The Moon is the only celestial body we have actually visited. We have stepped on its surface, collected rocks, hit golfballs into its bunkers. The data we have from the Moon is therefore in some sense privileged. It is not based on assumption or speculation. It is not based solely on calculation. It is based on first-hand measurement. We have data collected by hand. Concerning the Moon, we are now a primary source.

For this reason I have I studied the Moon’s data quite closely. To my mind our physical theories have recently traveled too far from home. Theories on black holes and other exotics, theories of the first seconds in the universe, theories of strings vibrating below the Planck limit. These may be interesting, but to me they are not as interesting as objects in our nearer environs, things we know a bit more intimately. It is from these things that we are likely to learn the next secrets of the cosmos.

As proof of this rather non-modern assertion, I will offer in this paper some basic data from the Moon and show that it contains an astonishing secret that has so far lain unheard.

Let us start with three basic measurements of the Moon: it’s vital stats, if you will. It’s mass is 1/81 that of the Earth. It’s radius is 1/3.67 that of the Earth. And it’s gravity at the surface is about 1/6 that of the Earth. I have given all these numbers relative to the Earth for a reason. I looked hard at this very limited data and the thought occurred to me that the gravity ratio and the radius ratio were rather close. Much closer than the mass ratio, at any rate. Might there be a direct link?

I don’t know that anyone has ever considered this. If they had considered that gravity might vary directly with radius, then this data from the Moon would have been the first thing to put them off the idea. Data from the rest of the solar system, and indeed the universe, would be the second thing to put them off it. The ratios from the Moon are close, but they are far enough apart to deter all but the most eccentric from following up any idea that they might be related. If they were related, shouldn’t the gravity of the Moon be 1/3.67 that of the Earth? It is not and that is all there is to it. Once we get to the Sun, and then to exotics like black holes and neutron stars, the idea that gravity is simply a function of radius is ludicrous. Why even do any math on the Moon to pursue it one way or another?

Without a very strong lead, none but a fool would pursue the idea. After all, what could possibly cause the variance in the Moon? What could make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6? Whatever it was would have to make up much greater differences for the Sun and exotics. Well, it turns out that there is a very strong lead, and it is called the E/M field. Quantum physicists know that at their level the E/M field totally swamps the gravitational field, but at the macro-level the E/M field has been pretty much ignored. As I will show, the strength of the E/M field of the Earth at its surface is not sufficient to effect g until the third decimal point, so it is not surprising that terrestrial scientists would get used to ignoring it. If they ignore it concerning g, it is not surprising that they would also ignore it concerning the field of the Moon. They would assume that the Moon’s field is proportionally weaker than the Earth’s, since the Moon is known to be almost non-magnetic, as a whole.

This ignoring of the E/M field has been a grave error, however. An E/M field continues to exist even in the absence of the expression of its magnetic component, as we now know. Venus and Mars exclude the Solar Wind just as if they had powerful magnetospheres, even though they do not. In fact, I will show with a few very simple postulates and some even simpler math that the E/M field of the Moon is quite sufficient to make up the difference between 1/3.67 and 1/6. I will go even further and show that the E/M field of the Moon is exactly sufficient to make up that difference. This will prove that the total weight-causing fields of both the Earth and the Moon are sums of the gravitational field and the E/M field, and that the gravitational fields can be shown to vary exactly as the radius of the object.

My proof relies on only two postulates. The first is that the E/M field is an exclusionary field created by bombardment or an equivalent mechanism. This postulate is orthodox, since most physicists accept that the field must be mediated by particles, probably photons of some sort. Some quantum physicists now prefer the concept of the messenger photon, a photon that is capable of giving different messages to negative charges and positive charges; but a simpler mechanical explanation is that the field is a straight bombardment of photons, either as a sort of fluid or as a sort of hail of tiny bullets.

It is not necessary for me to finalize a mechanical description of the E/M field at the quantum level here. All that is necessary is that you accept that physical objects are affected by a large E/M field by feeling an exclusionary force. There is nothing revolutionary in this postulate, since we already accept that meteors are affected not only by the atmosphere of the Earth, but by its E/M field. The Solar Wind is also excluded by the E/M field, as I have already stated. Plasma research has provided lots of new data in this direction, but we have always had data that showed the basic exclusionary nature of the field.

The second postulate concerns the variance of an E/M field when it is created by a spherical object. We know that in a non-spherical E/M field the field varies with the inverse square law. But since the E/M field is mediated by discrete particles, it must vary in an additional way when the field is spherical. The field lines emitted by a sphere will not be even nearly parallel. They will spread out as the radius increases. This means that the field must become less dense at greater radii: the distance between photons must increase. Since the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr², the density of the field will drop off with the inverse square law. But we must add this to our other inverse square law, since they are unrelated. This means that the spherical E/M field will vary as 1/r⁴.

Some will say that if the gravitational field is expressed by the graviton, the same consideration must apply to it. But this is false. The gravitational field was always spherical, and the inverse square law always applied to the spherical field. This has been known empirically for centuries, so that we do not need to figure a special case for the gravitational field. There is no rectilinear gravitational field, like the E/M field, where the inverse square law also applies. Therefore we do not have to add effects.

Given these two postulates we can proceed directly to the math. Let us first make a prediction, using the postulates above. I am claiming that that I can show that the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Earth are directly proportional to their radii. Let us do the math to show what the Moon’s gravitational field would have to be if that were true.

g_E / g_M = 3.672
9.8 m/s² / g_M = 3.672
g_M = 2.669 m/s²

But the current number for g_M is 1.62 m/s². That seems like a huge amount of acceleration to make up, and I can understand your doubts. When I first did the math I thought there was little chance the numbers would work, to be honest. I was just following an idea. But watch closely:

We know that the total field of the Earth at its surface creates an acceleration of 9.8 m/s² and we hypothesize that this is the gravitational field minus the E/M field [the gravitational field is an attractive field and the E/M field is a repulsive field]. And we know the same for the Moon.

g_E - E_E = 9.8 m/s²
g_M - E_M = 1.62 m/s²

I have also postulated that the gravitational part of this acceleration should be proportional to the radii.

g_E / g_M = 3.672
g_M = .2723 g_E

And I have just postulated that the E/M field is proportional to 1/r⁴.
E_E /E_M = 1/3.6724 = .0055
E_M = 181.81 E_E

But that last equation is assuming that the Earth and Moon have the same density. So I must now correct for density.

D_E /D_M = 5.52/3.344 = 1.6507 = 1/.6057
E_M = 110.12 E_E

So, we just substitute:

.2723 g_E - 110.12 E_E = 1.62 m/s²
g_E - E_E = 9.8 m/s²
.2723g_E - .2723E_E = 2.6685 m/s² [subtract the two equations]
-109.85E_E = -1.0485 m/s²
E_E = .009545 m/s²
E_M = 1.051 m/s²
g_M - E_M = 1.62 m/s²
g_M = 2.671 m/s²

You can see that the math bore out my prediction exactly. Once we correct for the presence of the E/M field, the Earth and the Moon have gravitational fields that are exactly proportional to their radii.

We did not get an exact match in the third decimal place only because we used 9.8 m/s² for g_E in the first equation. We must now add .009545 to that, and if we do we get 2.671 m/s² in the first equation as well.

This is so astonishing that your first reaction is to assume that the math is circular. Well, it is. I have not proved that the E/M field of the Moon has that value or that gravity depends only on a radius. But I have shown that it is possible to explain the numbers in this way. If you let the E/M increase faster than the gravitational field decreases, then you discover a situation that begins to give us different numbers, and that is capable of describing gravity in a different way.

It may be that the E/M field varies as 1/r³. It is known that the magnetic field of a dipole varies in this way, so that the electrical field may vary in the same way in the situation we are looking at: large E/M fields created by large macro-bodies. This field variance would also work with my theory, we would just get different numbers for the actual fields of the Moon and Earth. I am presently following other problems to decide which of the two variances my theory must finally prefer.

Notice that the number I have arrived at for the E/M acceleration at the surface of the Earth is quite small. This explains why it has always been neglected. Physicists have correctly assumed that it was negligible in most cases, and they went on to assume the same for the Moon. Why, they thought, would the Moon have an E/M field that was more active at the surface of the Moon than the Earth’s E/M field is at its surface? The idea was counterintuitive, so no one has ever done any math to show it one way or another. I have just shown, using postulates that are hardly revolutionary, that the Moon’s E/M field should be expected to offset its gravitational field quite strongly.

You will say that we have tested the fields on the Moon already and found them to be quite small. There are two problems here. One, our tests were designed to measure local fluctuations in the E/M field, and especially the magnetic component of that field. This is not the same thing as measuring the strength of the entire field at a distance. Two, the tests of the E/M field are compromised just like all our tests of the gravitational field have been. In neither case have we been successful in separating the effects of the two fields. Whether we are measuring a gravitational field or an E/M field, we must measure a force on a body. But the force on the body is a composite of the two. A differential. If we do not take this into account (and we don't) there is no way we can know what the strength of each field is alone. We would have to block one field or the other in our measurements, and we have never done this. According to my theory, you cannot block the field of gravity, since it just a real acceleration. You cannot block an acceleration. But the E/M should be blockable. If it is the radiation of photons, we should be able to block this radiation. It is unclear how successful this blocking might be expected to be. If you block off a small area of an E/M field, it is doubtful that you can thoroughly block the effects of that field. However, it should be possible to design a simple experiment that would test my theory. Dropping ball bearings above a large sheet of lead would be a beginning. It may be that an experiment that direct would yield an acceleration measurably above 9.8 m/s².

The math above also implies that all celestial bodies, including exotics like black holes and white dwarfs, have gravitational fields that vary as their radii vary. It suggests in the strongest possible way that the huge additional forces hypothesized for exotics are mainly a function of a super-strong E/M field, and have nothing to do with gravity per se. This means we must reconsider all our theories for exotics, and indeed for non-exotics. Our theory has existed with a very large hole in it and now we must re-calculate many things. I think it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the Moon and the Earth had gravitational fields that varied as their radii and other objects did not. It cannot be because they are of similar origin, since we know that their densities differ. If density is not a factor between the Earth and the Moon, then why should it be a factor in other objects? The only reason we have finally discovered this secret with the Moon is that its statistics are entirely more settled and complete. We have been perfecting this data for centuries, and the data finally bears fruit.

Some will say, “What do you mean density is not a factor? You had to correct for it, it must be a factor!” Yes, it is a factor in the E/M field. A denser object creates a stronger E/M field and I had to correct for the fact that the Moon is not as dense as the Earth. But this correction did not affect the gravitational fields. That is what the final number shows. I predicted that the gravitational field was a straight outcome of the radius, with no other factors involved. That is where we got the first number 2.671 above. That first equation has no correction for density. It is radius and nothing else.

If this postulate is true, the implications of this are beyond number. I could not begin to address them here, even as a list. I begin to address them in other papers, but it will take physics decades to come to terms with the full import of this discovery. Those who have claimed that physics is nearly over will be glad to discover that they have something left to do.