Please, read this book and we shall discuss about the solar system and the dynamics of planets.

Nicodeme Djiedeu, “Nature of forces acting on the terrestrial globe”, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2017-05-17-ISBN-13: 978-3-330-07159-9, https://www.morebooks.de

Dear Nicodeme,

I will certainly not buy one of your books until I am convinced that what it contains, complies with the question I have asked in this thread. This is not a platform for selling books!

So, I invite you to give, here, a detailed explanation of your answer to my question, as far as it would be of any revelance.

 Dear De Mees,

Yes, a moving mass could give rise to gravitational induction. It is 2 pi^2 G r/c^2, where r is the orbit radius, c speed of light. Or you may look at the link below

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309563763_On_the_full_analogy_between_electromagnetism_and_gravity

Article On the full analogy between electromagnetism and gravity

Dear Scientists,

Some examples of this gravitational induction are given in the annexed slides for applications in the cosmos.

These applications for cosmic events have been totally neglected by the establishment. Why is that so, and how can this be changed?

Is the incapacity of General Relativity to deduce gravitational induction at the origin of this negligence, because this standard theory has become holy, and no other theory is allowed if not based upon it?

Can anybody please enlighten me?

Kepler's laws suggest otherwise, however that doesn't mean that Kepler's laws are universally applicable. There is no reason in theory why there couldn't be some degree of curl in a gravitational field in more extreme circumstances, such as being very close to the Sun. This would lead to a transverse component of gravity, additional to and not to be confused with the inertial Coriolis force.

I have a comment about the wrongly supposed "dark matter" in disc galaxies, which has been invented due to scientific alienation.

The two annexed drawings are a bit confusing: the upper curve always give the measured speeds, and the lower curve give either the “calculated”, or the “expected from visual disk”.

Both are in fact the same: the calculation is based upon luminosity observation and a Keplerian calculation, and that is simply wrong.

Luminosity observation: it is assumed that if there is no luminosity, there is no mass. This is wrong, because luminosity is caused by the formation of stars, which on its turn is caused by a mass concentration *threshold*. If the threshold is not reached, there is simply no star creation and no luminosity, while there still is matter!

The Kepler calculation is simply wrong. Kepler laws are a special case of Newtonian gravity that is *only* valid for a large central mass and *one* very small orbiting mass. If there are a few, widely spread orbiting masses, the approximation is reasonable, but we see that the anomalous *Newtonian* perihelion advance of Mercury, caused by the eight remaining planets, is very high (compared with the “relativistic” one). Hence, for millions or billions of stars in a disc galaxy, each orbit will get an enormous perihelion change (advance or retardation), resulting in a very different orbit velocity than when it is calculated with Kepler's laws.

In other words, instead of the Kepler calculation, the Newtonian gravitational integration should have been done *from scratch*, which then give the correct result, given by the upper graphs.

Now, what is the reason of the wrongness? History, the successive copy-paste of many scientists, and mainly, the reason that follows.

Why is there star formation in some regions, and why not in other regions, farther away form the galaxy's center? That is caused by gravitational induction, which comes from the spin of large stars and black holes, close-by orbiting binaries, and so on. The Sun's gravitational induction, by its spin, causes our planets to be in the Sun's equatorial plane. Saturn's spin causes its very flat rings.

The induction force ~1/R^2 and therefore, the threshold of star formation is not reached farther away from the galaxy's center, even if there is still a high presence of mass.

In the annexed calculus, I made a simple model where a spherical galaxy with a decreasing mass density ~1/R gets a spinning center. This forms a gravitational dipole, and causes induction, which makes the orbits swivel towards the equatorial zone.

One can see that the velocity curve is flat, outside the bulge, as observed. A more detailed calculation exists, but is more complicated.

Dear Thierry,

shouldn't gyrotational forces act back onto the spinning source causing the source to experience some rotational drag? What would be the drag due to gyrotational back reaction in case of a 2.5 mm steel ball spinning at 75 kHz? Are there any formulae available for calculation?

Dear Johan,

The gravitational induction force, force acting back upon the spinning sphere, at the sphere's surface, is given by the equations (7.2) and (7.3) in the annexed paper, for both the X and the Y component.

The red arrows in the fig. 7.2 and 7.3 give an idea of the directions of these forces. So, you see that there is a compressing force, which makes it impossible for fast spinning stars to explode below a certain radius.

See the supernovae, which are expected to keep a part of the star still spinning after the explosion.

Research A coherent dual vector field theory for gravitation

"See the supernovae, which are expected to keep a part of the star still spinning after the explosion."

Dear Thierry,

I'm quite aware of the SN effect as described in your above cited paper that, in fact, is impressively confirmed by shape of SN remnants. What I'm talking about, however, relates to less tremendous gyrotational induction from our sun that, in particular, causes planets to orbit in prograde direction. Shouldn't this effect take away part of the sun's angular momentum, and shouldn't equivalent drag occur, in principle, on a fast spinning rotor of smaller dimensions? 

Dear Mohamed,

Thank you for your input. I am indeed afraid that “theories” with curve-fits like Milgrom's and Berkenstein's are just total nonsense, because they do not substantiate anything with a generalized physical concept that would be valid for many cases.

It indeed reinforces the knowledge of not understanding, especially w.r.t. the velocity curves of disc galaxies and the alleged “dark matter”.

How would your theory deal with these velocity curves? What kind of self-induction would an orbiting object about a spinning center get?

Dear Johan,

Indeed, the swivelling of orbits about the spinning Sun, from a random orbit inclination towards the equatorial plane, in prograde sense, will require a work, which will be subtracted by the Sun's gravitational energy. I am not sure if that means: a reduction of the mechanical angular momentum.

The knowledge about the exchange of energies of different kinds between the discipline of mechanics, dynamics and gravity is not complete to my knowledge.

Moving masses give a Lorentz-like gravitational force F = m (g + v x Bg) in an existing field Bg, which on its turn can produce work. (The field Bg is generated by another moving or spinning mass and represents the (gravito-)magnetic field.)

In the context of alleged gravitons, this work should be provided by gravity. As long as no work has been provided, I suppose that there is an energy balance without energy transfer in the one or the other direction.

On the other hand, since a spinning mass is strictly related to the (gravito-)magnetic field that it emits, grosso modo by a factor v2/c2, it is possible (if attested by experiment) that, if such a field exerts work, this exerted mechanical work also coincides with the reduction of mechanical angular momentum of the 'emitter'.

In that case, the energy required to alter the orbit inclination should then comply with the loss of angular momentum of the central mass.

Thanks, Thierry, for your expert reply.

"As long as no work has been provided, I suppose that there is an energy balance without energy transfer in the one or the other direction."

You are probably talking about obvious external work. But maybe work will be dissipated as well at the spinning source itself by back reaction from external field deformation even if there is no obvious effect on orbiting masses? Keith on page 11 of his paper on gravitational drag, see reference below, stated as follows:

"It is as if entire reaction force on the universe, a universe which cannot itself react to forces and torques inertially, acted back on the freely spinning mass system causing a real slowing down."

Dear Johan,

It is correct that the spinning Earth will gravitationally induce every orbiting or spinning object close to the Earth.

This occasions the change of axis orientation and it will need that work is exerted. According to our reasoning, this will then reduce the angular energy of the object and slow down the spinning.

Indeed, this effect is substantiated by the Gravity Probe-B experiment, which has proven that gyroscopes in satellites got altered axes due to the gravitational induction of the spinning Earth.

The mainstream falsely attributed this as a success of Einstein's relativity, which is a downright lie.

Indeed, GRT doesn't consider gravitational induction. Moreover, the alleged GRT “solution” is to attribute an oblate shape to the Earth, resulting in an anisotropic gravity field. This field however cannot gravitationally induce spinning or moving objects.

The calculus from Schiff, using Special relativity, is another attempt to *make believe* that “Einstein was right”... I annex it, where you see his order of amplitude.

In his first sentence, he admits how different special and general relativity are, hence, how tricky the whole thing is because relativists use the metric they find the most suitable for every “proof”, while the theories are in fact mutually contradicting.

Dear Mohamed,

I remember that your approach is to use the relativistic potential instead of the induction velocity. Maybe they give similar or comparable results.

Dear all,

according to my understanding the present discussion is closely related to a parallel one initiated by the question: Why do we banish from physics the hypothesis that light propagates by means of an aether? - See link below.

Therefore, let me cite from one of my contributions there:

"As someone not familiar with advanced physical theories I rely on basic physical knowledge. In particular, limited propagation speed to my understanding is essential for formation of waves and associated phenomena like viscosity and drag."

In fact, it is my present point of view that corotation of planets with the sun is a phenomenon similar to the one we observe when stirring a fluid by a rotating tool. I further regard the gravitational drag experiment proposed by J.C. Keith suited for proving the existence of such an effect at laboratory scale.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_we_banish_from_physics_the_hypothesis_that_light_propagates_by_means_of_an_aether

"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Dear Mohamed,

thanks for providing authentic statements by Albert Einstein. I understand that in view of my previous comment with reference to Keith's experiment you suggest viscosity and drag should be bound to some "ponderable media". - Why? - I merely assume that phenomena like viscosity and drag will always occur when speed of propagation is limited, and Keith apparently was able to analyze respective phenomena as due to gravitational force retardation.

"phenomena like viscosity and drag will always occur when speed of propagation is limited"

Maybe I should clarify: My basic understanding is that transportation of whatever kind won't be possible at unlimited speed. I wouldn't even be able to squeeze a water surface at some point as I would have to simultaneously press the whole basin. Thus, infinite propagation speed would also imply infinite rigidity and the absence of waves while, vice versa, limited propagation speed will enable finite rigidity and the formation of waves.

Whenever a moving source has some obvious effect on external bodies, and propagation speed of interaction is limited, a certain amount of energy must have been drained from the source before becoming perceptible at a remote site. So whenever energy drain is caused by motion an instantaneous drag will act back on the moving source, even in the absence of external "energy receivers", and a corrensponding viscosity may be attributed to the transport medium.

"Retardation is exclusively applicable to electromagnetic force and electromagnetic radiation."

Dear Mohamed,

that's what you say in view of what you cite from Van Flandern:

"gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action."

I don't know if Van Flandern has been aware of Keith's laboratory scale experiment that in fact is telling otherwise. Keith himself was quite aware of the extremely small magnitude of gravitational effects due to terms G/Nc3 and G/c5 involved as you may read at the introduction to his paper, see first PDF file below. Keeping this in mind, he nevertheless was able to theoretically predict drag of a freely spinning steel ball in reach of state-of-the-art experimental methods. Perhaps you would like to have a closer look at Keith's paper and related experimental results, see further literature below.

Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...

Dear Mohamed,

I am afraid that your claim (and Van Flanders') of a very high propagation velocity for gravity is very vague and contradicts the presence of the constant "c" in your own equations. I have read Van Flandern many times, and spites he was an excellent rebel, his thoughts were very intuitive.

The reason for a very fast propagation given by you, the lack of gravitational abberration, has never been measured accurately, and it would moreover be very difficult to perform. The difference between the propagation speed "c" and a much faster one is undetectable with the present technology.

Moreover, since all the situations are orbiting objects, their symmetry will anihilate every effect due to retardation, with the result that in steady systems, the gravitational abberration is zero after one orbit cycle. Only an immediate measurement would be able to distinguish aberration, provided that the instruments would be very precise, and all the secondary effects would be known (according to the approprate theory), as well as the density distributions of the heavenly objects.

So, for the time being, there is no detectable difference between Newton's gravity and gravity with a propagation velocity "c".

The massive hints concerning the presence of "c" in gravity calculus, including the calculus for Mercury's perihelion advance due to gravitational induction, which is entirely complying with observation, show the importance of this constant for gravity.

Oleg Jefimenko also treats gravity the same way as he treats electromagnetism for all kinds of events, by taking into account the retardation of the gravitation fields, by the propagation speed "c". The induced gravity field is governed by the propagation speed c, which coincides with the speed of light.

So, personally, I don't see any reason at all to maintain your claim, which moreover doesn't serve your calculus, all the contrary.

Dear Mohamed,

In his article “THE SPEED OF GRAVITY - WHAT THE EXPERIMENTS SAY”,   ( http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html) Tom Van Flandern refers to the fact that "gravity and light do not act in parallel directions":

- c, the velocity of the photons arriving now on earth from the sun, is determined by the sun’s light-speed delayed position (the position that the sun occupied 8,3 minutes ago).

- Eg, the gravitational field of the sun, is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the sun now.

I think it’s a bridge too far to state that this fact automatically leads to the conclusion that gravity is propagating at finite superluminal speed. Indeed, one cannot rule out that the gravitational field of an object is a continuously regenerating medium: the macroscopic manifestation of elementary entities emitted by that object, propagating with the speed of light and carrying “information” about the position of their emitter. From the nature of this “information” it follows that it can be represented by a vector pointing to that emitter. This leads in the case of a moving object to the conclusion that Eg, the g-field of that object, is pointing to its current position but that each carrier of the g-information (each constuent element of its gravitational field)  propagates in the direction determined by the position of the object at the moment it is emitted.

"I quote another astronomer, Arthur Eddington ..."

Dear Mohamed,

I think a weak point of Eddington's argumentation is that he assumes the Sun and Jupiter to emit forces at certain times only whereas, in fact, rotationally symmetric, attractive potentials of both bodies have already established with their formation and have existed ever since.

P.S. - Eddington may probably be right in case of a rotating system of discrete mass points as described by Keith, where components don't move along equipotential lines of a steady centrally symmetric field but continuously change their position and non centered mutual orientation in space.

Moving masses acquire a kinetic energy that can be represented as a local field, but it is convex curvature to agree with the Lagrangian function and density, instead of concave curvature as assigned to gravity.

Dear Mohamed,

I agree with Van Flandern and with you about the direction of the gravitational field and of the velocity of photons, but not with the conclusion that the speed of gravity is superluminal.

The gravito-electromagnetic description of gravitation, that is a refinement of Newton’s theory (it takes into account the kinematics of the gravitating objects), implies the conclusion that the “speed of gravity” is the same as the speed of light: finite and not superluminal.

In the context of Newton’s universal law (that easily can be deduced from the GEM equations), the speed of gravity has no meaning because this law is, in principle, only applicable in time-independent situations: in Newton's description of gravitation the time-dependent aspects of the GEM-equations are not taken into account.

Article GRAVITOELECTROMAGNETISM AND NEWTON'S LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVIT...

"I scrutinised Keith's paper and found it highly questionable. Why? Because not only his paper is full of contradictions and debatable suppositions, ..."

Dear Mohamed,

may I ask you for some serious example?

"... but also Keith's work itself is exclusively based on the Birkhoff's gravitational theory"

Keith clearly states that he preferred Birkhoff's over Einstein's theory primarily in view of manageable mathematical procedures. He concluded that Einstein's theory should lead to similar drag that just differs by a factor 2π from the one derived via Birkhoff's theory. Our experimental results actually turned out in favour of Einstein, as you can see from Figure 2b.

Birkhoff's gravitational theory: "That's why it is completely abandoned and finally rejected by the relativists themselves."

I'm not shure if your statement and referenced elder (1944) literature still comply with nowadays general view.

Dear Mohamed,

I'm afraid we are talking at cross purposes. I would very much appreciate if you try to really perceive and answer our sometimes unusual questions and suggestions aiming at a better understanding of basic physical phenomena rather than essentially referencing established literature.

Dear Mohamed,

Hmmm, to my point of view, there are many problematic issues in Gravity, Astronomy and Cosmology with the actual mainstream science.

Progress has stagnated during 80 to 120 years, and solely silly or very incomplete theories are still used ! Think at the invention of dark matter, the invention of an expanding universe, the invention of the Nebula theory for the solar system, and so on. Nothing really useful or serious.

So, what use has it to mention mainstream science in these domains? All the options are open when we come to the year 1900 and further...also, all the ideas are welcome...

Don't understand me wrongly, I don't reject or sustain Birkhoff's theorem, but let us please decide for ourselves what are the possible issues with it, after a thorough analysis, and not look at what the mainstream said.

"Keith's paper (1963) is also elder"

Dear Mohamed,

Keith's papers certainly are younger than at least the one by Weyl (1944) you cited before, hence might bear some potential for advanced insight, and experimental results that apparently confirm Keith's predictions are still younger.

"Birkhoff's gravitational theory ... That's why it is completely abandoned and finally rejected by the relativists themselves."

As to gravitational theories of Einstein and Birkhoff I recommend reading of a more recent paper by Yurij V. Barishev, see below.

"Did you read or scrutinise Birkhoff's original paper"

No, I definitely did not as it is well beyond my theoretical horizon. But I'm pretty shure that Keith has studied Birkhoff in depth when preparing his BS thesis entitled "On Birkhoff's Theory of Matter and Force in Minkowski Spacetime" (degree received from M.I.T.) as well as the referenced papers on "Gravitational Radiation an Aberrated Centripetal Force Reactions in G.D. Birkhoff Relativity Theory" - Parts I and II !

"I was and I am in the context of the question since it is directly related to my work."

I hesitate though to believe that you were able to seriously "scrutinize" or only read Keith's papers, that took himself years to prepare, in adequate manner within a day.

Dear Mohamed,

I'll better leave you uncontradicted with your rigid repetitive statements. Let me just comment on the following new ones:

"And at the macroscopic level, gravitational force predominating electromagnetic force."

How do you score electric vs. gravitational forces in case of an electrically neutral rotor spinning at centripetal accelerations of the order 107 times gravity?

"In laboratory, the experimental determination of the propagation speed of Gravity should be performed with the help of a purely mechanical apparatus, that is to say, à la Cavendish experiment."

An electrically neutral, high-speed rotor as investigated by Keith and related experiments may be regarded, in fact, as a "purely mechanical apparatus" for investigation of dynamic phenomena, while the Cavendish experiment has rather been devised for investigation of static forces.

Dear Johan and Mohamed,

When Mohamed wrote: "And at the macroscopic level, gravitational force predominating electromagnetic force." , is this related to the fact that charges "disappear" from our view macroscopally, when looking at a (large) mass?

"In laboratory, the experimental determination of the propagation speed of Gravity should be performed with the help of a purely mechanical apparatus"

I agree, however, it should be very performant. Annexed is a link of such an experiment, whith a result close to the speed of light.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed/

"Annexed is a link of such an experiment, whith a result close to the speed of light."

Dear Thierry,

I'm quite aware of the paper you quote but also of critical comments, see eg link below. As related authors obviously attribute high significance to "experimental" verification of gravity speed I'm rather astonished that a rotational drag experiment as devised by Keith for similar purpose apparently has no chance of being recognized and seriously discussed. I'm afraid mainstream thinking is stuck to the idea that dynamic gravitational effects should be observable exclusively at cosmic dimensions. That's rather funny, indeed, as we are obviously sensing inertial, ie dynamic gravitational forces with any move.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200306/gravity.cfm

There is a stress energy field caused by moving mass, but it is kinetic energy and convex curvature not induced gravity and concave curvature. The two types are compared in the Lagrangian density where the action depends on the difference between kinetic and gravitational energy densities. It is the Lagrangian that teaches the kinetic field should be convex to diminish the action of gravity.

While gravity tends to enclose a volume within a curved surface, kinetic energy tends to liberate the enclosed volume by opening up the surface.

Hallo Thierry!

Your interesting question leaves as usual the trodden paths of theory.

I have some remarks resp. related questions:

- We don't know the real causes of gravitational attraction. Therefore all theories about gravity and also the answers to your question are speculative.

- Can the rotation of the perihelion be dependent on a deceleration of the central star? The deceleration is caused by uneven radiation of energy towards and contrary to the moving direction of the star (see the link below).

- It is possible to describe gravity as a differential difference of electrostatic forces between atomic structured matter. Exist there observations about electromagnetic induction caused by gravitational masses?

- Electromagnetic radiation is influenced (bending of light) by passage through material such as stellar or planet atmospheres. The influence of electromagnetic radiation by gravitation is at least caused by the bending of observations and experiments by Einsteins theories.

Best wishes!

Hans

Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...

Dear Hans,

Nice to get you here!

You write: "We don't know the real causes of gravitational attraction. Therefore all theories about gravity and also the answers to your question are speculative."

Indeed, a theory is a *best possible decription* of physical behavior, it *isn't* the physics.

Also you ask, "Can the rotation of the perihelion be dependent on a deceleration of the central star?"

The question is then: what is the intensity of that gravitational radiation, how does it interact with matter, why would it give a precession to an orbit, and why would it give decreasing precessions with distance from the Sun, as measured with the other planets?

Also: "It is possible to describe gravity as a differential difference of electrostatic forces between atomic structured matter."

Maybe, that could be even interesting, because that makes an elementary mass being a vector and not a scalar, which I suspect is very real. In that case, it is a quantum-level based explanation, not necessarily useful for the macroscopic description, but important to keep in mind.

A direct example could be the anisotropic measurements of the gravity in galaxy clusters, where sometimes a bending of light is measured where no mass is visible. This indicates the presence of an anisotropic gravity, governed by vectors, which is the case for the gravitational induction fields.

Then: "Exist there observations about electromagnetic induction caused by gravitational masses?"

Not that I know. Only w.r.t. masses, as above, but more specifically, all the examples of the annexed pdf "Gravitomagnetism" are also described by it.

Then: “Electromagnetic radiation is influenced (bending of light) by passage through material such as stellar or planet atmospheres."

Apparently, it has been observed that the light also bends the same way along heavenly objects without an atmosphere.

Finally: “The influence of electromagnetic radiation by gravitation is at least caused by the bending of observations and experiments by Einsteins theories.”

Don't forget that light also contains a mass, when one is accompanying the wave, which explains it much easier. The bending is then explained by the gravitational induction, as shown in the annexed paper: “Did Einstein Cheat?”.

All the best!

Thierry

Research Did Einstein cheat ?

Dear Mohamed and Johan,

I fully agree with you. Our technologies don't allow to measure the velocity of gravity yet. It is once again a scandal that such wrong information remains published and available everywhere, just because it has once been peer-reviewed and accepted at a journal.

Dear Thierry!

Thanks for your detailed answer. As you know I'm not a thoughtless follower of the doctrine. Some additional remarks:

- It is unimaginable that within the universe a heavy object exist without an atmosphere resp. a similar shell of gas or plasma.

- Between energy and mass exist merly a equivalence E = m * c2. The question is how electromagnetic radiation and inert mass should interact resp. what are the material causes of mutual interactions.

- Gravity as a differential difference of electrostatic forces between atomic structured matter leds to the result: Between matter and anti-matter is anti-gravity expectable. Furthermore it is to be expected true (according to a realistic description of the world of particles and nuclei) that about the one half galaxies consist of matter and the other of anti-matter. Anisotropic allocation resp. measurements of the gravity in galaxy clusters are espectable absolutely!

But as you know: The most theories in contemporary physics are merely mental games and are as wrong that the true will be termed as a lie.

My best wishes!

Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

"The most theories in contemporary physics are merely mental games and are as wrong that the true will be termed as a lie."

Dear Hans,

I fully agree and would like to add: "Sometimes even experimental facts are discarded in order to avoid conflicting with theories."

P.S. - See link below.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_to_do_when_experimental_results_are_disregarded_in_favour_of_fund_raising_claims

Dear Mohammed,

Isn't it strange that your "dynamic gravity" outside the vicinity of B is expressed as v2r/r2 and hence, totally independent from G and M ?

Dear Hans,

"how electromagnetic radiation and inert mass should interact resp. what are the material causes of mutual interactions"

Electromagnetic radiation has a momentum, which interacts like simple masses do. On the other hand, you have effects like the Mossbauer recoil and Compton effect. Indeed, "inert mass" and electromagnetic radiation can always end-up with an interaction with the charged components of matter.

The absence of a unit dependent numerical coefficient in the convective (inertial) forces is certainly a question that needs to be addressed, especially if these forces are an extension of either Newton's law of gravity or Coulomb's law of electrostatics. One may rightly ask, "where did the elasticity constant  (G or epsilon) go to?

One possibility is that the convective forces are an 'over and above' Doppler kind of effect in relation to an already existing uniform background pressure. Hence the elasticity coefficient would drop out of the expression.

To Hans Hildebrand:

Hi, you above wrote:

"- It is possible to describe gravity as a differential difference of electrostatic forces between atomic structured matter. "

Can you develop and extend your thought deepper and support with some modeling calculations etc?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon,

Anatolij.

Franz Maria Ulrich Theodor Hoch Aepinus, (1724-1802), suggested that the attractive forces between two uncharged bodies might be very slightly greater than the repulsive forces, and that this difference might be the cause of gravitation. Article Rotation is the Stability of the Universe