You are awesome. I've discussed these two books at length online, on many occasions, and you're the first person I've encountered who actually bothered to read them. They're short, and written with a supremely readable ease and clarity (the kind of easy clarity that I've only encountered in the writings of Einstein and Heisenberg and the other great minds) - and they're freely available online for anyone to read...but nobody I've discussed them with has ever gone to the trouble of actually looking them over, except you. Kudos. And thank you for making the effort. Frankly I'm still not certain that these books were written by a human mind...they are so deceptively simple...and subtly nuanced...I've never encountered anything quite like them: they're so fascinating that I've spent years studying them, and I still feel like I haven't fully understood them.Just read Daniel Fry's two books on physics, Steps to the stars and Atom, Galaxies and understanding.

Is it being suggested that the inertial gravity of electrons can be used to manipulate the shape of a gravitational field to the negative?

To answer your question: honestly I'm not sure. In that example he's saying that the mass, as well as the number and position of positive and negative charges, determines whether the gravitational interaction with an addition neutron is positive or negative. I spent years studying nuclear physics to try to suss out the underlying theory that he's talking about here - and while I ran across some fascinating observations, I haven't been able to put it all together yet. If I could, then I'm pretty sure we'd arrive at the grand unified theory that he's describing in his books, and then we could analyze that theory to see if it holds up under intense analytical scrutiny (and I can imagine no greater joy than examining such a theory and comparing it to all of our best modern measurements).

Here's what we do know. We know that a pair of opposing electrical charges results in binding energy, and that energy is negative - a pair of bound and opposing electrical charges loses gravitational mass, compared to two unbound (widely separated) opposing electrical charges. And we know that two like charges in close proximity

*increases*the gravitational mass of the system, because the potential energy of such a system is higher than two like charges widely separated in free space. In other words, a negative potential energy between unlike electrical charges reduces the gravitational mass of a system, and a positive potential energy between two like charges increases the gravitational mass of the system. We could choose to think of this as "the gravitational law of electrical charge." Or we could simply regard it as a feature of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor of general relativity. Both choices are valid, but the latter is more comprehensive.

Then we might choose to consider "the gravitational law of mass-charge interactions," which has the exact opposite sign. Two bound and interacting positive mass-charges (the Earth and the Moon for example) yield a negative gravitational mass term known as the gravitational binding energy: the bound Earth-Moon system has

*a lower gravitational mass*than the Earth and the Moon widely separated in space. However, a positive mass-charge like the Earth, in close proximity to a negative mass-charge, yields an increase in the gravitational mass of the system. This is because gravitation is defined by a rank-two tensor, whereas electromagnetism is defined by a rank-one tensor.

Fry's books on physics are suggesting that the nuclear strong force is essentially the same law as the gravitational acceleration defined by general relativity: by definition this would be a unified field theory - a marriage of quantum mechanics with general relativity. And the illustrations of the nuclear charge distributions are apparently the key to puzzling out this union of two seemingly disparate physical theories. But I'm either not clever enough to puzzle out this theory from the clues he's given in his books, or the theory that he's talking about isn't valid. But since in my heart I do believe that the laws of physics ranging from quantum mechanics to general relativity are in fact inescapably related to a single and more fundamental unified field theory, I'm forced to conclude that, as yet, I haven't been intelligent enough to formulate the correct theory mathematically.

I could state this more concisely: if I could answer your question, then I could tell you how to build a craft that would fall away from the Earth as naturally as an apple falls toward the Earth.

It's been years since I puzzled over the nuclear binding energy measurements of NIST, trying to unravel this particular feature of Daniel Fry's two books on physics. But I do recall one particular finding that has always stuck in my craw: if we take the neutron to be the fundamental unit of mass, then the net binding energy of the Uranium-235 nucleus is the equivalent of two negative-mass neutrons. I find that to be absolutely fascinating, in the context of Fry's descriptions that you quoted. Also, I found a pattern of binding energy fractions in the periodic table that consisted of fractions of 1/12th's and 1/24th's and 1/48th's...which seemed to validate his discussion about using a base-12, rather than a base-10, numerical system.

I hope to return to this study when time permits, to try again. But it takes months of late nights with a notebook and dozens of pages of our best experimental lab data lying on the bed next to a scientific calculator, to try to puzzle this sort of thing out. And such long stretches of time which can be devoted to pure theoretical physics research are, unfortunately, very hard to come by.