ZPEnergy.com - Gravity, Electrostatics, and the Reversal Threshold

Every attempt to unite gravity and electricity into one single unified theory has foundered on the issue of how to reconcile a theory in which like charges are mutually attractive, with a theory in which like charges are mutually repulsive.

Maxwell had the solution within his grasp but he failed to see it. Maxwell's 1861 paper, 'On Physical Lines of Force',

http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/maxwell_oplf.pdf

actually contains two distinct but overlapping theories working together in tandem, but Maxwell failed to segregate these two theories. Had he done so, he might have seen the link between gravity and electrostatics.

In part I, Maxwell was dealing with a hydrodynamical theory involving a liquid aether of unknown substance. In aether hydrodynamics, like negative charges are mutually attractive. Gravity is based on aether hydrodynamics.

In part III, Maxwell was dealing with an elastic polarization theory involving a sea of electrical particles. These electrical particles were introduced in part II in order to give stability to the concept of a sea of aether vortices, and in order to link magnetic fields to electric current. Polarization and magnetization of this electric sea leads to a theory of electromagnetism in which like charges repel.

The hydrodynamical aether theory and the elastic electric sea theory operate together in tandem. It all comes down to the question of dominance in any given situation. Hence, two negatively charged bodies may mutually attract or mutually repel depending on the overall circumstances.

When we study the planets in motion around the sun, we are dealing unequivocally with aether hydrodynamics and so like charges attract. When we study a Faraday cage, we are dealing unequivocally with elastic discharge in the electric sea and so like charges repel. However, the two theories are both very much linked by the aether.

The confusion arises in situations in which the boundary between the two theories becomes somewhat obscured. In the theory of atomic bonding, the mutual attraction which ought to be clearly attributable to aether hydrodynamics, has been mistakenly explained in the context of like charges being mutually repulsive. Hence in order to justify the ionic bonds existing in a sodium chloride lattice, a preliminary transaction is introduced.

A sodium atom sailing close to a chlorine atom sights it and takes an interest in it. It casts out a mooring electron over into the chlorine atom and the two can then haul themselves together. This explanation masks out the fact that the mutual attraction has already occurred before the official explanation for the mutual attraction has come into existence.

See 'Gravity Reversal and Atomic Bonding' at,

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe6.pdf

Gravity is electrostatics in circumstances in which the reversal threshold has not yet kicked in. The reversal threshold is caused by solenoidal polarization of the electric sea.

It's purely a matter of semantics as to whether we want to attribute atomic bonding to gravity or to electrostatics. The important thing is that we use the hydrodynamical rules of mutual attraction as opposed to the elastic polarization rules of mutual repulsion.

Yours sincerely, David Tombe