return to homepage
return to updates

The Third Wave
A Redefinition of Gravity

by Miles Mathis


1.Celestial Mechanics. I highly recommend you read this paper as an introduction to the problem. Here I show some of the shortcomings of current gravitational, orbital, and nebular theory. You must understand how inadequate the Standard Model is in order to understand the pressing need for a new theory.
2. Part I. The paper below.
3. The Universal Gravitational Constant. Following a hint by Maxwell, I give the dimensions of G to the mass, so that the mass of a simple structural sphere (approximated by a proton) is dependent only on its radius. I estimate the spherical acceleration of the proton and apply this number to the numbers coming out of particle accelerators. I thereby solve the mystery of 108moc2—the maximum energy of the proton in the accelerator. I also derive a new number for the age of the universe, in a surprisingly direct way.
4. Part II. I explain orbits, both atomic and macro-orbits, as a combination of the acceleration "field" and the E/M field.
5. Part III. I explain the inverse square law, showing that it is easily derivable using Relativity and expansion theory, and showing that it is not derivable from the Standard Model.
6. Part IV. I explain Einstein's Lambda (Λ), Retrograde Orbits, Triton, and the Sun's lack of angular momentum.
7. Part V. The Bending of Starlight, including a derivation of the number 1.7 without using tensors. A prediction of the bending of starlight by Jupiter, contradicting the prediction of Einstein. Gravity at the quantum level.
8. Part VI. The Ideal Gas Law as proof of the Third Wave. I make a prediction, verifiable within the next decade, that the Ideal Gas Law will prove the reality of expansion.
9. Part VII. Mass and Weight. Data from the Moon is used to show that gravity is dependent only upon radius.
10. Part VIII. Genesis. I reveal the first parts of my cosmology, showing that the universe is banging all the time.
11. Part IX. The optical equivalence (angular diameter) of Sun and Moon as proof of my theory.
12. Expansion Theory, an interlude. A short gloss of the last decade's work.
13. Proof of Expansion. Bending of starlight by the planets as experimental proof of expansion.
14. The Cavendish Experiment. This famous experiment is reinterpreted as proof of my unified field.
15. The Unified Field Theory. Newton's equation as a compound field.
16. The Trouble with Tides. An expose showing the holes in current tidal theory.
17. The Solution to Tides. Tides as a function of the foundational E/M field.
18. Explaining the Ellipse. Holes in the theory of elliptical orbits are filled at last.


In this series of papers called The Third Wave I will greatly simplify the mechanics of gravity, both for itself and as it relates to other fields and forces. As I have shown in previous papers, QED, QCD, Relativity, and the Electrical Field are all foundationally very thin. In fact, physics gave up on a strictly mechanical explanation of the universe a century ago, and contemporary physics is heavy again with mysticism and illogic. Simplicity has also taken a heavy hit, and string theory is a big step in the wrong direction in this regard. It is a giant leap into esoterica and obscurantism.
       My mechanics is a step in the other direction. It is a major simplification of the standard model, both as mathematics and as field physics. I begin this simplification by jettisoning any idea of an attractive force. The attractive force cannot be explained mechanically, as physics has long known and sometimes admitted. Since this immediately does away with gravity (as it has been defined until now) and with opposite charges, the main two heuristic devices of history are gone. But my theory is able to build a simple mechanics without them, one that does not rely on force at a distance, field lines, messenger particles, or any other semi-mystical ideas. My theory explains all forces as either apparent forces caused by motion or as real forces caused by collision. Gravity is the prime example of the first; and electromagnetism, of the second. I show that by using only these two field generators—motion and collision—I can mechanically explain all orbits, attractions, repulsions, and fields.

Part I

Gravity has long been the greatest mystery in physics, and it still is. For Newton, gravity was a force at a distance. This was inherently mysterious, as he admitted, since there was no causal mechanism. Einstein provided gravity with a new mathematics, but he also failed to provide a mechanism. Einstein denied that gravity was a force at all; for him it was simply a new geometry—curved space. This was novel, except that it failed to explain how mass curved space. The mechanism was still missing, force or no force. Some contemporary physicists believe that gravitons may be the force-carrying particles, but they have no theory to explain the force at a quantum level. Not only have they been unable to find a quantum mathematics that includes gravity, but they have utterly failed to explain (or even to attempt to explain) how trading particles can mechanistically cause an attractive force. A repulsion can easily be explained by bombardment, for instance; but attraction is impossible to explain in any analogous way. As an example, if you throw nerfballs at a balloon it will move away. But try getting the balloon to move toward you by doing anything with a nerfball. The balloon and you can absorb or eject nerfballs in a billion different ways, but none of them will make the balloon come to you.1
        Another problem with contemporary gravity theory is that it contradicts itself. Often the same physicists who are seeking the graviton are also telling you that curved space requires no explanation of curvature. "Things just naturally travel curved trajectories," they say. "That is the default trajectory, not the straight line." If you point out that things do not travel curved trajectories outside of gravitational fields, they reply that weak gravitational fields permeate the universe. And if you insist that weaker fields produce straighter lines, they pretend this is not a problem. They pretend that this does not imply that massive objects must affect the space around them, and that this implies that they must affect it in some mechanical way. They pretend that a new geometry is the causa sui—the cause of itself. And if you ask why they pursue the graviton, you are told it is not to fortify general relativity, it is to construct gravity waves. Which is true in the sense that a discovered graviton would undercut general relativity, not fortify it. For then the cause of the curvature would not be geometry alone, it would be a force carried by the graviton.
        Beyond that, the mechanics of the graviton is one of the greatest absurdities in 20th century physics. Most physicists ignore any mention of mechanics in regard to gravity or QED, since they appear to recognize it for the farce it is. The proposed theories have been so embarrassing that it is best to pretend that mechanics does not exist at the quantum level. As an example, Bohm said in 1951 (following Wentzel), “If we imagine that a planet can absorb quanta only when they are returning to the Sun, we see that an inward force is produced by an enormous number of tiny impulses.”2
        To propose such a thing is to beg about ten fundamental questions, the first few being these: 1) Why would gravitons return to the Sun? 2) How far would they go before they turned around? 3) It would require a force to turn them, would it not? What would we call this force? Gravity II? 4) Don’t we need a quantum to mediate this new force also? Gravitontons?
        All mechanical explanations of attraction have hit this reductio ad absurdum. It is because attraction is not a mechanical postulate. Attraction cannot be explained mechanically. Attraction is a result, not a force.3

In this paper I will redefine gravity, introducing a Third Wave in gravitational mechanics. Newton provided the First Wave and Einstein the Second. My theory will revolutionize physics not by introducing a new metaphysics or a more avant garde math or any other esoterica. I will proceed by building a strictly mechanistic5 universe from the ground up, using the simplest math and concepts that I can at all times. In addition, I will strive to keep my language as clear and concise as possible. This will prevent any unnecessary obfuscation or complexity. The task at hand will provide enough complexity without adding to it with unwieldy language or overly abstract math.

We will start with a redefinition of the point. Euclid’s definition has been useful in many ways, but in other ways it has been a wall. He defined the point as indivisible—as that thing that had no part. It was therefore an idea to start with. Not an idea as in a thing in someone’s head, but an idea as in something that was abstract even before you put it into someone’s head. Euclid’s definition doesn’t apply directly to a thing, even if you assume that there are things. Euclid’s point is a concept. It is an abstraction. That is, it cannot even be imagined to be real. Euclid’s point is a mathematical limit. In non-mathematical terms, it is just the idea of “the smallest thing.” To conceive of a point, by Euclid’s definition, you think, “OK, imagine a tiny sphere. Now, shrink that down. Let it keep shrinking. Finally, watch where it disappears. That place where it disappeared, that is a point. There is nothing there. No extension in any direction. A position without mass or size.” In geometry, that is a useful concept, in some ways. In gravitational physics, it is not. Gravity pertains to objects with position, mass, and size. But a point is not a physical object. It cannot exist, since it is a zero or a limit. It can exist only as an idea, never as a thing. A physical object must have extension. A point has no extension, therefore it is not a physical object. A point is a mythical beast, one best left behind when defining gravity.
        It is best left behind for another very important reason. The concept of the point implies that there is a “smallest thing.” It implies that a shrinking sphere will actually, physically, approach a limit or a zero. That it will approach being a point. But it won’t. That is the starting point of my redefinition. A shrinking sphere will not approach a point, not physically, metaphysically, conceptually, really, or abstractly. Size is a relative term. It is relative to other things and other times. You may be smaller than another thing, or smaller than you were yesterday, but other than that “small” has no meaning. A shrinking balloon has a limit. You can only let so much air out. It can’t get smaller than a deflated balloon. But if you take a sphere in physical space and treat it only as structure, then there is no upper or lower limit on size. You can make it infinitely large or infinitely small. Large and small are opposite directions in extension, but they are the same conceptually. Just as thing can go on expanding forever it can go on shrinking forever. Zero is precisely as far away as infinity.
        This means that nothing that exists is indivisible. To exist is to be divisible. If a thing exists, it has extension. If it has extension, it is divisible. The divided parts also exist, therefore they are also divisible. QED, all things that exist are infinitely divisible. The only thing that is not divisible is the zero, which has no extension and is nothing. It does not exist.
        The reason I am spending some time driving this home is that most people have a somewhat easier time imagining a large infinity than a small infinity. Especially since I am not talking about a negative infinity. I am not talking about negative numbers here at all, you must realize. I am talking about a regress toward zero. Smaller and smaller fractions, or the like. Just as a large number does not really ever approach infinity, a small positive number does not really approach zero. Any infinite progression or regression does not approach ending. It does not end, therefore it cannot logically approach ending.
        That is the first thing to understand. In the new gravitational mechanics, the basic entity is not the point, it is the sphere. We are not starting with a nothing, we are starting with a something. A point is a nought, a nothing. Existentially it is a zero. This has been understood at least since Simon Stevin in the 16th century. The point is not analogous to the unit, it is analogous to the zero. Therefore it has no possible existence. It is therefore not a proper first concept for physics. The proper first concept for physics is the sphere. The sphere is the basic unit. It is the primary physical unit, no matter what size you are talking about, whether large or small.
        This means that the singularity cannot exist. A singularity is just a fancy word for a point. It is supposed to be a point that exists, but by this definition a singularity is just a contradiction. A singularity is illogical. A black hole does not become a singularity, nor does it approach becoming a singularity. A something cannot approach becoming a nothing. A black hole gets smaller and denser. That is all we know or logically can know.
        Likewise, the universe was never a singularity. Proposing that it was is logically exactly the same as proposing that it once was an infinity. A thing cannot be an infinity. Only a progression can be infinite. A series of things can be infinite, but a thing cannot be an infinity. The universe may have an infinite capability. That is, it may go on expanding in size forever. But an infinite universe is not an infinity. “An infinity” implies that the end has been reached, that infinity has been reached. It is equivalent to saying that zero has been reached. Zero and infinity cannot be reached, existentially. They are defined by being unreachable, in the first instance. If you propose that the universe has or is or will be at infinity or zero, you have stated a contradiction in terms. It is that simple. Infinite series can and do exist, but a “thing” at infinity or zero cannot exist, by definition.
        In the final analysis, this is because a series of things is not a thing. A series is an abstraction. For instance, take the galaxy both as a thing and as a series of things. As a thing, we may ask what was it yesterday, what is it today, what will it be tomorrow. How big was, is, will it be? How many things made it up yesterday, today, tomorrow? “What it was yesterday” is one thing. “What is will be tomorrow” is another thing. It existed yesterday, it will exist tomorrow. But the series, “Galaxy today, galaxy yesterday, galaxy tomorrow” does not exist in the same way. It exists only in a chart. A galaxy is a thing; a series is an idea. Or, if you want to quibble, a galaxy is a first-order idea and a series is a second-order idea. A first-order idea (galaxy) directly represents a thing. A second-order idea (a series of galaxies) represents a collection of first-order ideas.
        This is important for another reason. Change is another one of the primary aspects of the universe. I have postulated the sphere as my primary structure. I will show that it is the primary noun of gravitational mechanics. Change is the primary verb. Size limits cannot exist because they would be an absolute obstruction to change. Change is the engine that drives the universe. If size limits existed, then in infinite time they would certainly be reached. Which means that change would stop, which means that time would stop, which means that time is not infinite, which is a contradiction to the previous sentence. The only way to construct a logical universe is therefore to construct one with no size limits. Limits of other sorts may exist (as we know here on earth). But a size limit on the structural sphere is illogical. Time that could stop, would stop, and could not be started again.
        If that argument does not appeal to you, then simply return to the previous one. If we can imagine a sphere as large as we want, then we can imagine one as small as we want. We do not need to talk of infinities at all. We only need to notice that "large" and "small" are directly analogous. There is just as much "room" to shrink as there is to expand. Therefore, for any given sphere that is expanding, the past would be just as long as the future. "The past" or "the small" does not imply an end any more strongly than "the future" or "the large."

To these two foundational concepts we must add one other. Time as a concept we will link to change. Time is a measurement of change. That is its first operational definition. Where there is no change there is no possible measurement of time. Where there is a measurement of time, there is a change being measured. Change is movement. Without movement, there is no change. All change is ultimately reducible to movement. If nothing on any level of size is moving, then there is no possible change. If there is no movement, there is no measurement of time. Time is therefore a measurement of movement. It is a measurement of distance, purely and simply. It is the displacement of a thing that is moving. In this way it is exactly the same as any other distance measurement. It differs only in that it is a secondary measurement of distance. It is useful only as a comparison for a primary measure of distance.
        What I mean by that is that we seek information about specific objects. We do this by comparing these objects to one another. The object in question is the primary object, and its measurements are the primary measurements. The secondary object is the comparison object, and its measurements are secondary. The primary object is changing either faster or slower than the secondary object. That is all we can know. If we make the secondary object a standard object, then we can compare all other objects to it. It becomes a universal secondary. We then know how fast everything is compared to the universal, and thereby to all other things. We have linked all things. A clock is this universal secondary measurement of distance.
        Every clock in history has been a measurement of distance. How far the cesium atom wobbles, how far the pendulum swings, how far the second hand ticks. All these distances are standard universals, directly analogous to the length of the meter. The only difference is that time measures movement, and length does not. Nothing need move from one end of the meter bar to the other, but the pendulum arm must move from A to B, or the cesium atom wobble from side to side. Knowing the width of the cesium atom is not enough. We must measure the wobble simultaneously with our movement in question. Or, we must measure during the same "time" interval. When measuring a length with a meter bar, we do not have a change interval to measure, since there is no change. The length in question is not changing, and the meter bar is not changing. That is the ultimate difference between a length and a distance. A length could potentially be measured at an instant. One could imagine measuring a length at an instant. But one could not imagine measuring a distance at an instant. A distance is the measurement of a change, and there is no change at an instant, not even in the imagination.4

With all these postulates in hand we are ready to proceed with an explanation of gravity. Let us begin with any two structural spheres in proximity. These spheres will replace the "point particles" of traditional physics. The spheres are chosen because they have extension; they are not points or zeros. At this time I am not concerned about their masses or their contents. For now they are just structures, or shells. It is mainly the outer shell that I am concerned with, because what I will be measuring in the beginning are distances. In fact, there are only two distances that we need to be concerned with at this point: 1) the radius of each sphere, 2) the distance from sphere to sphere.
        Gravity is the attempt to explain an attraction. So we must ask, what is an attraction, operationally? What is changing? The distance between the spheres is getting smaller. That is all we really know. That is the baseline data. What could cause this distance to get smaller? Historically, there have been only three possible answers. Sphere A is moving toward sphere B, sphere B is moving toward sphere A, or both spheres are moving relative to where they were initially. Notice that in this case, there are no curved trajectories. The line of change between the two spheres is a straight line. New geometries do not help us. For general relativity to help us here, we would have to theorize that one or both of the spheres is gobbling up the space in between them. This explains the attraction not as a force between the spheres, but as an action of the spheres on the space. But if we theorize this we must then ask how and why matter gobbles up space. It all becomes mysterious very fast. Space takes on the characteristics of a thing, since it is being vacuumed into matter, but we have no way to characterize space. How does a sphere vacuum nothing into itself?
        The Third Wave solves all these problems with one postulate. For there is one final change that would explain the decreasing distance between the spheres. The distance would decrease if each sphere were getting larger. In this case, space is just a grid. It is nothing but a concept. It is a three-dimensional Cartesian graph that we superimpose over the two spheres for our own benefit, and that is all it is. This grid does not expand. Space does not expand. It is the still reference frame in regard to which the spheres expand. To postulate material expansion, we must provide a background for this expansion. If both the spheres and the space expanded, then the expansion would be meaningless. It would be unmeasurable. In the final analysis, space is a mathematical field that we freely create in order to measure the expansion. We then suppose that the centers of each of our two spheres do not move as time passes. But the two spheres get larger. This would cause the distance between them to decrease, and would create a situation that one might call gravitational.
        You will say, “Yes, that explains a decreasing distance between spheres, but it does not explain gravity in the real world, since we do not see spheres expanding.”
        To answer that, let us imagine that our two spheres are expanding at the same rate. By that I mean that if sphere A is initially half the size of sphere B, then it remains half the size as the two expand. No matter how big they get, sphere A is always half the size of sphere B. Is it possible to imagine that? Of course. It is quite simple. It gives us small problems when we start thinking about mass and density, but structural spheres give us no trouble at all. It is no problem, mathematically, to postulate such expansions.
        Notice that if we now make sphere A aware of itself and its surroundings, like a baby being born, it will have no way of knowing from its incoming data that it is getting bigger. It will assume that it is staying the same size, and that its companion sphere is staying the same size; and if it does so, then it will assume that there must be some force of attraction between it and the companion sphere. For this would be the easiest way of explaining why they were coming together. If it were a very precocious baby sphere, it might even invoke Occam’s razor to explain gravity as a force. But it would be wrong.

Not only gravity, but also inertia, is explained by the Third Wave. You can see that expanding spheres would resist any forces from any direction, since no matter which way you apply a force, the sphere is already moving against your force. This is why gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal. Gravity and inertia are two names for the same motion. The expansion of the sphere causes both gravity and inertia.

But can this expansion cause the acceleration we see? The distance between masses is not just decreasing, it is decreasing at a definite acceleration, an acceleration until now defined by the masses. Do we have to postulate that the spheres are getting larger exponentially? That they are accelerating outwards? If we do that, won’t that throw off the relative sizes of the spheres? These are good questions, and they force us to do our first serious calculations.
        First of all, a sphere that is doubling in size is already expanding with an acceleration. We must look at the velocity of the shell to see this. We have not said how fast it is doubling in size—whether it is doubling every second or every billion years. But it is not important. We just choose any time interval and look at succeeding intervals. Let us say it doubles over every interval. At t0 let the radius be 1. At t1 the radius is 2, at t2 the radius is 4, and so on. So over the first interval, the shell moved 1. Over the second interval the shell moved 2. Obviously we have the sequence of velocities: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and so on. Which is 2n, which is an exponential sequence, which is an acceleration.
        Of course the other sphere will also be doubling in size, so we will have to take into account its accelerating shell. But if it is very much smaller to begin with, its acceleration will be negligible and will remain negligible, no matter how big we make the spheres (since the first sphere will always be the same order of magnitude larger than the second).
        Hopefully you can already see that this is all in keeping with the current mathematics of gravity. All we have done is turn the acceleration vector around. Currently, when diagramming a gravitational force, one draws an acceleration vector pointing toward the center of the larger object. For instance, if one looks at any textbook diagram of a person standing on the earth, or the moon orbiting the earth, the acceleration vector points toward the center of the earth. All I have done is turn that vector around. I have reversed it and applied it to the radius of the sphere in question (which in this example would be the earth). So the acceleration is no longer a force, it is a real acceleration. Gravity is not caused by a force or by position, it is caused by movement. It is completely reducible to straight-line movement.

The standard first reaction to this is predictable. Readers will say, "Are you saying that the earth is really expanding like a balloon? That throws the whole universe out of whack. Orbits become inexplicable, tides, a thousand things. Besides which, your theory implies that mass and size are proportional, whereas we know from things like white dwarves and neutron stars that density may vary to a great degree. Not only is your theory counterintuitive, it is contradicted by every fact we know."
        It is true that the Third Wave requires a re-assessment of a great number of things. But, as you will see, the difficulties are not as great as they might seem to be at first. Nor is the theory really counterintuitive. It might be counterintuitive to babies, but to scientists who accept the fact of an expanding universe, it should not be so surprising. Why should the universe be expanding at a macrolevel but not a microlevel? If we can accept some force of creation that caused a big bang, why should it be any more difficult to accept that this same force is still at work within every material object in the universe? Most have already accepted Einstein’s idea that the center of the universe is everywhere—that is, all material points in the universe were once at the center and therefore are still at the center, in some sense. If this is so, then the expansion within all spheres might only be a residual of this big bang. That is to say, when all the spheres were very tiny and were packed into the big ball, the bang that sent them fleeing one another did not work upon the spheres only externally. The bang came from every center of every sphere. The bang did not only create space between the spheres, it created space within the spheres. The distances between spheres began to increase; and the radius of every sphere also began to increase. Since the spheres were all in one (general) place in the beginning, they felt the initial bang equally, from their centers. And so the radius of each sphere increased proportional to every other sphere. They stayed the same size relative to eachother. This is the primary fact of gravity. Gravity is universal expansion at the microlevel, hidden by proportional expansion. [See Part VIII for more on this question of cosmology or genesis].

[I have just proposed a mechanism to replace expansion, keeping the vector out but with no necessity of an increase in size. January 2012]

In closing this first part, I will quickly address the problem of mass. Before I talk of orbits and tides and other things I must first incorporate the idea of mass into my theory. Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories are theories of mass. It is mass that is thought to cause the force or curve the space. All the current mathematics applies to masses, in the first instance.
        I can’t just assign the term mass to the relative size of the structural sphere, since we know that with large complex spheres like the earth and sun mass is not only a function of size. We cannot determine mass just by measuring a radius. What I mean is that mass is dependent not only on the sphere’s volume, but on its density. As I show in upcoming papers, this is explained by the foundational E/M field. It turns out that mass is a compound effect, the result of two separate fields. To be specific, I will show that mass is separable into volume and density: only the volume applies to the gravitational field; the density variable applies to the foundational E/M field. All spheres are emitting this foundational E/M field, and I show that this field is a part of Newton's classical gravititational equation. That equation is a compound equation and it describes two fields. It turns out that the density in Newton's equation doesn't even apply to the density of the atoms or molecules in the object; it applies to the density of the emitted field, the foundational E/M field. This foundational E/M field is the same as the charge field. It is the field currently mediated by the "messenger photon". In the standard model explanation, this photon is virtual, with no mass or mass equivalence. I show that, in order for it to impart a real force, it must have a real mass. The mass of this field must then be included in Newton's equation, which makes his equation a compound equation of two fields. The density variables, being part of the mass variables, apply to the density of the emitted foundational E/M field, or charge field. And G acts as a transform between the two fields, between the foundational E/M field and the gravitational field. I show this in much more detail in later papers.

This means that mass is not what we have always thought it was. It does not directly describe the "ponderability" of the object. It is the summation of two separate fields. The first field is caused by expansion, and can measured with a radius alone. The second field is caused by emission from every spinning quantum or nucleus, and it is a straight function of density. But the density applies to the density of the field, or of the messenger photons, not to the density of the atoms or molecules. Certainly the density of the field is ultimately a function of the density of the atoms or molecules, since it is the atoms or molecules that are emitting. But the density—as a number we can take from Newton's equation—is directly a measurement of the density of the photon field. This clears up many things, as I will show.

1This is not quite true. You can cause the balloon to come nearer by imagining that your presence causes it to eject nerfballs away from you, propelling it to you, or by imagining that its presence impels you to eject nerfballs away from it, again propelling you toward the balloon. But then you must provide a mechanism for causing such a reaction. Why would the presence of other matter cause material objects to eject gravitons away from the matter? And how does matter detect other matter? It would need to “see” by emitting other quanta of some sort, in which case we get into an infinite regression of causes. If gravity were a repelling force, you wouldn’t have this causal problem. You could theorize that all objects are constantly ejecting gravitons in all directions indiscriminately, like a sun emitting light, and that nearby matter just got in the way. But an object cannot propel itself in all directions at once by emitting gravitons. Gravitons therefore cannot explain attraction.
2Quantum Theory, section 6.
3The messenger particle is the latest absurdity added to the list, an ad hoc, non-mechanical answer that attempts to skirt all the begged questions by sheer force of will and stunning obtuseness. A messenger particle can cause either attraction or repulsion, simply by carrying a different message. But this would make force some sort of edict, or some form of mail.
4For further clarification on time as an operational concept, see my paper on time.
5I feel I must state clearly that my mechanical explanation does not—and is not meant to—support any sort of geocentrism or continental expansion theory. Many readers are taking my papers as support for their theories, and although I cannot deny them this right, I can point out that my theory implies that the earth is doubling in size every 19 minutes or so—a rate exponentially beyond anything that continental expansion can deal with. And my theory, being strictly mechanistic, obviously has nothing to do with Catholicism or any other religion. I take as given the Copernican view of the solar system and most other basic assumptions of modern cosmology, such as the view that we are part of a galaxy which is just one among billions of others. I am attempting to explain gravity with a simple and logical mechanism and I have nothing to say here about God or gods or any teleology or eschatology.

Go to The Universal Gravitational Constant.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith—that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.