## Introduction

The first requirement for a detailed analysis of electrogravitics is a conceptual understanding of the nature of gravitation. Several theories are available for scrutiny, including curved space, gravitational fields, ether vortexes, gravitons, and scalar motion. To understand the theory, it is necessary to understand the conditions under which the theory was derived. These usually appear in the form of postulates or initial conditions; which are nothing more than assumptions on the observed behavior of the universe put into a specific context.

Thus, a reasonable place to begin research is with observation—to find out what is commonly known about gravity, proceed to various postulates and identify the factors that produce the various theories, and to search for common denominators.

## Observations on Gravitation

What is commonly know about gravitation is summarized succinctly by Dewey B. Larson, in his 1964 publication, *Beyond Newton, An Explanation of Gravitation*:

*General*- There is no question that a gravitational
*effect*actually exists. Newton attributed this effect to the existence of a gravitational*force*, but this interpretation has been challenged by some of the more recent investigators, notably Einstein, whose contention is that the gravitational effect is produced by a distortion of the space-time structure in the vicinity of a mass, and that there actually is no such thing as a gravitational force. However, if we analyze this conflict from a critical standpoint, it becomes apparent that what we have here is not a physical question, but a question of semantics. The word "force" normally suggests some kind of a pull or a push and Einstein's contention, in essence, is that his explanation attributes the gravitational effect to something that is not in the push-pull category. But Newton did not limit his concept of gravitational force in this manner; in fact, he specifically refused to express any opinion as to the nature of the force. So far as Newton's theory is concerned, force is simply a quantity which relates mass to acceleration, and if we set up our definition of force on this basis (that is, define it by means of the equation F =*ma*) the consequences of the postulated space-distortion constitute a gravitational force, and can be treated as such. Einstein does this himself in his mathematical treatment of gravitation. *Relation to mass*- The gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the masses involved, and acts in the direction of the line joining the centers of the masses.
*Relation to distance*- The gravitational force between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the masses.
*Gravitational constant*- The numerical constant in the gravitational equation based on the mass and distance relationships just stated is 6.67x10
^{-8}when expressed as dynes x cm^{2}x g^{-2}. *Relation to chemical composition*- The gravitational force is independent of the chemical composition of the masses involved.
*Relation to crystal orientation*- The gravitational force is independent of the direction of the crystallographic axes.
*Relation to temperature*- The gravitational force is independent of temperature.
*Relation to physical state*- The gravitational force is independent of the physical state of the masses involved.
*Velocity of propagation*- So far as is known at this time, the effect of gravitation is instantaneous, and in all practical applications of the gravitational equation the calculations are made on this basis, even at galactic distances. Many theories of gravitation, including the Einstein theory, assume a finite velocity of propagation of the gravitational effect, but there is no experimental or observational evidence to support this assumption.
*Screening*- The gravitational force cannot be screened off or modified in any way by any means now known.

Larson also examines the features of some of the more popular concepts of gravitational influence, and claiming they may now be unchallenged as axioms, continues:

*Curved space*- There is no evidence that space is, or can be, curved or deformed in any way. It is true that Einstein has set up a system wherein some of the characteristics of gravitation are explained on the
*assumption*that space is deformed by the presence of matter, but the phenomena which an assumption was specifically designed to fit cannot be used as proof of the validity of that assumption, and there is no other evidence of an independent character to verify the existence of a deformation of space. *Gravitational fields*- There is no evidence that a gravitational field exists in any physical sense. All that we known is that a test particle placed in a particular location experiences a gravitational force due to the proximity of a mass. So far as we have any actual knowledge, the only participants in this phenomenon are the two masses; any theory that calls for an intermediate effect on or by a field, a medium, or space itself, is purely speculative.
*Mediums*- There is no evidence of the existence of a medium of any kind through which gravitational effects could be propagated. Furthermore, there is no evidence that space has the properties of such a medium.
*Gravitational units*- There is no evidence of the existence of "gravitons" or any such gravitational unit.
*Variability with time*- There is no evidence that the strength of the gravitational effect has varied or is varying with time.

Larson's own theory, first published in the 1959 book The Structure of the Physical Universe, considers gravity as a 3-dimensional, inward scalar motion that counters the effect of the scalar expansion of the universe. It also holds the unique position that it does not require any curvature of space, any type of force field, any medium or aether, nor any particles or waves to reach out and pull on other masses. The only requirement is that there exists a reciprocal relation of an amount of space *s*, to a quantity of time *t*, represented as a velocity *s/t*—that of motion.