[fleep]

This will be a very short first expedition. I am merely postulating, and I need very pointed, challenging questions about my own conclusions. I need absolutely no well-intentioned "explanations" about why my theory can not be true, (as compared to convention). I will participate with individuals who understand and accept that my theory is a BASE theory, like Newton's was at first. I am starting with Newton's apple, and adding an ingredient he could not consider back in the 17th century. Hierarchical theories arising from his fundamentals might well be wrong because he was missing the "Dark energy" factor.

Introduction: History could not have known that Negative Pressure/Dark Energy fills the entire envelope of the universe, for it was not discovered until the year 2005, by the Supernova Legacy Team. Up until 2005, Newton, Einstein, and all the other great minds of Physics and Astronomy have played some beautiful hands, even without being able to include the “table” on which the whole game appears to depend. A reappraisal of Newton’s BASE theory is not an unfair request, in this new light.

The Benign Gravity Theory© needs far more explaining than what follows, but I am fishing for reactions. I see gravity as a much simpler thing than it has grown to be.
================================================== ========
(B.G. Theory says:) - Gravity is a “property” of atomic mass, not a “force”, and thus, has no influence that can affect other masses in any way, either in close proximity, or at a distance. (Gravity is not “valence”, and electrons and orbits are not a “part of the nucleus”).
Gravity is “stability” in the neutrons, by the union of the positive pressure of the protons, with the negative pressure of the universe, which is, ostensibly, like a “completely universal negative environment” in which all nuclear positivism resides.
The actual weight of a mass, being a property of that mass, is never absent under any stable condition. Weight IS Gravity. This “stability” is the 3rd Law satisfaction that must be achieved all the way down to the nuclear level for Newton’s 3rd Law to be “completely true”. Mass can not be “stable” when falling through the vacuum and exhibiting “weightlessness”, because although the actual weight of each mass is still contained within each mass, there is no possible way for it to be weighed.”

(B.G. Theory says:) - There is no “normal force”, or “reaction force” in a mass, because each of the atoms in the mass of the object have their own exclusive benign gravity, existing there as a property of each atom. Regardless of its composition, each and every atom in a mass individually fulfills the 3rd Law reaction, at the atomic level. It does not need to be fulfilled again at the whole-mass level. This is because the positivism of each nucleus, plus the “universally environmental presence”, (so to speak), of Negative Pressure, is the universal combination that stabilizes all mass. The pressure balance IS GRAVITY. i.e. – W=M, M=W


This is a BASE theory. Endless hierarchical theories that have arisen from the medieval must fairly be re-examined if gravity is a property, (and not a force), because no sound logic makes this new “starter” responsible, to disprove old theories.

In the B.G. BASE Theory, gravity is theorized to be much simpler than ever supposed: Because –

Benign Gravity does not accelerate anything.
B.G. could neither create a “field” nor “act” across distance.
B.G. would influence nothing, nor act upon anything else, but does enable weighing.
B.G. would not “pull us down”. Our body/mass weight, alone, holds us down in our atmosphere.
“Microgravity” and “Weightlessness” would both mean “non-scalability” only.
“Zero G-force” would neither mean nor equal anything but “matterless vacuum”.
“Weight” would be the sum total of atomic weights in a mass; i.e. – W=M, M=W.
It could not “pull” our tides. The moon’s weight, alone, bends our atmosphere down. **

** Electron orbits “belong” to their nucleus, as moons “belong” to their planets, and planets “belong” to their sun.

*The moon’s weight, alone, belonging as it does to the Earth’s OrbitalFieldRange, would be realized as an “additional burden”, bending the top of our atmosphere as it goes by overhead. The atmospheric burden is thus increased at sea level by 16%, or 1/6th more than normal, thus pushing large tidal areas ahead of it on approach, which recede when the moon “goes ashore”. (This might be quite easy to verify, with constant sea level atmospheric pressure variation readings, taken beneath a passing moon.)

================================================== ======
Wikipedia is the reference source to use for common terms included anywhere in my theory.

O.K. - Fire away please.

Fleep