Sorry to everyone that read this before. The image I used was scaled down significantly on this site and I didn't notice. Here is the text version so you can read it!
I've been thinking more about something lately and if nothing else it's an interesting thought process to follow. First I think it's important that you know that I am no Physicist, Chemist, Astronomer, or Engineer but I like to consider myself a rational, problem-solver type person. I am hopeful that this information reaches people of those fields that might be able to help me understand if I'm wrong or test the idea if I'm right.
The basic idea I will be proposing and arguing is that there is no "gravity" but also not in the way Einstein's General Relativity Theory explains through the warping of space-time.
It started several years ago. I was watching an educational program about string theory. If memory serves it was the Brian Greene PBS special. When he was talking about how there are two conflicting sets of laws and briefly touched on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That got me thinking about why it is that they don't agree and what factors would need to be compromised in order for them to agree. Obviously I started looking into different principles and ideas from both fields of study. As I was contemplating the basic forces of strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism I searched other parts of my mind that would relate to them. I studied electronics for some time and I remember several things about electricity and electromagnetism. I also studied chemistry for some time in high school and thought some of the information about bonds and electrons would really come into play while thinking about electricity since it is just the movement of electrons.
My theory started to build.
Chemistry tells us that atoms often share electrons; that covalent bonds are very common and is the type of bond that hydrogen and oxygen use to form water molecules. Quantum Mechanics' Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can essentially either know where a particle is or how fast it's going but never both. So those together build in my mind a picture of a water molecule where I can guess where the valence electrons are and in a quantum sense I'm both right and wrong. So I can envision that electrons are both exactly and never where you think they are. From there I start to think of the charges. When two hydrogen atoms bond with an oxygen atom it is because while oxygen is fully neutral in charge, its valence electron shell is only at 6/8 capacity. I have also heard that a lot of chemical reactions like this happen because electron shells "want to be full".
I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining this idea since it is decently well known how water molecules are formed. I do want to touch on the idea that while oxygen's valence shell is using either or both electrons from the hydrogen atoms, those atoms would be positively charged. Since we know electrons don't just hold still and come to a "locked" position where the valence shells of their atoms meet, it's safe to say that they are still orbiting, just sharing clouds. That's where I get the idea that for at least some portion of every second, all the atoms involved will be positively, negatively and neutrally charged. My understanding is that it's very rare to find atoms of any element that aren't bonded in some way with other atoms and obviously, sharing electrons.
When we think of gravity we always say "the more mass an object has, the higher gravitational force it will exert on other objects". The way I look at it is "the more mass an object has, the more times per second its atoms will be positively and negatively charged". The scale of charge differential would obviously get enormous when there was a lot of mass involved while staying less noticeable with less mass involved. Also, as with electromagnets, the force of a tiny 1 watt magnet would be almost completely unobservable when in the field of a massive 300,000 watt magnet. I believe this is true for all atoms as well. One atom near just one other would experience less force and acceleration than another atom near millions of others. We currently equate this idea to gravity and say that the "gravity" of a large grouping of atoms is what pulls them together to form stars. The larger grouping has more mass and therefore more gravity, but remember, it's likely the larger grouping also has a larger difference in charge. It could just as possibly be the difference in charge that pulls atoms together in space, which collect into groups making an object with a larger difference in charge and then collects up the rest within its magnetic reach.
It was about here that I started thinking; what about black holes? They are theoretically condensed into a small point but they have so much force, surely this proves general relativity. Then I thought the particles would obviously be forced together into nothing but energy at that point. Energy, which would have some kind of charge. It would be purely charge because that's what energy is. Thinking of it that way, it make perfect sense as to why matter would be attracted to it. We currently have no way of knowing what the center of a black hole actually looks like but I suspect if we ever find a way to measure it, we will find massive amounts of charged energy, not condensed matter.
Another part of relativity that I feel is better explained by Quantum Relativity is the part about what happens to matter near light speed. The speed of light is the maximum speed at which light and energy such as electrons can travel. Since no particle can move faster than the speed of light it only stands to reason that the closer you get to light speed, the more time it would take for electrons to pass from atom to atom. This would lead to the "front" atoms more easily sending electrons back than the "back" atoms would be able to send forward. This would result in a large collection of electrons "pooling" somewhere near the midpoint, increasing the mass to the effect that it would increase the empty space between electrons and nuclei and make the atoms themselves take up more volume while not necessarily having to increase their density. In essence this would change whatever matter was traveling near light speed into a massive inverse atom, because the nuclei furthest from the center would be temporarily positively charged while the center of the mass would be negatively charged due to all the electrons being "stuck" there.
All matter is made of atoms. Atoms are made of subatomic particles which are made of charged energy. Therefore I say with confidence that "gravity" as we call it now is actually the effect of a yet-to-be-calculated difference in charge between large groupings of atoms. I believe that determining if this hypothesis is true will be our next step in understanding our universe. If this idea proves true it will finally help mend the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics, allowing us to better understand travel through space an time.