I have avoided this thread for reasons of not wanting to add the further confusion of yet another viewpoint, but I am going to try to sort out some issues and questions I am hearing:
1. Wal T's gravity view derives from Ralph Sansbury's electrigravity theory involving elastic dipoles in tiny particles he calls subtrons, which make up electrons. These are Sansbury's version of quarks. Sansbury has been in and out of vogue as his work is so controversial, and his redefinitions of physics terms are often confusing to an ordinary reader, even a student of physics. Essentially, his gravity derives from the accumulation of radially organized/aligned electric dipoles, something of a residual effect, which is why it's actions are negligibly tiny at the atomic level, and "big" when you have a large accumulation of them, as in stars or planets. Since dipoles are more randomly oriented throughout the body of a large object, only the alignment on the surface has the gravitic effect, according to Sansbury.
2. I commend Wal for trying to understand Sansbury's work. Before coming to the EU, I had a lengthy dialogue with Ralph regarding his FTL proposals, something I deal with in my Centropic Pressure Field theory (CPFT). I found that the more questions I asked, the more confused I got... not an uncommon experience when dealing with someone who has a truly novel approach to the universe. My interest in Sansbury was probably around the same time that Wal was studying Sansbury's electrigravitics, and it was from a link on one of Sansbury's sites that I found the EU.
3. Mathis has done an excellent job trying to quantify the unification of the different fields, which attracted me to his work a number of years ago, as my CPFT is a geometric unification whereas Miles' is algebraic. Again, I must be like Pooh, a bear of Very Small Brain, because not only did I find that his math and "mine" did not agree, I found him to be frequently jumping to conclusions that didn't seem warranted from his preceding logic steps. Again, not an unusual occurrence in the pursuit of a novel paradigm of Physics... you almost just have to be him to understand him. Many find my CPFT to be the same way... for example:
4. For me the only dipole necessary is a vector of force [or, in the finitude of the universe, a beam of pressure]. My fundamental vectors are always centropic [think gravitation] as they are directed toward the centroid of a system [at any dimensional hierarchy], so I see, like Mathis, a unified field. What makes a vector a dipole, beside the obvious illustration of an arrow, is that its actions are opposite depending on which way you are "looking down" the shaft...er, beam. You feel the vectoral force/pressure when looking toward the centroid as a "source", and if you were a believer in attraction, you would call it a "tug". Importantly, there is no phenomenality in the universe without the consideration of at least two different objects. Each of these objects is in a field, which can be visualized as a bundle of vectors all pointed toward the center of the object. All pressure is centropic, there is no attractive force, rather a squeezing force. But when you take two "like charges" ie. objects of like fields, and bring them into proximity, their peripheral vector components are in opposite directions, each toward its own center; the result is naturally, maybe obviously, what we term as repulsion vs., for lack of a better term, "coalescing" [ie. gravitation]. But obviously the universe is made up of more than two particles, so under the overarching unified compressive field, objects do coalesce, I like the term coagulate... call it gravitate. For me "gravity" is always and only a verb, not a thing or things such as "gravitons." It is an action caused by the contraction of a field or field element, but ultimately universal centropic pressure is also the cause of that contraction. A "chicken or egg" thing? I beg that question and go with both, or neither, whichever makes more sense at the time.
5. This brings us, well... me, to the relation of charge and mass. I already used charge in the above context of like charges, and by simple comparison of the two described actions, "coalescing" and repulsion, you can certainly visualize charge as a category of action, and see why it is most easily applied to a dichotomous situation where objects and their fields are similar, which happens generally in the hierarchy of atoms... we call this electrical, because it involves "electrons" and "protons", defined by an opposition of field effects. The universe is pushing the particles together, while the like "charged" electrons are repelling. Ever wonder why protons seem to stick together rather than repel? Is it perhaps because a proton's nature is no charge, vs. the singular charge of electrons? In this view perhaps it is the neutrons, an interaction of protons and electrons, that carry the field balancing repulsive nature that prevents an atom from becoming a black hole... To clarify further about the proton, in the vectoral system a proton is "looking" UP the shaft, ie. from the head toward the tail, while the electron is looking "down" the shaft, ie. in the direction of the arrow, and thus "holds" onto the atom rather than only flying away, as its fellow electrons are wont to have it do. Did I say "clarify"? Sorry about that
6. Mass which has a greater effect at higher hierarchies than at lower, for plain reasons, is really just a different order for charge [the word charge means "weight" or "load"... and "gravity"], experienced by the interaction of two objects. The only way to detect "mass" is through the comparative motions of objects in proximity to each other. The larger the objects, the larger the distance may be in which "mass" can be determined. The smaller the objects, the smaller the distance must be in order to determine a mass relationship. In this sense, mass is invariably a relative comparison between two objects. Just like charge. Fundamentally, mass is the coalescence of objects in a larger field under the same centropic pressure described above, a unified field. The degree to which an object in motion [and all are] affects another object's motion is how we/I think of mass. The area [or less elementarily, volume] occupied by the objects [their mutual field] thus has an correspondence to the amount of "matter" in the objects, leading to a recognition that in a practical sense, "density" is the real phenomenon, while "mass" is just a partial perception of it. When we attempt to apply this concept at smaller hierarchies, say at the periodic table level, we discover an interesting relation: isotopes with greater mass have a smaller volume than lighter isotopes. Here is a way that gravitation seems to play a direct part in the electrical regime of the elements. As a pre-summative statement, electricity and gravitation are just two manifestations of the unified CPF.
8. Light, not the topic of this thread, is another manifestation of the CPF. The pressure toward the system centroid, manifests as an impulse from the back of the retina "outward" [ie. through the pupil toward the "source"] giving us the experience of the object's "light". Its operation is the same as charge and mass. Fundamentally, if I look "down" the shaft of the light vector [in the direction of the arrow, toward the light "source", as a sink] I see light. In the other direction... shadow. I look out toward the "edges" of the universe... there is dark. I look toward the centroid of a star... there is light. There is no Olbers paradox, or there is its solution. Since light is just vectors of the unified CPF, the straightest line is a sight line, and at angles of incidence to that light line are manifested the colors of the spectral gradient. But, as I said, that is tangential to the topic here.
9. If this is light's true behavior, it explains Mathis's "charge photons", and also accords with Sansbury's instantaneous light claim, without the requirement of novel particles or wavishness.
On "like likes like" this saying originates I believe from Feynman, but has been used by many others to explain how two objects of like charge can coalesce rather than always repel, a condition one can surmise must be present in the lumpy universe such as we live. It is fairly simple to visualize that in an intervening space between two macro-objects [remembering that the interaction of tiny objects requires the tiniest of spaces] a charge gradient will exist. The surfaces of two "like" charged objects will be "negative" or what I would describe as directed toward the centroids of the respective objects. This creates a situation toward the midspace or interstitial medium of positivity [easy to show with vectors]. What standard physics describes as attraction of the two objects toward the midspace medium, I would simply attribute to the unified CPF at work. With sufficient distance between the two "likes", the unified pressure "takes over" and coalescence happens. Like likes like. A further application of this is the recognition that the CPF is paramount in any energy exchange... ie. there will always be a net reduction in organizational energy, or potential energy, in the interaction of two or more objects; we call this "entropy", so "Centropy is entropy"! Somewhere in there is also the fundamental meaning of "time"... also for another thread.