ACUFOS - Reflections on Gravity by Martin Gottschall

Parts 1 to 5 of this series were concerned with outlining our theory of gravity and some of its consequences for our understanding of the physical world. Electromagnetic Gravity or EMG as we have called it, differs from the prevailing theory of gravity, usually called General Relativity (GR) in certain respects, and is also remarkably like it in others. In this final part of the series we look for ways in which these two theories might be tested against each other.

When alternative theories are being compared, they are measured against the "real world" ie experiment and/or observation, in order to determine which seems to comprehend Nature better. Most especially, we want a theory which allows us to forsee new discoveries about Nature, in addition to providing a satisfactory explanation for what we already know about It. This is the predictive aspect of a theory, and derives from the fact that a theory is not only a proposition of some kind about reality, but is also a logical structure or framework which can be extended beyond our present boundaries of knowledge, and hence forsees new discoveries yet to be made.

It is perhaps useful to restate the ways in which the two theories differ, and this is done in the tabulation below:

EMG	GR
1. The speed of light is variable.	The speed of light is constant.
2. Gravity is attributed to the electromagnetic properties of space.	Gravity is attributed to a distortion or "curvature" of space and time.
3. The units of measurement for distance, force, energy and momentum are invariant.	The units of measurement for energy and momentum are invariant.
4. The rate of time is relative and universal.	The rate of time is relative and local.
5. The mass of an object increases with speed and gravity potential.	The mass of an object increases with speed but not with gravity potential.
6. Gravity is non-linear and finite.	Gravity is linear and unbounded.
7. Singularities and black holes are not possible.	Singularities and black holes are contemplated.
8. Motion of objects relative to space can be measured.	Only relative motion between objects can be measured.
9. Massive compact bodies can break down atomic nuclei into protons and electrons and so recycle stellar material.	Black holes capture matter and energy which are virtually forever lost to stellar processes.
10. All matter and energy as well as space are made from electromagnetic "stuff".	The constitution of energy, matter and space are unspecified. Only photons are specifically electromagnetic.
11. "Empty" space contains a vast amount of energy that is associated with its electromagnetic constant.	An energy of space is contemplated but not specified by the theory.
12. The cosmological redshift implies that the rate of time and the speed of light in our universe is increasing	The speed of light and hence the rate of time are constant over cosmological time.

Items 1 to 3 above do not necessarily represent "real" differences between the two theories, since they both predict the same outcomes for the same processes. They may be viewed as different approaches to the same physical questions. For example, in EMG we would say that the length of a moving object shortens as its speed relative to space increases because the intensifying electromagnetic fields make this happen, while GR contemplates a compression of "space" as well as the moving object. The same material changes are calculated in each case.

With item 4 we have different definitions of the rate of time. Both theories make the same predictions. In GR the rate of the internal activity of an object like a clock is taken as the measure of the rate of time, while EMG considers the motion and the gravity potential of the clock to be additional "components" of its rate of time, and finds that this rate of time is universal, although it increases as the universe expands. The GR definition of time allows two objects to interact even though they have different rates of time, which means that they can not be simultaneous during the interaction. This constitutes a logical paradox and creates serious problems when forward and reverse time are studied.

The remaining items are all a consequence of items 6 and 10, so we can say that the most effective experimental or observational comparisons will involve one or both of them. Possibly the most effective test is comparing black hole candidates with the MCB's of EMG and deciding if they are one or the other.

The non-linearity of gravity (item 6 in our list) can be tested by observing trinary systems in which at least one member is at nuclear density or greater. In the language of GR that means that at least one member is a neutron star or a black hole. In the language of EMG, at least one member of the pair must be a massive compact body or MCB. The best comparisons can be obtained if the other member of the pair closest to each other is at least a dwarf star. This allows the two bodies to orbit at much closer distances. The third member can be a main sequence star at a much greater distance, so that we can approximate the system to two binary systems.

The electromagnetic nature of all matter and energy postulate (item 10 in our list), has led directly to the inference that photons neither gain nor lose energy when rising or descending in gravity fields. This property interpenetrates the entire EMG theory, and is the basis for example of the EMG interpretation of the cosmological redshift. By comparing how well the black holes of GR and the MCB's of EMG explain observations, it might be possible to test this postulate.

In general, the objects of interest to us, like binary star systems are only accessible by their EM emissions ranging from radio wavelengths through infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma ray wavelengths. One of the properties that can often be measured is the redshift (or blueshift) of radiation from a given source. This redshift may have several components such as the cosmological redshift which happens during the time that the radiation makes its journey from its source to the observing telescope; or gravitational redshift which happens as a photon rises in a gravity field; or motional red/blue shift, which is also called the Doppler shift and is due to a relative motion between the source and the observing telescope.

In the context of EMG we would describe the Doppler shift as being due to the motions of the source and the observing telescope through local space, and hence it is created partly at the source and partly at the observing telescope. However the motions relative to space tend to subtract out and can be ignored for non relativistic speeds of the source and observer.

In a typical observation the redshifts which are assumed to be obtainable are a "common" redshift, a gravitational redshift and a motional redshift associated with the orbital motion of the members of the system. The "common" redshift is the combined value of the cosmological, motional and gravitational redshift which is shared by all members of the system under observation, and may not need to be differentiated.

Since redshift measurements play an important role in astronomical observations, we will spell out how redshifts due to different causes have to be tracked, in order to calculate each redshift accurately. Equation (49) in Part 5 shows how cosmological and gravitational redshifts combine into a single redshift value and Equation (50) shows how the gravitational redshift can be extracted from this composite value.

Let the combined or measured redshift be "c", the commom redshift be "e", the gravitational surface redshift be "g" and the motional redshift be "m". The rule for calculating "c" is:

The motional, gravitational and common redshifts are then obtained respectively by:

The motional redshift is assumed to be generated when light is emitted from the surface of the body. In GR the speed of light is the same as at infinity, but in EMG the speed of light in a gravity field can be significantly less than the value at infinity. Thus, if we use the non-relativistic conversion to speed:

when using EMG we need to use the local speed of light "c" in place to the value outside the gravity field "C".

Figure 26 shows a binary system in which each member is an MCB or neutron star/black hole. We will compare the dynamics of such systems in EMG and GR. Once the equations are obtained, we can always relax the conditions back to non relativistic values and see how the two approaches blend into the Newtonian or non relativistic condition. A condition is considered to be relativistic when the Newtonian gravity potential "Pn" is no longer small when compared to half the square of the speed of light outside a gravity field (C.C/2).

For simplicity we will consider only circular orbits, and we will define the GR equation first. Two masses "M1" and "M2" are orbiting each other at a distance "d". If both bodies are luminous, then distant observers can measure the period of the mutual orbits (for example if one body regularly eclipses the other, and by noting changes in the redshift of light coming from each body they can measure the radial (line of sight) velocities of the two bodies.

With this information and an appropriate theory (GR or EMG) one can now calculate other properties such as the masses of the two objects. If this binary system were being orbited at a much larger distance by a third body, also luminous, the additional information provided by the third body would serve as a check on the calculations made for the binary system. Indeed, the third body and the binary system taken as one object could be treated as another binary system.

The Newtonian and GR approach would calculate the combined masses of the system with the equation:

Where "Pi" is the number 3.141..., "G" is the gravitational constant 6.673E-11 and "P" is the period of the orbit in seconds. The masses "M1" and "M2" are measured in kilograms and the distance "d" in meters. Note that we define the total mass of the system, as well as the value of the middle expression to be "M".

To calculate the individual masses we meed numbers for "P" and for "d". If the orbital plane happens to be parallel to our line of sight, then Doppler shifts can tell us the speeds of the masses "V1" and "V2" in m/s. The distance "d" is then:

We can now calculate "M1 + M2". The ratio "M1/M2" is "V2/V1" and hence the individual masses can be found:

In EMG the value of the local gravity acceleration is dependent on the local gravity potential. In general, the potential of each particle in each body will change from place to place, so we will find an approximate effective potential for the entire body. If a body were in the form of a spherical shell then each particle would have the same potential. Each member of the binary pair has a gravitational mass and a dynamic mass. For a body having a gravitational mass "M1" we define an equivalent shell radius "R1" such that its dynamic mass "D1" will be correct for that body. A radius "R2" is defined for the mass "M2" in the same way. Note that the effective dimensionless EMG potentials "P1~" and "P2~" are:

The corresponding Newtonial potentials "P1n" and "P2n" are needed and these are:

Where "S" is the limiting potential "C.C/2" and "LN(..)" is the natural logarithm of the quantity in the brackets. The total Newtonian potentials "Q1n" and "Q2n" of the two masses are due to the self potentials "P1n" and "P2n" and the contribution of the other body. Thus:

Notice that these are Newtonian potentials. The corresponding dimensionless EMG potentials are:

To keep our formulas simple we represent the right expression of (69) by "M" as we did above:

Since "Q1~" and "Q2~" lie somewhere between zero and unity, "(1-Q1~)" and "(1-Q2~)" must also lie between zero and unity. For this reason Equation (69) calculates larger values for "M1" and "M2" than does Equation (57). This means that if at least one member of the binary system is an MCB then the difference between the values of Equations (57) and (69) will be substantial and should show up well. The equations for the individual gravitational masses are:

When these equations are compared to (59) and (60) we notice the presence of the potential terms "(1-Q2~)" and "(1-Q1~)" in (71) and (72) which are absent in the GR version. This difference reflects the EMG postulate that the effect of gravity decreases with increasing potential.

Note that the potentials "Q1~" and "Q2~" are bigger than the surface potentials of the two bodies which can be obtained by isolating the gravitational redshift in radiation coming from the respective surfaces. Suppose that the surface redshift of "M1" was 0.34 and Figure 21 of Part 5 is taken as an accurate description of MCB's. The gravitational mass will then be 4.34 solar masses and the dynamic mass "D1" 8.96 solar masses. Equation (61) then calculates the effective bulk potential for "M1" to be 0.516. Its surface potential is 0.445, somewhat lower than the bulk potential.

We now have two theories which calculate different values of mass from the same observational data. How do we decide which is right? Equation (69) relates to a close binary system in which each member is an MCB. Suppose we had another binary system comprising masses "M3" and "M4" of which the first is an MCB but the second is not, being a dwarf or a main sequence star with a gravitational potential effectively zero. Equations (71) and (72) would now take the form:

Note that "M" is calculated for this other binary system and that Equation (73) is identical with the corresponding GR equation. In this case the two theories calculate the same mass.

Suppose further that our close binary was being orbited at a much greater distance by a mass "M4" which was not an MCB, Figure 27. In this case "M3" will be the total gravitational mass of the close binary and "M4" the mass of the more distant star. We can approximate this system to two binaries. The close pair orbit each other about their common centre of gravity "G1" and are hardly affected by the distant star orbiting them. Their combined mass "M3" is then assumed to be at this centre of gravity, and "M4" orbits "M3" about a centre of gravity "G2" located on the line joining "M4" to "M3".

Since GR and EMG find different values for "M3" when applied to the close binary but the same value when applied to the second more distant binary, the second determination of "M3" (73) is likely to agree with one or the other value. It would be remarkable indeed if it agreed with neither, in which case the test would be inconclusive. Thus we have a test for or against EMG in such a trinary system.

GR predicts black holes but EMG predicts MCB's. On the face of it this is the simplest test of all. Astronomers have been on the lookout for black holes, but it has not been easy to find unambiguous cases. If the same data were examined for MCB's, and the indications for these bodies were systematically more favourable than indications for black holes, then experiments or observations designed specifically to prove MCB's would be justified.

GR predicts that compact bodies having nuclear order densities will implode on themselves if their mass attains about three solar masses. When this happens the star collapses to a size much smaller even than a neutron star, so that it passes inside the so-called "event horizon" where the Newtonian potential is numerically (but not physically according to EMG) equal to the limiting potential of EMG. GR also predicts that below the event horizon all matter and light are forever trapped and can not escape to infinity. This means that once a black hole is formed, its contents can no longer be seen from a distance. However its gravitational influence remains and at a great distance it is thought to be the same as it would be for an equal amount of matter that was not in a black hole.

When matter falls into a black hole then a substantial fraction of the rest mass of that matter will have been released as kinetic energy by the time it passes through the event horizon. Any such matter orbiting the black hole outside the event horizon might collide with other in-falling matter and release radiation which will be redshifted but will escape. When a black hole is a member of a close binary system it may draw a steady stream of matter from its companion, forming an accretion disk of material spiralling inwards. Friction in this disk is thought to cause it to heat up and radiate in the UV and X-ray bands. Thus, it is the observation of radiation form accretion disks and other effects like ejection jets that have to be used to prove the black hole.

MCB's are small, powerful and compact enough to be able to generate accretion disks also. In this case the disk material can impact on the surface of the body where radiation in the gamma ray band would be generated. MCB's can reveal any in-falling matter, since it must strike the surface and generate intense EM emissions. It is apparent, then that when comparing black holes and MCB's, it is activity associated with a hard surface or a surface atmosphere, that allows us to tell them apart. Neutron stars are on the low end of the MCB continuum. In GR they are believed to exist only up to about 3 solar masses, although observational uncertainties allow values of say 6 solar masses to be accepted as neutron stars in the presence of other evidence for a neutron star.

In addition to random observational uncertainties in the measurement of neutron star masses, there is also a systematic underestimate of these masses if EMG is the better theory, since GR systematically underestimates them. This means that to test EMG fairly, astronomers have to use EMG to test EMG, just as they are currently using GR to find black holes. This should be applied to black hole candidates to see if they are MCB's candidates.

Figure 21 of Part 5 shows that in the absence of a new phenomenon like a change in the internal gravity of its constituents particles, MCB's have a peak equilibrium gravitational mass of about 21 solar masses, at which the body becomes radially unstable and undergoes core collapse. Past this point, a new equilibrium point at a gravitational mass of about 12 solar masses becomes available. Thus, the MCB must shed about 9 solar masses in order to regain radial stability at a higher core potential, or it can eject matter in some way and move back down the graph of Figure 21 towards lower core potentials.

We will assume that during this uncontrolled core collapse, the highly compressed and distorted neutrons break down into essentially neutrinos and energy. We noted in Part 5 that since all elementary particles were innately unstable, they had to be held together by a gravity field. Photons are the exception to this, and they are contained by inertia forces and must be moving at the speed of light. Thus, as neutrons are broken down in the collapsing core and the amount of gravitational binding is reduced, the energy and particle mix which appears in place of the neutrons exert a higher pressure at the same mass density than did the original neutrons. Hence the core fireball generated by the conversion of neutrons in the core will expand to a smaller mass density than the neutrons it replaces.

The interior of the MCB is probably a superconducting superfluid and the internal fireball generated by the core collapse can expand by conduction, and being less dense, it can rise through the bulk of the body and eventually break through the outer crust, exploding as an external fireball. If conduction were the dominant form of energy transfer, the outer fireball would cover the entire outer surface of the MCB. However, if bulk transport dominates, then the outer fireball might appear on only a portion of the outer surface of the MCB. The development of the outer fireball might also be controlled by the internal and surface magnetic fields and spin of the MCB.

Because of their highly collapsed state, MCBs will generally have a high rate of spin and their equatorial surface speed might typically be relativistic. In the oblate spheroid produced by this spin, the easiest path for the internal fireball is along the spin axis, and it will tend to break out of the MCB at its poles. Indeed as the internal fireball forces its way outwards, it creates a nozzle that serves to accelerate the fireball into a pair of opposed jets emerging at relativistic speeds and emitting a powerful gamma ray burst, one that is particularly intense in the direction of the jets due to "beaming" or the Doppler blue-shift.

The escaping fireball will entrain a large body of neutrons from the walls of the "nozzle", break them up into protons and electrons, accelerate then in the pressure gradient of the nozzle and then by the intense gamma ray pressure, to speeds high enough to allow the plasma to escape the gravity field of the MCB altogether. Since electrons are less massive than protons and interact more strongly with gamma rays, powerful electric fields will develop, in which the forces exerted on electrons are transferred to protons. The electrons will tend to be in a state of equilibrium between the gamma ray outwards pressure and the inward pull of the electric field. The field will also accelerate heavier nuclei, and these may be detected in the jet.

During this burst, the MCB may eject about 9 solar masses of matter, and may release about 10% of this matter as gamma radiation. It is likely that the process will "overshoot" and eject substantially more than 9 solar masses, so that the MCB returns to a gravitational mass of about 9 solar masses after ejecting about 12 solar masses, and acquire a surface redshift of about .64, down from an initial value of about 1.4. A substantial reduction of surface redshift would be an indicator for mass loss by an MCB.

Figure 28 shows the gravitational mass graph of Figure 21, and traces possible pathways which a core collapse might take. In one case the MCB ends up having a higher core potential at point "A". However, the disturbances associated with the collapse process are likely to drive the MCB to the more stable point "B" at a lower core potential. One can also contemplate paths like that ending on point "C" which represent a smaller mass change.

Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) were first reported in 1973 and have since been found to occur about once a day. They can be briefer than a second or last tens of seconds, and may liberate gamma ray energy equivalent to a solar mass, which makes them by far the most powerful cosmic events known. They were considered to be an extremely puzzling cosmic phenomenon in that none of the available cosmic "engines" were able to explain them readily. The study of GRB's has resolved itself into a two stage process - defining the type of event immediately responsible for the observations that have been made, and finding the progenitor of that event.

The "Relativistic Fireball Shock" model has so far provided the mechanism best able to generate the observed behaviour of GRB's, but the hunt for the creator of this powerful fireball is still very much on.

We propose here that MCB's are not only very natural candidates as GRB progenitors, but provide an explanation for the existence and prevalence of opposed jets associated with spin as against magnetic axes that are such a common feature of active galaxies and quasars. If we accept this model, then we are implying a link between GRB's of the past and the cosmic ejection processes that have been found. Furthermore, we are implying that GRB's of today will be seen as a jets in millennia to come.

In earlier parts of this series we asserted that MCB's were the great "Cosmic Recyclers" which converted large nuclei back into predominately hydrogen, which can then be re-used in stellar processes. The fireball associated with this process, although it has a different origin than the big bang fireball, must have certain resemblances to the latter, which produced the mix of hydrogen and helium thought to be the primordial interstellar medium, from which stars and galaxies are thought to have originally formed.

Gamma ray bursts present astronomers with a challenge largely because they are trying to make black holes their progenitor. When the calculated masses allow a neutron star to be the progenitor, there are more options. If they adopted MCB's in place of black holes for the larger masses, they would conclude that gamma ray bursts can arise in a variety of ways, including that outlined above. The surface of MCB's is very dense, and the fireballs associated with impacts of matter and core collapse tend to be similar. Impacts, which tend to be more localized and create only surface fireballs may be responsible for the shorter of the GRB's.

In one test of the MCB hypothesis using gamma ray bursts, it is necessary to measure the redshift of gamma rays coming from the presumed surface of the MCB and also the redshift of secondary radiation generated by the burst in the nearby space around the MCB. The difference between these redshifts calculated according to Equations (51) to (54), will contain the gravitational surface redshift of the MCB surface and any motional redshifts relative to the source of secondary radiation. With a number of independent such observations the motional redshifts can be expected to average out, so that the average of these redshifts will be the average of the gravitational redshifts of the MCB surfaces involved. If this average exceeds the gravitational surface redshift of neutron stars as allowed by GR then the MCB hypothesis is vindicated.

Stellar clusters are a bound system of stars with similar evolutionary histories. Such clusters can produce MCB clusters. When stars collapse to MCB's they slow down, gain inertial mass, and may emerge from the stellar cluster, becoming more tightly bound to each other as MCB clusters. They are the EMG equivalent of the supermassive (millions to billions of suns) black holes of GR.

MCB clusters can explain the redshift anomalies associated with active galactic nuclei and quasars. These are two other areas of astronomy where black holes are the accepted engine driving the observed energetic processes. MCB clusters have a high average mass density and a high mass, allowing them to serve as the core anchors of galaxies. Quasars may be regarded as MCB clusters in the process of gathering their own galactic halo, and will become new galaxies when their internal processes have settled somewhat.

MCB clusters can display two redshifts, an averaged surface redshift, and a redshift of interstellar material near the MCB's. Galaxies near such clusters will tend to show the typical cosmological redshift. These three redshift contributions need to be separated out if the correct interpretation of their meaning is to be made. Confusion can arise when one MCB cluster radiates predominantly from its surfaces and another from its interstellar environment, or when the observed redshift is assumed to be entirely the cosmological redshift. Unambiguous evidence of surface redshifts exceeding that allowed by GR for neutron stars will vindicate EMG.

We have argued in Part 5 and here, that MCB's are capable of recycling matter in the sense that the material accreted by them can be broken down into energy and predominantly hydrogen - the fuel of stellar processes. GR points to black holes, the systematic removal of matter from stellar processes, and a consequent "fading away" of galaxies. EMG points to the existence of MCB's which recycle matter and nucleate new galaxies. However protons, neutrons and electrons do disappear. Unless there is a creation of new matter, the EMG universe will also "fade away", but more slowly.

If the so-called "dark" or "missing" matter which is thought to constitute over 90% of the mass of the universe turns out to exist, then the recycling capacity of MCB's takes on a new significance, since almost any conceivable particle will interact with ordinary matter and photons in the environments provided by them. This huge store of dark matter can sustain the universe ten to thirty times longer than the visible matter presently known.

Questions about the origin and ultimate fate of the universe can not be adequately addressed unless the evolution of the universe is also understood. The EMG interpretation of the cosmological redshift is radically different from the GR interpretation. In EMG the early universe had a much smaller speed of light, the rate of time was much slower and the rest energy of matter particles was much less than it is today, although their inertial mass was much greater.

If the universe had a beginning in a singularity, its total energy would have been zero, as would its speed of light. It would have been in an unstable state of eqilibrium, frozen until the expansion of space set it on its ever accelerating evolutionary course. As it expanded and the speed of light and time increased, its total energy would have increased as well. This energy total is increasing today and is dependent on the balance between the rate of increase in rest energy of matter particles and their rate of annihilation in MCB's.

In the EMG context the universe is not fading away but becoming more "real" every second. In GR, at the moment of the big bang, a vast amount of matter/energy was created in a minute volume of space while at the same time creating an equal gravitational energy "debt". From that point an evolutionary process is thought to have brought us to today. In EMG the total energy equivalent of the early universe was much smaller than it is today, and energy has been flowing into it at an ever increasing rate throughout its evolution.

EMG has a way of removing or weakening the problems posed by singularities. In GR we not only have an initial infinite energy density, but an infinite flux of energy as well. In EMG space is a very different entity than in GR. In particular, the cosmological expansion does not mean that all the matter/energy in the universe had to be present at the moment of the big bang.

If matter were being created in galaxies today it would automatically share in the cosmological expansion since all galaxies are effectively "anchored" in an expanding space. In EMG space is not co-created with energy and matter, it precedes them, just as it precedes any energy/matter which might be created today. The "big bang" of EMG is more like the initial source rivulet of a mighty Amazonian river. It had a beginning which created an initial energy and particle mix, but energy has been constantly flowing into these particles at an ever increasing rate, transforming the matter of the universe.

The cosmology flowing from the EMG interpretation of the cosmological redshift will be very different from present day cosmology, and may open windows on vistas outside our universe.

One of the discoveries that has left astronomers with urgent and unanswered questions is that the gravitational influences implied by the speeds of stars in galaxies and the speeds of individual galaxies in clusters are higher than what the observable matter can hold together. Thus there has been a search for the "missing mass" or "dark matter" (since it is not seen) that would be needed to explain these observations. This matter would be ten to thirty times larger than the total of the observed matter, and that is why it ranks as a vital issue.

Although astronomers have automatically assumed that the extra gravity we see must be produced by a corresponding amount of extra matter, we might hesitate to assume that there is necessarily that much new matter to be discovered. In EMG we have already assumed the existence of nuclear gravity which is associated with minute masses and is radically different from the familiar or "cosmic" scale gravity. We have also assumed, based on innumerable reports of UFO sightings, that "artificial" gravity can be created without recourse to the huge masses that characterise cosmic gravity. We might therefore assume that Nature is using "artificial" gravity too, and that much if not all of the extra gravity we find in and between galaxies may be due to the same mechanism, acting on a cosmic scale, on which the assumed propulsion of UFO's is based.

The study of this "extra gravity" as we might term it, has two attractions for us. It not only helps us to answer a rather big question in astronomy, but might lead us to a valuable new technology that can make the universe accessible to us via modes of space or space/time travel not presently available.

Throughout this series we have assumed that energy and light have an associated gravity field just as an equivalent amount of matter does. We have used Newton's gravitational constant in calculating this field. One of the topics which we have not discusssed is how the gravity field of a moving mass propagates when that mass is moving relative to local space.

If we assume with GR that gravitational changes propagate at the speed of light, then there must be an effect akin to synchotron radiation in which the gravity field "piles" up in front of the moving mass at relativistic speeds. In the case of synchotron radiation, electrons moving at close to the speed of light and subject to an acceleration perpendicular to their motion, radiate very intensely in their forward direction.

We have something similar but far more intense when we consider the propagation of the gravity fields of photons. Here the photon is moving at the speed of light (something that the radiating electron can not do) and the gravity field is propagating at the speed of light also, so that the piling up effect is extremely intense. However it is not infinite, since the photon is in a gravitational potential well and moving ever so slightly more slowly than the gravity field more removed from the photon can move. In the case of a photon reflecting back and forth between two mirrors, the piling up effect happens for a short time only before the photon reverses.

In a cyclic process like this, we would normally expect the emission of radiation, and this radiation would be subject to the usual quantum restriction E = h.f, the energy "E" of the photon being equal to the product of Planck's constant "h" and the frequency "f". We would therefore expect "gravity photons" to be emitted once their energy was high enough.

However, because the gravity effect of a photon is so weak, the "gravity compression" produced in this way would be intense enough for practical application in propulsion before the degree of radiation loss was significant. In the case of radio antenna emissions, which is an equivalent electromagnetic case, the required photon energy is generated at extremely low signal amplitudes, and there is never a question of worrying about the radiation threshold of an antenna, although we encounter this with atoms all the time.

EMG has given us a "mechanism" for gravity that is already familiar to us from other parts of Physics. It allows us to think about new gravity effects and to use analytic tools that are already available, such as for example the mechanism of the propagation of fields.

So far in comparing EMG and GR we have focused on astronomical cases, wherever instances of high gravity potential are to be found. However, EMG has implications for particle physics, electromagnetic theory and quantum theory as well. We note that Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory was formulated before the discovery of subatomic charged and neutral particles and before quantum effects other than the existence of atoms were recognized. An EM theory formulated today would have to encompass these discoveries.

In respect of an EM theory compatible with quantum effects, we will only note here that in Maxwell's EM theory electric fields exist and move without any rotation or spin. If we consider the effect of the spin of the electric field of a particle we find that the spin angular momentum is constant and independent of the angular velocity of spin, while the spin energy is proportional to this angular velocity. These two outcomes anticipate the properties of photons and lead directly into a new quantum electromagnetic theory (NQEM).

In Part 5 we noted one way in which a nuclear-scale gravity field can hold a particle made from electric and magnetic fields, together. This is just an early and small step in reinterpreting the experimental data pertaining to particle physics and the principles, rules and processes which have been evolved to understand these findings. If such a reinterpretation can be made to work, it will suggest experiments which current particle theory would not contemplate, and will lead this branch of Physics into new directions and new discoveries.

EMG also requires us to study the properties of "Empty Space" which contains energy and sustains stresses. An adequate theory of Space will doubtless be needed to comprehend EMG, NQEM, artificial gravity and the structure and properties of matter. It is noteworthy that Special Relativity (SR) made space redundant about the time that quantum effects were first recognized. We note also that more recent notions like "inflation" and "dark energy" can be viewed as attempts to make space an active part of physical theory.

Thus, even if EMG emerges from its astronomical tests with flying colours, as I feel it ultimately will, these other aspects of the theory will also have to be developed as fully as is possible at present, before we have a theory that is up to date with the discoveries of our time, and hence able (hopefully) to provide us with better ways to understand them. Indeed, since EMG is presented here as a theory unifying all the forces of the physical world, it can not be regarded as complete until its application in all relevant areas, such as the ones named above, has been adequately explored. One might use here a statement attributed to one of the giants of literature: "Nought is finished, till all is finished".

In Part 6 we have examined some ways in which the Electromagnetic Theory of Gravity (EMG) might be tested against General Relativity (GR), that involve bodies with high gravity potentials. We have also noted that certain astronomical observations, notably Active Galactic Nuclei, Quasars and Gamma Ray Bursts, which have created difficulties for theoreticians, might be far more tractable with the Massive Compact Bodies (MCB's) of EMG. The cosmic engines provided by EMG are MCB's and clusters of them. They replace the stellar mass black holes and supermassive black holes of GR.

Amongst the gravitational topics not considered above are gravity waves. We have touched only lightly on artificial gravity. These can bring gravity into the laboratory and must be part of the ultimate test of any gravity theory.

We therefore acknowledge that we have not fully explored the gravity implications of EMG in this series, let alone its implications for quantum theory, particle physics, cosmology and the all-embracing roles of "Space" and "Time". It should be noted too that EMG, if verified, will automatically unify all the forces of Nature, since, by definition there are only the four defined by George Hunt Williamson's ET source, as quoted at the end of Part 3. Hence it can not be regarded as complete until it has been shown to "work" over the full span of Physics.

A helpful starting point might be to develop an electromagnetic theory that picks up where Maxwell left off over a century ago. This will need to "explain" quantum effects in the manner in which Einstein always insisted that any theory should be self explanatory, by providing an internal mechanism in place of the "black box" processes currently in use.

This part of "Reflections on Gravity" concludes this series. It is possible that Updates on "Reflections" will become timely. These will be posted on the ACUFOS site (www.acufos.asn.au), or links to them will be found there.

The following comments are taken from Daniel Fry's "To Men of Earth" published in 1973 by El Cariso Publishing Co., Elsinore Calif., starting from page 104. They are attributed to a visiting ET, and were given in the early 1950's.

"... All of the science in the universe, all of the search for truth and the pursuit of understanding will come under one of these divisions or headings (Physical Science, Social Science and Spiritual Science). We can not draw a sharp dividing line between them of course, because they overlap each other, but the fundamental laws which govern them are the SAME FOR ALL DIVISIONS."

"If any civilization in the universe is to develop fully and successfully, each of the branches of advancement must be pursued with equal effort and diligence. The Spiritual and Social sciences however, must come first. There can be no development of the material science except upon a foundation of spiritual and social science. ..."

Page 106. "... From the foundation provided by these two sciences, the superstructure of the material science begins to emerge, and here also begins the great problem."

"The development of the material science, ... takes place at a constantly increasing rate. ..."

"The social and spiritual sciences on the other hand, progress normally, only directly with time, and even this rate of progress is not always maintained."

"Eventually you have the problem of a huge and massive structure, growing at an ever increasing rate, standing upon, and supported by a foundation which is growing at a much smaller rate. Unless some means can be found to stimulate the growth of the foundation, a time will inevitably come when it can no longer support the structure, and the structure will collapse upon the foundation, bringing ruin to both."

"This total collapse of civilization has occurred before on this planet, and your present civilization has now entered the stage where it is quite likely to occur again unless some outside stimulus is given."

Page 109. " ... There is nothing basically wrong with your material science. It can expand and progress to horizons as yet undreamed of, if only your people will provide a foundation capable of supporting it."

Page 110. " ... Your race and your culture are not doomed to extinction. They may continue upon their upward course until they have left this danger behind them for ever. The choice, you see, is yours."

Page 63. " ... A man seeking scientific knowledge is somewhat like an ant climbing a tree. He knows that he is moving upward, but his vision is too limited to encompass the entire trunk. The result is that he is likely to find himself climbing one of the limbs, without realizing that he has left the main trunk. All goes well for a time. He can still climb upward and even pluck some of the fruits of his progress, but eventually he begins to become confused as the solid branch begins to break up into myriad of twigs and leaves all pointing in different directions. So the seeker of knowledge, if he is on a limb, finds that the great 'Basic Laws' which have always seemed so unshakeable, now begin to divide and to point in different directions. The scientist comes to the conclusion that he is nearing the limit of the knowledge that can be grasped and understood by the mind, and that all physical laws ultimately become purely statistical. When he has reached this point, he can make further progress only by following a line of abstract reasoning employing mathematical symbols, many of which represent quantities which have no actual existence, and so can not be pictured or followed in the mind. ..."

"The fundamental truths are always simple and understandable when viewed from the proper perspective. So the branch becomes simple and understandable as a 'branch' when viewed from above, on the main trunk. Unfortunately, your science is still attempting to make one lower limb take the place of the entire tree of knowledge. ..."