TECHNICAL NOTE C
In this work we conceptualize "gravitational fields" as an effect of electrical forces acting between charged bodies moving within a charged cosmos (Milton, 1980/ 81): two bodies respond and move to maintain the greatest separation. In the co-planar orbits of today's Solar System this electrical repulsion among the planets is deemed by us to manifest itself in the Titius-Bode law of commensurable planet periods (e. g. five Jupiter orbits in approximately  the same time as two Saturn orbits). Until now the "law" has been an unexplainable observation.
In an electric "gravity" system a tangential inertia  is coupled to a radial electrical force whose nature depends upon the electrical state of the bodies orbiting. The electric force can vary between strongly repulsive in close encounter to strongly attractive when electrical flow joins the two bodies (see Table 5 and Figure 38). When the bodies are widely separated and relatively insulated, as are the planets now, the electric transaction among them is repulsive, but is opposed by the surrounding cosmic charge trying to fill the electron-deficient cavity, which is the Solar System; the two repulsions nearly cancel out, leading to the illusion that something called gravity produces a very weak attraction between the Sun and a planet or between a planet and its satellite( s).
The fact that gravitation, the Great Mother Goddess of physics, has never been found sensibly to exist has nurtured a mild scandal in science for three centuries. After manipulating logically the relevant parameters (the separation of planets from the Sun and their motions in orbit) Isaac Newton concluded that the gravitational force acted everywhere in the same way: it was a universal force (Westfall). That his conclusion was erroneous is becoming apparent. New gravity models incorporate the notion that the strength of the gravitational force (relative to, say, the electrical force) weakens with time (Dirac; Jordan; Dicke, 1957, p356; Hoyle and Narlikar; Canuto et al., p834).
If indeed the relative strength of the gravitational force declines with time, it means that the mechanical units customarily used to describe celestial motions cannot be interchanged freely with the units employed in atomic physics. Also there is evidence that the gravitational constant varies between experiments (Heyl and Chrzanowski, p1, pp30-1; Long, 1974). The experiments can be interpreted as evidence that the gravitational constant of proportionality is a function of the spatial separation between the masses gravitating and, in some instances, even of the quantity of mass involved in the "attraction"  . If gravity is dependent upon time and locality, conclusions about the world based upon a universal force ruling over cosmic motions without intrinsic dependency become erroneous.
More specifically, the mass of a body becomes a function of how its mass is established. Its transactions become environmental rather than absolute. For example, if sex, age and occupation explain a person's consumer behavior, but elements of all are inextricably in all, the decision according to sex alone never occurs but always varies as a function of the other two factors. So here masses measured using transactions in the celestial realm need not be conformable with those determined by transactions between atoms.
Extrapolations between the cosmic and atomic spheres become meaningless. The bizarre quality of conclusions about recently observed cosmic processes has already spawned the question "Do we need a revolution in Astronomy?" (Clube). All of the dilemmas cited by Clube as confronting astronomers can be resolved in a universe where electric forces are conceived to dominate.
For a long time chemists who concern themselves with the mechanics of collisions between atoms (which are admittedly dominated by the forces between electric charges) have agreed that a collision between two atoms can be treated as a sequence of alternating attractive and repulsive actions (see Figure 37). At great distance the atoms mildly repel one another because their perimeters are sacs of negative charge (blurred electrons). Closer together, electron coupling produces the possibility of bonding and the atoms attract, but further inside, beyond the coupling range, the atoms again repel (this time very strongly). So it is with a "gravitational field", which is then really an electrical field.
The behavior of bodies orbiting in electric transaction differs from those experiencing the conceptually simpler, weak, attractive gravitational force caused only by their mass content. The way in which planets move was shown by Kepler to depend upon the magnitude of the semi-major axis of the orbit  . Later, when Newton quantified the "gravitational force" into a relation containing the quantity of matter in each body and the separation of the "gravitating" bodies, Kepler's Harmonic Law was modified to allow celestial systems to be massed (see ahead to Technical Note D).Figure 37. Potential Energy Curve for the Collision of Two Atoms
When two atoms collide, electrical force between them acts to alter the energy state of the system compared to the energy which the two atoms posses when they are greatly separated and at rest, the "zero" energy level. Usually two colliding atoms will have more energy than this "zero level"( some positive value). Their kinetic energy of approach determines the closeness the pair can attain in the collision. For a specific energy (the horizontal line drawn above and intersecting with the potential energy curve) the system of two colliding atoms has a surplus of energy represented by the vertical distance between the curves for any chosen distance between the atoms. Where the curves intersect they both represent the same energy; there is no surplus. As the atoms begin to collide, the approaching pair at first do not affect one another (from A to B), but as their electron clouds meet a slight electrical repulsion occurs (from B to C); then electron coupling, as in a chemical bond, produces an increasing attraction between the atoms (from C to D) until a critical separation is attained, when electron decoupling, described elsewhere as internuclear repulsion, begins and produces an increasing repulsion (from D to E) that finally overcomes the inertia (motion) of the pair and causes them to rebound (at E, where the electrical repulsion equals their inertia). The law relates three variables: the period over which the complete orbit occurs, Ti ; the average separation of the bodies form the Sun, ai ; and the total mass of the system of the Sun and the
N -1 orbiting planets, S Mi, where the summation is from i = 1... N. The Harmonic Law, expressed in mathematical terms, states that the square of the period equals the average separation cubed divided by the mass of the system :
where the summation in S Mi, is from i = 1... N, and the subscript i refers to the motion of the i th planet about the Sun. G is the proportionality factor applying to gravitating systems, and was first evaluated by Henry Cavendish (Shamos).
As traditionally perceived the causal mass terms are invariant hence the other parameters, the separation and period, must as well remain fixed. Given electrically caused orbits, the interbody force depends upon the charge difference on the various bodies in the system. As indicated in our text, we believe that the bodies "gravitate" differently when great charge density differences exist within the system than when they do not (Figure 39).
Figure 38. Electric forces Between Celestial Bodies
By analogy with the collision between two atoms, charged celestial bodies in collision, if governed by the action of electrical force, also exhibit various possible degrees of attraction and repulsion as they approach one another. In (a) two bodies of like charge and like charge-density experience electrical repulsion as they approach collision. In close encounter polarization of their atoms may redistribute their charges in such a way that some electrical attraction will occur during a part of their approach, but ultimately the two bodies will repel one another and rebound from the collision. In (b) two bodies of like charge but of unlike charge-density initially attract one another as they come together. Polarization may enhance this attraction at closer range and the possibility is great for an electrical discharge between the two bodies as they pass. After the discharge( s) the colliding pair may attain the state of the bodies in (a) and the collision proceeds to closest approach, where the like charges repel the bodies into rebounding apart.
For example, in Solaria Binaria the Sun and Super Uranus never attained electrical equilibrium  throughout the lifetime of the binary; their electrical differences persisted, though diminishing with time. The inter-stellar arc was the Sun's attempt to recapture lost charge  . It represented an attractive force between the two stars. So long as their electrical natures remained attractive, the inter-star flow continued. If the two had attained equilibrium, that is, had Super Uranus charge-density declined to reach that of the Sun, the two would no longer have attracted one another electrically; their equal charge-densities then would have produced an electrical "neutrality" in an inertial state.
During the interval when the orbiting stars were seeking electrical equilibrium, the mass of the binary system, as measured using its period of revolution (by Kepler's Law) would have seemingly diminished. As the interval transaction that was accelerating the stars in relation to one another declined, the binary would appear to lose angular momentum. In part this "loss of energy" would be an artifact of the measuring theory; what really was occurring would be a recession of the principals to conserve and gain charge; but a dispersal of charge into the plenum would be occurring as well, causing the plenum to expand and hence the calculated mass of each transacting body to decline.
Taking another example from the Solar System, Jupiter's angular momentum (the product of its mass, distance from the Sun, and its tangential (perpendicular) velocity in orbit) is 2.03 x 10 43 (mks units). If it were orbiting at the Earth's distance from the Sun but with this same angular momentum, Jupiter would move at 68 kilometers per second, two and one quarter times faster than the Earth's orbital velocity of 30 km/ s. The Jupiter year would be a little longer than 161 Earth-days. The Sun's "mass" required to hold Jupiter, so moving at this closer distance, would have to be five times its present value ! If Jupiter were more closely positioned than above, its year would be even shorter, and the Sun's mass would seem even greater. The Story of Solaria Binaria recounts the consequences of the ongoing enhancement of the Sun's charge resulting in the continuously growing repulsion of the planets to regions farther from the solar surface. Analyzed in mechanical terms this repulsion has been reported as a weakened gravitational force over time, it could equally have been as a decline in the Sun's mass (its gravitational ability).
Orbits changing under varying electrical transaction behave differently than the conventional view of very slowly evolving gravitational orbital elements. The objects are drawn together or forced apart by changing radial forces. Literally, an object like Venus, born from Jupiter in a charge-deficient condition, spirals inward, driven radially by electrical force and increasing its tangential velocity in sustaining its angular momentum. It is no "lucky billiard shot" that Venus encountered all planets inferior to its initial position near Jupiter. Following an initial diminishing spiral path generally close to the same plane as the other planetary orbits, Venus could not avoid close (i. e., effective) encounter with each body it passed en route to its present orbit. The events described in this book are the recorded, recollected and inferred consequences of many planetary encounters both before and after the excursion of Venus made famous in our time by Immanuel Velikovsky.
120. The divergence with theory may be attributable, not to "time of accommodation", but to the complex electrical fields in which the charged planets move.
121. "Inertia" is usually defined as the quantity of motion (momentum) within a body. It also can be considered as a measure of the difficulty in altering a body's motion (accelerating or decelerating it). For an orbiting body the motion is directed tangentially to the orbit while the force which changes the motion is directed radially.
122. The implication is that very close and very distant satellites may experience significantly different gravitational transactions with their primary; that is, the force need not remain exactly proportional to the inverse square of their distances as the => Newtonian formulation would have it. Since G can have somewhat different values for different separations, then the force function becomes more complex than Newton's Law can handle accurately. Another complexity arises if G also changes values as the amount of mass involved is altered. Such a variation would mean that a binary companion or a Jupiter sized mass would not orbit with a force simply proportional to the force keeping an asteroid or a tiny meteoroid in orbit.
123. Its average separation from the Sun.
124. At equilibrium no net change occurs in a system with the passage of time. Here, interbody electrical currents would cease to flow.
125. 3 X 10 22 coulombs might have been exchanged between them over one million years. This represents a transfer of 2 X 10 44 electrons and a tiny fraction of the mass which flowed between the stars through the plenum. Even with this electrical exchange, the charges moved are negligible compared to the number in a body like the Sun or Super Uranus. If the Sun were an electrically neutral body of mass 2 X 10 27 tons, the flow would represent an exchange of one electron per one hundred thousand million electrons present. A stellar body carrying net charge, as these were, would be exchanging an even smaller portion of its charge.