the case of neutron stars, this space has all but disappeared, with neutrons now in constant contact, and it becomes more appropriate to look at the mechanisms of pressure generation inside the neutrons and other particles present. Degenerate quantum energy initially generates pressure equal to two thirds of the quantum energy density, but as the particles are squeezed closer together and the energy per particle equals or exceeds the rest energy of the particles, the pressure becomes one third of the quantum energy density, as with heat.

By the time we are looking at "massive, compact bodies" (MCB's), which begin at about the neutron star level, the neutron degenerate quantum energy is already relativistic, and the pressure is one third of the quantum energy density. We might as well abandon the pressure generating mechanisms outside neutrons and other particles and look at the internal mechanisms of these particles. When we do this we count both the rest energy of the particles and any other energy, of both internal and external quantum states when calculating the energy density figure. The pressure factor is now one third but because we are able to count the rest energy of the particles as well as all other kinds of energy we maximizes the pressure available for resisting gravity in such bodies.

Gravity was invoked in order to explain the cohesion of elementary particles. Antigravity will have to be invoked to make massive bodies stable over a wide range of masses.

THE RADIAL STABILITY OF MASSIVE COMPACT BODIES

"Massive, compact bodies (MCB's)" are our equivalent of General Relativity's "black holes". Black holes are thought to exist because General Relativity has predicted that at a particular gravity potential, when Pn* = 1, nothing, including light can escape into distant space. We on the other hand have found that photons rising in a gravity field neither gain nor lose energy, and can escape from any physically possible gravity field. Hence we say there is no such thing as a black hole, but instead there are what we call MCB's.

Since this is one of the points of disagreement on which the two theories can be compared, we need to work out the properties of MCB's, so that astronomers can recognize them when or if they see them or their effects. A key question about MCB's is: "How massive do they come and what amount of redshift will light coming from their surface show?" Another is: "What happens inside massive compact bodies?"

We already know that when particles are lowered in a gravity field, their mass increases. Hence, MCB's will display a gain of mass when they collapse, and will tend to display reductions in their proper velocity as this mass increase happens. For example consider a binary system of two comparable stellar bodies. They orbit around a common centre of gravity roughly midway between them which we assume to have no proper motion. If one of them becomes an MCB its mass may increase several-fold, making it the dominant mass, and bringing the common centre of gravity closer to the MCB. It will also slow down, since its linear momentum must remain constant. During nova or supernova events and in quasars, such transitions can happen quickly and be observable. Only EMG predicts such spontaneous mass changes, and their discovery would be compelling evidence.

Conversely, if an MCB expands and is no longer an MCB, it will display a loss of mass and an associated increase in proper velocity. Such events are effectively the reverse of the above, and if found could be explainable in terms of antigravity processes. They too would be compelling evidence for EMG.

A lone star collapsing to become an MCB will display a change in speed that may eject it from its host galaxy or cluster. If a number of stars undergo such changes then MCB's with the same mass will also tend to have the same speed and direction of ejection, so that they will themselves form a cluster of bodies emerging from their home cluster or galaxy. Further, if this galaxy or cluster has brief periods of MCB generation, a series of MCB clusters will emerge from it over time.

The exploration of the radial stability of MCB's was carried out by computer simulation rather than mathematical analysis because of the complexities involved. A mathematical solution is preferable because, if the solution is reasonably simple, one can "see" its trends, but a numerical solution is still far better than none, and its trends can be seen on a graph or table.

1. Simulations Assuming a Pressure Factor of One Third and no Antigravity

In this simulation we assumed that the particles of the body were packed tight as in a nucleus, that the internal pressure generated was one third of the energy density minus the cohesive pressure needed to keep the free neutrons together. As the pressure increased, the neutrons and other particles were compressed into ever smaller volumes and generated ever greater pressures. This pressure, and the total energy present was attenuated by the increasing gravity potential, as was the gravity field.

Figure 21 is a graph showing the results of a series of computations based on the above assumptions. Three masses were calculated, a source mass, a gravitational mass and a dynamic mass. The source mass measures the amount of matter from which the body was made. The gravitational mass is the number used in computing the Newtonian gravity field of the body. The dynamic mass reflects the actual inertia of the body in its interactions with other objects.

In Figure 21 the masses are graphed against the core gravity potential. The surface redshift is also shown. Note that the gravitational mass peaks at 22 solar masses and the dynamic mass is then 291 solar masses, and does not show a peak. The surface redshift peaks at 1.44. Up to the peak value of source mass the ability of the particles to generate pressure dominates but beyond that, gravity dominates and brings the source mass down to about 24 solar masses.

It is interesting that although our theory of gravity is clearly different from General Relativity, MCB's exhibit a critical point, and become unstable at about 54 solar masses of source mass. By way of comparison, dwarf stars become unstable at about 1.4 solar masses and neutron stars in General Relativity, at about 3 solar masses. Neutron stars are thought to collapse into black holes. Black holes of virtually any mass are considered to be possible.

2. Simulations Assuming an Antigravity Transition

In this case it was assumed that when neutrons were compressed to a certain point by the pressure of neighbouring neutrons which also caused them to be distorted, a gravity/antigravity transition took place such that the antigravity particles are weightless, and generate no external gravity. This would produce two regions within MCB's as shown in Figure 22:

a) An inner spherical core within which the particles created no gravity and had no weight. This had the effect that within this sphere, the pressure and gravity potential remained the same throughout.

b) An outer spherical shell within which gravity was being generated in the usual way.

Figure 23 is a graph of the source mass, gravitational mass, dynamic mass and surface redshift of MCB's with increasing zero gravity core radii. This graph shows no instability over a wide range of masses, and none is expected. Note that Figure 23 begins at a point in Figure 21 where the core pressure is high enough to stimulate the antigravity transition, which was assumed to be at a compression ratio of 5.5. In this case there is a simple transition from the body with no antigravity to bodies that have it. The dashed curves in Figure 23 are the corresponding mass and surface redshift graphs from Figure 21.

If the antigravity transition required a much higher neutron compression ratio than the 5.5 assumed above, there would be a sudden transition from the peak gravitational mass of Figure 21 (54 solar masses) to a configuration like Figure 22 having the same source mass but a higher core potential.

The significant thing about the antigravity transition is that MCB's can have a wide range of masses, and that with increasing mass their surface redshift increases steadily, so that their mass can be determined from their redshift. So far the greatest redshifts observed for quasars and active galactic nuclei are less than about 5. We will assume that this redshift is a combination of cosmological redshift and gravity redshift and hence the gravitational mass of MCB's is less than 700 solar masses, and their dynamic mass less than 24,000 solar masses.

THE ROLE OF MASSIVE COMPACT BODIES IN THE UNIVERSE

We have found it necessary to exploit both gravity and antigravity in order to be able to contemplate the existence of elementary particles and MCB's. As usual, this has brought other things in its wake. The conditions existing in the cores of MCB's can dismantle elementary particles and nuclei. They are similar to the conditions existing during the high energy collisions of the same particles, in which the particles are highly compressed and distorted. Hence we can conceive of MCB's as systems which can reverse the processes of stellar evolution, namely the progressive fusion of ever larger nuclei.

As stars evolve, hydrogen and helium are converted into heavier nuclei which then become vital constituents of planets and life. This process consumes less than 1% of the starting mass of stars. MCB's may or may not utilize antigravity, depending on the point at which neutrons etc are broken down. They can dismantle nuclei and use the energy liberated in the dismantling of neutrons to inject hydrogen and energy back into the interstellar medium, where it fuels stellar evolution over and over. These bodies are therefore a vital part of a kind of "Matter Cycle" in which the matter of the universe can be recycled about a hundred times.

When MCB's exceed a critical core pressure and potential, they "burn" barions (neutrons and protons), but below that mass they can cool down and become dormant. While their luminosity may be too small to make them visible, their gravity is present in full strength, and their effect on the surrounding visible matter reveals their existence.

If we accept the role of MCB's as matter recyclers, then galaxies can be far older than our present estimates, and much more time is available during which the bulk of the matter in the universe could have been gathered as dormant MCB's. MCB's can therefore be the "dark matter" that astronomers have been looking for in order to explain their observations of motion within and between galaxies.

When MCB's form, their spontaneous increase in mass is accompanied by an associated reduction in proper velocity. This can cause them to be ejected from their home galaxy or to assume a very different orbit within it. The MCB's still present in a galaxy will therefore tend to be in a relatively large halo around it, and their motion will tend to be decoupled from the motions of the stars in that galaxy.

CLUSTERS OF MASSIVE COMPACT BODIES

The study of our own and other galaxies has revealed that stars not only gather in their hundreds of billions as galaxies but also in smaller collections called clusters. Members of clusters tend to have similar evolutionary histories, so that some clusters will contain many MCB's. Since they are about a million times smaller than stars, MCB's can be much closer together in their clusters, and hence can assume a high average density and surface redshift. If there is an ample supply of interstellar material, MCB clusters can generate tremendous luminosity. We suggest here that active galactic nuclei and quasars are luminous MCB clusters.

MCB clusters tend to be very stable because once the cluster is established, the probability of MCB collisions or close interactions is very low, even in dense clusters, while the probability of interactions with stellar members of the cluster is much higher. When a stellar cluster passes through an MCB forming stage, a cluster of MCB's may emerge from it, and take on an evolutionary life of its own. As a dense MCB cluster sweeps through a galaxy where the interstellar medium is dense the MCB cluster will radiate away 50% or more of the rest energy of the accreted matter and be very luminous.

THE EVOLUTION OF MASSIVE COMPACT BODIES

There seem to be two main paths of stellar evolution that end in MCB's. Stars of approximately a solar mass will burn for billions of years, but when they run out of nuclear fuel, they collapse to become dwarf stars having planetary dimensions. Dwarf stars collapse further to become neutron stars if their mass exceeds about 1.4 solar masses. Neutron stars are at the small end of our range of MCB's.

Stars of many solar masses evolve in millions rather than billions of years. As they run out of nuclear fuel and collapse they undergo a powerful explosion in which the outer portions of the star are driven out into space while its inner portion becomes a neutron star or black hole according to General Relativity, or an MCB in our theory.

The collapse of stars to nuclear densities is triggered by the process which combines electrons and protons into neutrons. In dwarf stars degenerate quantum pressure involving electrons supports the star. When the electrons are removed, this pressure disappears, leading to a collapse. It so happens that despite the fact that electrons are electrically attracted to protons, one has to expend a certain amount of energy to convert an electron and a proton into a neutron. This is very fortunate for us, because if energy were released when electrons and protons join to become neutrons, atoms would not be stable at all.

Within dwarf stars the energy associated with the electrons' internal pressure can become high enough to support the proton to neutron reaction. When this happens, the internal pressure of the dwarf star disappears as electrons and protons join to make neutrons, and the star collapses to become a neutron star, black hole or MCB.

Stars in the mass range 10 to 100 solar masses, as they run out of nuclear fuel also generate very high pressures and temperatures at their cores - enough to eventually support the wholesale conversion of protons and electrons to neutrons. When this happens, a huge amount of gravitational energy is released by the part of the star which implodes, and this energy drives the ejection of the outer parts of the massive star into space. Such events are known as nova and supernova.

It will be apparent from the above that "the devil is in the detail" in that processes which are presently believed to end in neutron stars or black holes will end (according to our theory) in MCB's. Since MCB's can radiate from their surfaces, and have a surface redshift that can be calculated, it is the detail of astronomical observations that will decide the issue: black holes with accretion disks or MCB's with accretion disks and very hot surfaces, releasing X- and gamma rays.

In analysing light from MCB's the redshift observed will generally be due in part to recession, and in part to gravity, so that the two have to be separated to extract the gravity redshift. If the recessional redshift is "r" and the gravitational redshift is "g" then the combined redshift "c" is produced according to the equation:

c = r + g + r.g . . (49)

Thus if an MCB cluster is associated with a galaxy of measured redshift "r", and the cluster redshift "c" is measured, then the gravitational redshift of the cluster "g" can be found as:

g = (c-r)/(1+r) . . . . (50)

NEUTRON STARS, BLACK HOLES AND QUASARS AS MASSIVE COMPACT BODIES

Figures 21 and 23 show that MCB's exhibit a wide range of masses and redshifts, spanning the range of objects currently recognized as neutron stars, active galaxies, black holes and quasars. Very massive black holes are thought to exist at the centres of galaxies having millions or billions of solar masses, but we do not propose that MCB's have such great masses even though they could exist, because MCB clusters seem to fit the data better. These huge masses for black holes are entertained by astronomers so that they have the large radius event horizon needed to explain the observed luminosities in terms of a large accretion rings, and the observed motion of stars in that vicinity which requires large masses.

In the centres of some galaxies where the star population was of a high luminosity, many MCB's would form. As they collapse and gain mass, they would maintain their momentum but lose kinetic energy and fall into tighter orbits around each other. Stars passing through the cluster would have a high probability of being consumed by it. The result of this would be the liberation of a substantial fraction of the rest energy of the accreted star material, and a very bright and active galactic nucleus or quasar displaying a large redshift. The tremendous speed changes could also result in the ejection of groups or clusters of MCB's from galactic nuclei. Powerful spin and antigravity processes could result in jets issuing from such systems.

We have postulated above that in the cores of MCB's neutrons and other particles are broken down into lighter particles like electrons, positrons, neutrinos and energy. That is to say, there will be processes which do not conserve baryon number. MCB's would not only be luminous from capturing matter from the space around them, but also from the dismantling of barions in their cores. The larger the MCB, the greater the internal energy release and hence luminosity.

5.3 NEGATIVE GRAVITY POTENTIAL

Having explored the domain of positive gravity potential, we now explore another feature of our basic gravity Equation, (14), derived in Part 2 of the series, which we will quote here for convenience:

c.c = C.C - 2.P (14)

in which "P" has so far always been treated as a positive number. The effect of a positive "P" was taken as increasing the electromagnetic constant (emc) of space, making "c" less than "C". If we make "P" negative, it will reduce the value of the emc, making the speed of light "c" greater than "C". In Equation 14, subtracting a negative number on the right hand side is equivalent to adding the numerical value of that negative number, which then makes "c" bigger than "C".

Equation (14) was written as a circle equation for which "P" is positive, and when that circle was graphed, we spoke of "gravity" and "anti-gravity" which were linked to the square root of "P". It must be noted that "negative gravity" as we have it here is not the "anti-gravity" of the circle diagram. The circle diagram exists only for positive and zero values of "P". With negative gravity a circle diagram with two "real" axes is not possible. This mathematical fact underscores the very important distinction between the two ideas.

Equation (14) shows us that in the absence of all matter, which is implied by the condition "P=0", space has a non zero emc, and the speed of light has a finite value. This leaves us with two questions: Where does this emc come from, and can its value change?. It is clear that even in the absence of matter, space is not "empty", since it possesses a definite value of this constant. We have associated energy with increases in the value of the emc, so energy must be associated with the emc of "empty" space.

We have found that with increasing values of "P", more energy is stored in the gravity field (or emc field), and liberated again when "P" is reduced. If the same trend holds true for negative values of "P", energy would be liberated when "P" is made more negative (and emc is reduced), and absorbed again when it is made less negative. Processes that liberate energy tend to "run away" and drive themselves and are often explosive, while processes that absorb energy offer resistance to the force that drives it, and are stable. The only "explosive" event in cosmology that might relate to this is the so-called "big bang".

If we interpret the big bang as an event happening in a negative gravity potential we could have an explosive release of energy and a gravity field that acts to cause this energy and any matter arising from it, to be pulled away from the big bang into the surrounding space by an expansive gravity field. This is because the heart of the big bang would be where the gravity potential is least and everything would tend to fall away from it. Antigravity, as we have defined it for the circle diagram, also acts expansively but does so in an implosive gravity field. Around a big bang the field itself acts explosively. In such a field, antigravity would act implosively.

At this stage we will merely note that Equation (14) not only allows us to think about "normal" or implosive gravity, but also about explosive gravity. Both "pull" but the emc gradients are reversed in the two cases. If used in gravity propulsion both these abilities would doubtless be handy, especially if the difference between positive and negative gravity potential is like "phase reversal" in AC electricity - something easy to accomplish.

With positive gravity the gravity potential was found to have a finite limit equal to "C.C/2". Equation (14) tells us that to make the emc of space zero, and the speed of light infinite, P would have to be an infinite negative number. This seems to suggest that there may be no physical limit to the value of a negative gravity potential. If a limit did exist and it was the same as for positive potentials then the speed of light could only be increased to 1.41 times its value for zero "P".

If negative gravity potential does indeed have no finite limit, the above comments relating to the big bang become very pertinent, and we may be able to think about a "big bang" event using the laws of physics which we have already learnt or will learn from the universe.

We have already found in EMG that "empty" space has a definite value for its emc, and a definite energy density is associated with this emc. If space were to be expanded into a larger volume, the energy density associated with this emc would be less, and the value of the emc would decrease, making the speed of light greater in the expanded space.

When astrophysicists consider recession as the expansion of spacetime, they assume that the speed of light and hence the emc of space remain unchanged, but that light waves are stretched out and have their wavelength increased. This means that the redshifted photons must have their energy reduced, but there is no discussion of the mechanism that brings this about or where the missing energy ends up. EMG allows us to work through this process more comprehensively.

EMG, as we have developed it so far, already has a mechanism for the energy changes which particles and photons would undergo if space were expanding. This mechanism is embodied in Equations (18) and (22) of Part 2, which calculate the rest mass and rest energy of particles in a gravity field. We can describe the process with reference to Figure 24 which shows a gravitational body capturing matter that is falling onto its surface. Several things are happening:

Firstly, the falling matter gains kinetic energy and loses an equal amount of rest energy. When it finally comes to rest on the surface of the gravitational body, it will have given up this kinetic energy and will have a reduced rest energy.

Secondly, the gravitational potential of the particles comprising the body increases as more matter is captured. These particles, although they do not move in the gravity field also suffer a decrease in rest energy. This decrease is stored in the gravity field and is associated with an increased emc. At all times the rest energy of the same kinds of particles at the same gravity potential is the same, regardless of whether they have fallen in the gravity field or have experienced an increase in gravity potential while at rest in the field.

Exactly the same considerations apply to thermal energy, quantum state energy or photons trapped within the gravitational body. As the local emc increases, these energies decrease in exactly the same proportions as with particles and atoms.

Thirdly, if the gravitational body were now to eject matter back into space, the rest energy of the ejected particles would now increase again by a process in which their kinetic energy becomes rest energy, and the rest energy of particles remaining in the object would also increase by a process which reduced the total energy associated with the gravity field, such that identical particles at the same gravity potential would have identical rest energy regardless of where they might be located in space or in the body, or how they came to be there. The same applies to all energy and photons trapped within the gravitational body.

Thus, a photon trapped inside the gravitational body that experiences an increase or decrease in gravity potential would experience a corresponding change in total energy such that its momentum "m.c" would remain constant. As "c" decreases "m" must increase, but the energy "m.c.c" will decrease, and vice versa for an increase in "c".

Now consider a view of a large part of the universe, as shown in Figure 25, its boundaries being arbitrary, and not the boundaries of the universe. It shows us an expanding structure, and with time its emc must decrease because the energy and "stuff" that generates it is dispersed in an ever larger volume of space. We have here on a cosmic scale something similar to what we showed in Figure 24, which relates to a single gravitational body. This region is assumed to have a zero average emc gradient but the value of the emc is decreasing with time, similar to the decrease in the emc of a gravitational body that is losing matter into the surrounding space.

According to the above reasoning the photons in this region maintain a constant momentum, move at increasing speed at a decreasing mass, and become blueshifted since their energy increases. Particles however gain rest energy in the same proportions and the energy associated with their spectral lines increases in direct proportion also, matching the blushift of the photons. Hence a photon emitted from an atom earlier in time when that atom had less rest energy arrives today with the same energy as the energy associated with the same quantum state of the same atom today. Hence the blueshift is not apparent.

Thus EMG predicts a cosmological blueshift, and further, predicts that this blueshift is masked by an equal blueshift of the spectral lines which determined the original energy of the photons from distant stars, quasars and galaxies. EMG does not allow a cosmological redshift attributable to the expansion of space, but does allow a Doppler type redshift.

In our study of MCB's we have found that the cores of these bodies can achieve gravity potentials so high that the speed of light there is only about 1% or less of the speed of light at zero potential. We have also proposed that MCB's are dispersed in the halos of galaxies, that clusters of MCB's comprise the nuclei of active galaxies and quasars, and that they represent the great bulk of the mass of the universe. These objects are effectively anchored in space, and serve to anchor galaxies in space as well. Consequently, the Doppler shift interpretation of the cosmological redshift also presents difficulties and would account for only part of the observed cosmological redshift that is observed.

Another redshift apparently not considered by cosmologists is associated with the gravity potential of the early big bang fireball. If this potential was initially close to the limiting value, and decreased as the universe expanded into a greater volume of space (while space was also expanding and the total gravitational mass of the universe was increasing), then a gravitational redshift would be seen in the light coming from distant stars and galaxies, that reflects the gravity potential of stellar or galactic space at the time of emission. There would also be an additional gravitational redshift due to the increased gravity potential at the radiating surfaces of stars and compact bodies. This redshift can be large enough to match any observed redshift, and may therefore be the dominant component of the cosmological redshift.

It could also explain the cosmic microwave background radiation. In EMG the universe became transparent when its temperature was about 90 degrees Kelvin as measured today. At this temperature atoms were just able to capture electrons and become neutral in the early universe (in which the rest energy of particles was about 33 times less than it is today). Radiation from this epoch was then redshifted to about the 2.7 degrees Kelvin we observe today. Note that cosmology considers that when the universe became transparent it was about 1100 times smaller than it is today, but according to EMG it was only the equivalent of about 33 times smaller. This difference is due to the assumption in cosmology that the universe began with its entire complement of energy/matter, while EMG assumes that the energy/matter of the universe started at effectively zero and has been building ever since as space expanded. This difference between the predictions of GR and EMG should be measurable.