Part 3 (chapters 3-1 and 3-2) explains quantum mechanics with an ether medium and gravity with pushing particles.

[May 2003: To my big surprise I discovered that Gelman had re-invented the pushing gravity idea. In August 2002 I read the great book Pushing Gravity⁵ (edited by Edwards) in which it is pointed out that it was Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753) who was the first to have pushing gravity ideas on the cause of gravity. After Fatio's death Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) rescued Fatio's ideas, after having re-invented pushing gravity himself, from complete oblivion. The basic idea of pushing gravity is that matter sends out and receives gravity particles (or gravitons, as they are generally addressed), thus causing a pushing gravity force overall resulting in mass “attracting” other mass (by pushing). End May 2003]

If gravity is caused by gravity particles then: all mass is influenced by inertial forces because of gravity particles. If so then we are back at the principle of Ernst Mach (1838-1916), better known as Mach's principle, which states that all inertial forces are due to the distribution of matter in the universe⁶.
[May 2003: Professor Assis² and professor Ghosh³ have worked out new physics with (an extended) Mach's principle as the key-principle.
Pushing gravity and Mach's principle are not exactly the same, but they both lead to the same new backbone of science: a causal understanding of gravity. End May 2003]

We may also go back to George Berkeley (1685-1753). To Berkeley and many other philosophers of science it seemed natural to suppose that space in all respects was subordinate to matter and that the properties attributed by Newton to absolute space were in fact the result of the material content of the universe⁶.

[May 2003: Sooner or later everybody comes to Newton (1642-1726) to set the record straight. Nicolas Fatio de Duillier tried to make Newton consider the alternative concept of gravity which did not violate the causality principle. But Newton held on to objects acting on each other without intermediaries passing between the objects to convey the action and thus drifted off into postulates plus mathematics and so did conventional science ever after. End May 2003]
[November 2003: Another contemporary of Newton was Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). Leibniz attacked Newton's ideas about absolute space that is independent of matter. Leibniz argued that there is no space where there is no matter and that space in itself is not an absolute reality⁶. Leibniz also believed that forces could not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium⁶. End November 2003]

Brush¹⁶ thought that gravity is in fact merely longwave radiation pushing masses together.

[May 2003: For the same hit-chance reason a plate may fall faster when it falls horizontal (in vacuum) than when it falls vertical (see Dr. Thomas van Flandern in Pushing Gravity⁵).
Reducing the hit-chance by placing massive matter around an object, thus reducing the weight of a body, is called gravitational shielding by gravitational absorption. The effect has been investigated by Quirino Majorana who claimed around 1920 that he had measured the effect⁵.
On the other hand: according to Mingst and Stowe⁵ precise measurements of the value of G in underground chambers show a greater value for G than those made on the surface of the Earth, which is not consistent with gravitational shielding. Taking in mind Fig. 3-2-VI may solve this problem: towards the center of the Earth there may be a more and more concentrating stream of gravity particles. End May 2003]

This may mean that it is (in essence) wrong to look at gravity as if a mass M were a point mass, as in the case of Newton's law of universal gravitation (F = Gm1m2/r²). Instead of m1 and m2 we may need a revised law of universal gravitation with ρ1, V1, ρ1 and V2 (with ρ = density and V = volume). (Instead of V rather the radii of (spherical) celestial bodies could be used of course. And one should carefully define what kind of density exactly is meant here, i.e. not only the mass per volume, also the “density” of the atomic nuclei may have to be taken into account.)

Perhaps my no-point-mass argument is better to understand when one thinks of the following: imagine a mass with very small volume and very high density (but with Neptune's mass) passing our Sun at Neptune's distance and with Neptune's speed: my guess is that the (point) mass will escape our Solar System. But my guess is too that the same (Neptune) mass would have fallen on our Sun if it would have been a much bigger sphere than Neptune with a much lower density than Neptune.
If this is true then ρ and V rather than m should be used in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Perhaps a planet with Mercury's mass and Jupiter's (low) density would fall on the Sun when it flew into our Solar System at the same distance from the Sun as Mercury (and with the same speed as Mercury).

Lower density: A. gravity particles “directing” the planet to the Sun will have more grip on the planet because of a higher hit-chance. B. gravity particles coming from all directions will slow down the planet more by inertial forces due to gravity particles coming from all directions.

Perhaps the terrestrial planets (with their relative high densities) would flow out of our Solar System when they flew into the Solar System with the same velocity as Neptune and at the same distance from the Sun as Neptune (according to Newton's law of universal gravitation it would not make any difference, because his law only sees masses as point masses).
Perhaps such a thing can happen with pulsars (6-1) and white dwarfs (6-2). Such objects may flow out of the binary system they are in when the density of the celestial objects (suddenly) becomes much higher (by supernovae, novae or the collapse of a red giant).
[June 2004: Maybe that in the outer parts of the Milky Way stars can blacken en become denser, which then perhaps may cause such stars to be less tied to the center of the Milky Way by gravity and slowly move away to more outer regions of our Galaxy (4-4). End June 2004]
[March 15 2006: However, one has to take in mind here that the inertial forces that give the planets in our Solar System a centrifugal force may show a change of “grip” on the planets too with a different density. Perhaps that the change of “grip” of both gravitational and inertial forces because of density influences is exactly the same, perhaps not. (The density I mention here is not the normal density as we know it, i.e. mass per volume, but a density like: hit chance (by gravitational/inertial force particles) per volume.) End March 15 2006]

[September 7 2005: Perhaps another confirmation of this density-gravity-thing can be found in the observation that the inner core of the Earth (being denser) rotates faster than the outer core of the Earth, which consists of less dense material than the inner core (7-2). The less dense outer core then will be stronger attracted by gravity (caused by the Sun and/or the Moon) than the denser core because gravity may, as described above, have a stronger grip on less dense material. End September 7 2005]

It may be no coincidence that the terrestrial planets have high densities and the Jovian planets have low densities, because terrestrial planets that flew (in the past) into the Solar System (see chapter 7-1 for this new solar system formation model) too far from the Sun escaped the Solar System whereas Jovian planets that flew (in the past) into the Solar System too close to the Sun fell on the Sun (of course, the terrestrial planets may have been stripped of their gas coat by the Sun as well, which is the conventional view and which seems to be observed recently²⁵; perhaps both mechanisms exist).

If the above mentioned relation between density and “fall to Sun or escape Solar-System” concerning terrestrial and Jovian planets is true then perhaps it is no coincidence that there is an asteroid belt between the terrestrial planets and the Jovian planets. Perhaps in the “transitional area” a planet with a little higher density was moving outwards while a planet with a little lower density was moving inwards, thus finally clashing.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that Pluto, being quite far away, has a very low density for a terrestrial planet. And perhaps it is no coincidence either that Mars, being further away from the Sun than the Earth, Venus and Mercury, has a lower density (3900 kg/m³) than the Earth (5520 kg/m³), Venus (5200 kg/m³) and Mercury (5400 kg/m³).
And: it may be no coincidence that the 4 spherical heavy moons of Jupiter have lower densities where they are further away from Jupiter: Io (3530 kg/m³ at 4.2 x 10⁵ km), Europa (3030 kg/m³ at 6.7 x 10⁵ km), Ganymede (1930 kg/m³ at 10.7 x 10⁵ km) and Callisto (1790 kg/m³ at 18.8 x 10⁵ km).
[November 2003: But it may be a coincidence just the same when the gravity mechanism that pushes the moons to Jupiter is exactly the same as the inertial mechanism (for instance 3-2) that pushes the moons away from Jupiter, so this density/volume thing is something that is on shaky grounds. But... even if the gravity and inertial force mechanisms both are caused by gravity particles: with the inertial force the particles come from behind (in case of 3-2) the moon and in the direction of the velocity of the moon and the particles causing gravity come rushing in perpendicular to the velocity of the moon, which may make a difference. End November 2003]

There are very concentrated masses orbiting stars at relatively very short distances from those stars, like the X-ray pulsar Centaurus X-3 orbiting a blue giant, see Fig. 3-2-Ib.

[May 2003: Gravity particles bend the velocity tracks of mass objects like our Moon (orbiting our Earth) stronger than photons. This may be due to photons being extremely compact (high density) and thus gravity particles can't get the same “grip” on a photon as they can get grip on, for instance, the Moon, a stone or a hydrogen molecule. With pushing gravity one may get differences between electrons, atoms and dust relative to each other. Also a dark matter object like a meteor may react different to gravity (particles) than dust. All because: with the pushing gravity particles concept the density of an object, dust particle, atom, ion or electron matters.
Not only bending of gravity is seen different in this respect, also the speeding up or slowing down by gravity of objects and particles is different for particles with different densities. With density (here) not only the mass per volume is meant, but also how the mass occupies the volume. For instance: Is there a big hit chance by gravity particles or not? Is the mass in the volume found in relatively few very concentrated (subatomic) “knots”? Or is the mass in the (same) volume found in many less concentrated (subatomic) “knots”? End May 2003]

[May 2003: Many scientists have come with new gravitation formula's that you can check on. Read for example the books by professor Assis² and professor Ghosh³ or various authors in Pushing Gravity⁵. End May 2003]

[April 9 2005: The above “calculation” is to be seen as a beginning of trying to look different at gravity, i.e. in this case with taking the volume of an object into account when it comes to gravity. The above “calculation” is just mentioned as an opening to a new way of looking at gravity. End April 9 2005]
[May 2003: With very big different densities between the Sun and the Earth the above mentioned “only with volume” result may be surprising. The interior of our Sun (and thus the densities in our Sun) may contain a surprise, tough: the Sun may contain a big heavy element core (7-1). Perhaps that the mass and the density of our Sun are larger than thought so far. End May 2003]
[April 5 2005: Perhaps that the Sun just has different densities (and is the mass of the Sun not or not much higher than expected so far?), i.e. denser (than expected so far) in its center and less dense in its outward layers.
Something else may be important.
A team of planetary scientists and physicists has identified an unexplained sunward acceleration in the motions of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Ulysses spacecraft^316,317,318.
If you do not look at the Sun as a point mass then something may change. The outer regions of the Sun pull on the Earth too and the force that pulls is pointed from the Earth to the outer layers of the Sun, and this force can be split (in your mind) in a force pointing at the center of the Sun (the actual pulling of the Sun) and a force pointing perpendicular to the center-pointed force (the force perpendicular to the center-pointed force gives the Earth no gravitational pull to the Sun). In other words: because the Sun is not a point gravitational forces work a bit different then one may expect with the Sun as a point mass. Or rather: a spacecraft moving away from the Sun will be stronger attracted to the Sun at a larger distance than expected with Newton's universal law of gravitation, because the perpendicular force-component, i.e. the force pointing perpendicular to the center-pointed force, will become smaller relative to the center-pointed force when the spacecraft gets further away from the Sun (angle between actual force pointing at the outer layers of the Sun and the center-pointed force becomes smaller).
However, if the anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft is gravitational in origin, it is not universal, the researchers concluded. It would have to affect bodies massing a thousand kilograms or so (i.e. the spacecrafts) more than bodies the size of planets. The gravitational effect would also be seen in planetary motions, especially for the Earth and Mars, which is not the case, the team says. If they are right then perhaps that the spacecrafts may be less point masses than the Earth and Mars, i.e. when the mass of the spacecrafts is less in the centers of the spacecrafts (much mass in the wrappings) relative to the Earth and Mars.
Calculations about spacecrafts getting pulled harder than expected when they are further away from the Sun also may have to account for the heavy metal core that may be inside the Sun, i.e. account for the density differences inside the Sun. End April 5 2005]

[June 9 2005: I made a mistake here. I mistook the weak principle of equivalence for the strong principle of equivalence.
The weak principle of equivalence goes back to the Middle Ages and can be referred to it as the Newtonian principle. The Newtonian form of the principle of equivalence states that the trajectory followed by a small body in free fall is independent of the mass of the body. When the density of an object influences the way gravity works on the object then I think the Newtonian principle is wrong. This is what I meant.
The strong principle was introduced by Einstein in 1911 and can be referred to the Einstein principle of equivalence. The Einstein form of the principle of equivalence states that inertial and free-falling systems are entirely equivalent. When the density of an object influences the way gravity works on the object then the Einstein principle may be wrong, though it depends on how the density of an object influences the way inertia works on the object. (Actually, where it comes to the Newtonian principle of equivalence: inertial forces work on a small body in free fall. So also when it comes to the Newtonian principle of equivalence: it remains to be seen if the (kind of) mass of the body influences the trajectory of the small body in free fall.) End June 9 2005]

[May 2003: "In the early 20th century Hugo von Seeliger (1909), Kurt Bottlinger (1912) and Quirino Majorana (1919, 1920) proposed a new kind of model, assuming that all bodies emit in all directions particles (or waves) of a special type that produce gravitational forces." Roberto de Andrade Martins in Pushing Gravity⁵. End May 2003]

Push two half spheres against each other and pump the inside of the sphere close to vacuum: you need strong forces or much energy to pull the two half spheres from each other, or: there must be a mechanism/force that holds the two spheres together, a force that pushes the two spheres to each other. Something like this may work on a subatomic level as well. Perhaps gravity particles push protons and neutrons together and thus a nucleus in an atom is hold together very strongly.

But as soon as a (small) part of the nucleus is at a certain distance of the nucleus then that part(icle) may get blown away from the nucleus very fiercely by gravity particles. Thus nuclear binding energy may not be mass turning into energy, but: a particle of the nucleus getting very much speed by gravity particles (because certain gravity forces no longer rule each other out by pushing very hard from all sides to the dense sphere of multiple neutrons/protons). This would also explain why fusion is so hard: two particles must overcome the force by gravity particles that keeps them apart, but as soon they are “through” that force and joined then gravity particles push them very strongly together. This way nuclear binding energy can be understood in a very simple way.

[May 2003: Jones (1987) and Byers (1995) have given arguments supporting Le Sage-type shielding (which is the same as what I am referring to here) as the source of the strong force binding nucleons, see Edwards in Pushing Gravity⁵. End May 2003]

[June 11 2005: This would mean that inside our body subatomic particles are under enormous pressure (think of the energy that comes free in atom bombs) by smaller particles. We don't feel this because the smaller particles push from all sides at subatomic particles (this also goes for gravity, we only feel the net result of the gravity caused by the mass of the Earth, but inside our body gravity particles may squeeze (certain) subatomic particles very hard).
When you look at gravity as particles (or waves) coming from all directions and pushing (larger) mass particles together, like a proton, the Earth or our Galaxy, then what you get is: the smaller the mass particle the larger the (relative) pressure. When you think of galaxies in a cluster of galaxies getting together under the influence of gravity then most of the gravity particles will fall through the cluster because most part of the cluster is intergalactic space. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through a galaxy. When you think of the stars in a galaxy then most gravity particles will fall through the galaxy because most of the galaxy is interstellar space. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through a star. When you think of atoms within the Earth then most of the gravity particles will fall through the Earth because most of the atom is empty. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through the nucleus of an atom. When you think of a proton in an atom then most of the gravity particles may fall through the proton because most of the proton is empty?
Local the pressure by gravity particles gets high. But when “local” means particles that have sizes that start to become relatively small compared to gravity particles then the local pushing force by gravity particles may become very high. This way forces in atoms, like the strong nuclear force that keeps the nuclei of atoms together, may be explained and how the force of gravity may be brought into a model with the other three forces of nature. In such a model I consider it as most likely that you have to presume that there are other (small and smaller) particles (than gravity particles) too that push (in the same way as gravity particles). Perhaps that in such a model ever smaller particles are needed to bring over forces from one (small/smaller) mass particle to another, but perhaps there can a particle that really is the smallest particle that exists. Though, perhaps that it is most likely that we never can be sure whether or not there is a smaller particle to be found. End June 11 2005]

[June 9 2005: What causes two half iron spheres to be pushed very hard against each other when the inside of the sphere is sucked vacuum? The absence of air molecules inside the sphere brings a force that pushes very hard against the two half spheres from outside the sphere, at least that is how I look against it. What kind of force can that be?
With Fig. 3-2-VI I argue that mass may attract more gravity particles. Perhaps that vacuum attracts some kind of particle too, i.e. a particle that is smaller than atoms. When you imagine that you drill a small hole in the sphere where air can pass trough then air will pass through the small hole very fast as soon as it gets its chance. Perhaps that the absence of air brings smaller particles than atoms to go to the vacuum through the iron of the sphere. Particles going in and out of the sphere may bring a strong pushing force directed towards the center.
Or perhaps: inside our Earth very strong gravitational forces are working towards the center of the Earth. But also: when gravity particles continually go in and out of matter then also very strong forces by gravity particles push outwards to the surface of the Earth. The difference between the two forces may be the gravity we experience. Perhaps that with the absence of molecules, i.e. in vacuum, very strong gravity forces are working, because of the absence of a counter force. Or perhaps it rather should be other particles than gravity particles, for instance ether particles or particles causing the inertial force (which may be the same, and which may be the same as gravity particles?). Something pushes the two half spheres together. End June 9 2005]

[April 2 2005: One may argue that the Moon falls on the Earth when it comes near by the Earth (while not having much speed orbiting the Earth), i.e. there is no repulsive force when the Moon comes near the Earth (as with two protons or with a proton and an electron). But there is a difference between the Earth/Moon and two protons or a proton and an electron. If there is such a thing as gravity particles then probably most of them will fall through the Earth and the Moon without interfering with the Earth or the Moon. Protons and electrons are much more compact, which makes things different. If gravity particles are absorbed by protons and electrons then protons and electrons ought to throw them out again too, which then may account somehow for a repulsive force at a close distance between two protons are between a proton and an electron (for instance, perhaps gravity particles are (more) thrown out in the direction of the (other) proton/electron because no/less gravity particles come from the (other) proton/electron; perhaps such a thing is possible on a subatomic (more compact) level).
If gravity particles are responsible for a force that pushes the Moon to the Earth then perhaps there are smaller particles responsible for a pushing force on a subatomic level. Smaller particles than gravity particles may also account for the ether, i.e. smaller particles may be the medium that light needs to propagate itself. I think that if we learn to see deeper and deeper into an atom we will discover ever smaller particles, it may be pretty hard to uncover the whole zoo, if ever possible.

Of course I give very primitive ways to try and understand certain observations we have made. But at least it is about understanding. Newton gave a name to a certain force (i.e. gravity), a force that makes a thea cup out of our hands fall to the ground, but he did not explain why the thea cup falls. The same with things like the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electric charge, which are names for forces we see at work through observations, but what about understanding how and why such forces work the way they do? Before you can get into more complication to understand how the here mentioned forces work you have to start with very simple things to be able to make a start. That is what I try to do in this chapter. Actually it is what I try to do throughout this whole website. End April 2 2005]

There may also be repulsion by gravity particles coming from outside the atom which paths get bend (see Fig. 3-2-III) because the gravity particles pass the nucleus or electron of the atom at a nearby distance. Thus nearby particles, like an electron and a nucleus, or like a helium nucleus leaving an uranium atom, may repulse each other too, next to, as mentioned above, gravity/ether particles coming out of particles like, for instance, protons and electrons, plus gravity/ether particles coming from outside the system and not getting bend (like in Fig. 3-2-III). This would imply necessity for smaller particles than gravity particles in order to bend the gravity particles' direction.

Subatomic movement of an electron (around the nucleus in an atom) too may be due to gravity/ether particles that push the - electron to and fro the + charged nucleus of an atom. But also: there may be gravitational shielding by the nucleus of the atom, thus causing the electron to rotate/spin because one side of the electron gets much more hit by gravity particles coming around one (“horizon”) side of the nucleus; like a top that's getting whipped.

[May 2003: In an infinite (both in time and space) universe there has to be a mechanism that brings photons back into baryonic matter. I have found another, to my opinion much simpler and more plausible, mechanism that can produce baryonic matter. This hydrogen production mechanism is explained in 5-2 and 6-1.

In books and websites by dissidents I didn't see a hydrogen production system in empty space without dark matter playing a substantial part. But I did see some suggestions for hydrogen production with dark matter (or rather: baryonic matter as in our Earth). Edwards and Kokus each describe a hydrogen production mechanism (which differ from each other) in Pushing Gravity⁵, with dark/baryonic matter having a substantial part in the hydrogen production. End May 2003]

[February 2004: Perhaps that every mass is surrounded somehow by smaller masses, i.e. also a neutron, or a photon, or an electron, or even a gravity particle. Smaller particles concentrating around gravity particles may also be surrounded themselves by even smaller particles, etc. This way there may be no end to smaller particles, up to infinity. As written in chapter 1-2: infinity is something we can not understand, by definition, because we, as humans, are finite, i.e. we die. End February 2004]

[June 13 2005: With more gravity particles assembling themselves around mass concentrations one may explain the refraction of light. Light may be bend by gravity particles or smaller particles towards the medium that is “heavier”. Glass is “heavier” than air. When a photon goes from air to glass then just before it enters the glass it may be bend towards the glass because it is pushed towards the glass by gravity particles or smaller particles than gravity particles. When it leaves the glass then it may be bend towards the glass too just after it has left the glass. This may explain why there is no refraction when light enters the new medium perpendicular, and why the refraction becomes larger when light enters the new medium less perpendicular (because then the pushing small particles have more chance to bend the path of the photon).
With gravity particles (and smaller particles than gravity particles) assembling themselves around mass concentrations one may explain why the speed of light in “heavier” media is slower: more resistance by more (small) mass particles. Sound goes faster in denser media, because sound is propagated by atoms/molecules that bounce into each other. Light goes slower in “heavier” media, because a photon has to been seen as a particle and not as a wave within ether? Also the explanation of stellar aberration may be easier with light as a particle. And: we know of fast particles that travel at almost the speed of light: cosmic rays, i.e. nuclei of atoms, and electrons and positrons. Perhaps a photon is a particle. End June 13 2005]

[June 2004: When cosmic microwave background radiation gets lower temperatures when the cosmic microwave background radiation photons pass through relatively strong gravity fields (1-2) then this may be a confirmation of Fig. 3-2-VI, i.e. gravity particles may concentrate themselves around strong concentrations of matter like a planet, star, galaxy or cluster of galaxies. Without a concentration of gravity particles as suggested in Fig. 3-2-VI it may be very hard to understand what a stronger gravity field exactly is and how a stronger gravity field can account for a stronger tired light redshift. End June 2004]

[December 2004: With gravity particles concentrating themselves around strong concentrations of matter like a planet, star, galaxy or cluster of galaxies as suggested in Fig. 3-2-VI one may suspect that the gravity we experience would become stronger when we (in an imaginary short time) would travel with our Earth from the outskirts of our Milky Way to the center of our Milky Way. End December 2004]

[February 2004: In chapter 4-1 it is argued that galaxies and clusters shrink and that the shrunken galaxies become the centers of future galaxies. Now take a cluster of galaxies in mind. The centers of the galaxies in the cluster originate from a much bigger cluster that has shrunk. But the centers of the galaxies of that bigger cluster originate from galaxies of an even bigger cluster of galaxies that has shrunk, and the centers of the galaxies of that even bigger cluster, etc. Though, perhaps this way one can reason that there are always bigger clusters to be found. Perhaps that this does not necessarily mean that the universe is not homogeneous filled with galaxies when you look at the Universe on extremely large scales.
You may also reason that there are not always bigger clusters to be found when relative small amounts of dark matter (escaped from galaxies) in nonluminous voids can assemble more and more matter (5-4) until galaxies light up in nonluminous voids without an old galaxy in its center. I think that if there are no galaxies lighting up without an old galaxy in its center then you can't have an infinite (stable) universe, for then the universe would “run out of” galaxies serving as centers for new galaxies. Perhaps that AGNs (5-1) can also come to existence without a (shrunk) galaxy or cluster as a progenitor. Galaxies and AGNs coming to existence without a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies as a progenitor would mean that universal engines (4-1) too can come to existence without a galaxy as a progenitor. And: perhaps that the difference between ellipticals and spirals (4-3) then (also) may be: spirals have a universal engine because they have a nucleus that descends from an old galaxy, where ellipticals may come to existence in a nonluminous void without a former (big) galaxy in its center (and an assemblage of from galaxies escaped dark matter instead). But also: perhaps that an assemblage of matter escaped form galaxies can get momentum too, thus originating a spiral instead of an elliptical. End February 2004]

[May 2003: Smaller particles may be faster particles, playing roles on both deeper (=smaller) subatomic levels plus deeper (further away in the Universe) space levels. Thus there may be deeper and deeper ether levels and one may never know if there is a possible deeper level to be found, no matter how far intelligent life has evolved. End May 2003]

Our Solar System has a place in our Galaxy (see Fig. 3-2-IX).

[May 2003: See also Hatch's work⁴ about atomic clocks being in all kind of positions. Vibration rates of electrons in hydrogen and (vibration rates in) atomic clocks both may represent the amounts of gravity/ether particle “hit-rates”.
Where atomic clocks “meet” more gravity particles atomic clocks run slower. For instance: atomic clocks are found to run slower when the Earth is closer to the Sun (in the Earth's ellipse around the Sun). This can both be because the Earth is closer to the Sun (and hence goes through a more concentrated stream of gravity/ether particles) or/and because the Earth moves faster (in the ellipse around the Sun) when its closer to the Sun.
And: atom clocks are found to run slower when they are in a valley instead of on the nearby mountain (which is the same as the above mentioned higher G value in underground chambers); perhaps because closer to the Earth there are more gravity/ether particles.
These may be confirmations with respect to Fig. 3-2-VI: there may be more gravity particles near mass, i.e. gravity particles may be pushed themselves by a class of smaller particles. End May 2003]

Also: perhaps light waves “erode”, or: lose gravity/ether particles, when they redshift (and gain gravity/ether particles when they blueshift).
Perhaps the amount of mass in a mass particle and the velocity/rotation of that mass particle are correlated somehow. [May 2003: I admit that things become spooky speculative from here in (the last paragraphs of) this chapter. End May 2003]

This could put gravity particles' most profound basis on the same level as biological systems: desire for happiness acting against the second law of thermodynamics.
At the same time desire for happiness may be the second law of thermodynamics (in a philosophical sense): the will to be free may lead to happiness (or: the wish to erode, to tend to more chaos, or to die). It is the same as: you can only be happy if you know you eventually die (or at least: can die). Conform to the second law of thermodynamics all particles may “want” as much freedom as possible and therefore gravity may be a repulsive force (leading to freedom or chaos) on a (more) philosophical ground as well as in a physical sense.
At the same time there is a desire/will to bind and connect and form larger systems that can “feel” more (1-1) and so hydrogen may be formed out of smaller particles.
[May 2003: Just some fun physics to make a smile. End May 2003]

[May 2003: Inertial/gravity effects involving high voltages and superconductors are being investigated by Podkletnov's team in Moscow. Also NASA and several laboratories worldwide research gravity-superconductivity relations. See Hathaway in Pushing Gravity⁵. End May 2003]