Home arrow Mars & Solar System arrow Articles arrow Morton Spears and the Capacitor Model of Gravity
Morton Spears and the Capacitor Model of Gravity PDF Print E-mail

By Fredrik Nygaard, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ,  February 2017

In my essay titled “A Capacitor Model of Gravity”, published November 2016, I described on purely philosophical grounds a mechanism in which a dipole model of gravity would yield pretty much the exact same predictions as those made by Newton in his Universal Theory of Gravity.

The hypothesis that I presented showed clearly that dipoles can at least in theory produce the observed Newtonian behaviour of our solar system, and from this I concluded that one cannot dismiss the possibility that gravity may in fact be a dipole rather than monopole phenomenon. There is nothing about dipole models in general that makes them incompatible with observations.

Furthermore, I made the assertion that the dipole most likely to be the cause of gravity is the capacitor. This assertion stemmed from my essay, “The Gravity Mystery”, in which I show that there seems to be a close relationship between gravity and capacitance.

When I wrote my hypothesis as to how a capacitor model of gravity may work, I was completely unaware that there does in fact exist a theory which broadly agrees with my conclusions. This theory, quite fittingly called “The Capacitor Theory of Gravity”, was proposed by Morton Spears in 1991.

However, there are two divergences between my hypothesis and Morton Spears' theory. One is the  fact that Morton Spears only considers capacitors at the atomic level while I only consider capacitors at the planetary level. The other is the fact that Morton Spears claims that any dipole on dipole interaction can be ignored.

But Morton Spears does agree on the main point in my hypothesis, namely that gravity is charge acting on mass, and not mass acting on mass.

Since charge and mass are two different things, we get the theoretical possibility that mass is uniformly attracted to charge, regardless of whether the charge is positive or negative.

What Morton Spears does in his work is to demonstrate that capacitors charged to a high voltage do in fact produce a weak but measurable attracting force on surrounding mater.

Since atoms are tiny charged capacitors with an electron cloud surrounding a proton/neutron core, we get that every atom must similarly attract every other atom with a weak attracting force. Spears concludes from this that this weak attracting force is what we generally refer to as gravity.

Morton Spears does in other word provide experimental and theoretical backing for the central point in my hypothesis.

Where Morton Spear's theory diverges from my hypothesis is at what scale the gravitational effect occurs. In my hypothesis, I do not include atoms. I only consider the fact that our planet is a giant capacitor. The fact that this giant capacitor is made up of atoms, each and every one a capacitor in its own right, is ignored.

On the other hand, Morton Spears chooses deliberately to ignore the fact that our planet is a giant capacitor. He limits himself to atoms only, which is strange since all his experiments were done at the macro level. It makes little sense to make a distinction between macro level capacitance and atomic level capacitance after first having used the macro level to demonstrate atomic level behaviour.

The correct way to view capacitors must be that they all count. However large or small they are, they all add up to the overall gravitational effect.

If we incorporate into my hypothesis and Morton Spears theory the idea that all capacitors must be included in order to calculate the overall gravitational effect, his theory and my hypothesis become very similar. The only discrepancy then remaining is his assertion that dipole on dipole interaction can be ignored.

Morton Spears argues that all atoms spin and wobble randomly so that any dipole on dipole effect averages out to zero. However, that argument does not hold up very well under scrutiny, because dipoles have a natural tendency to line up in an orderly way. The fact that the dipole on dipole effect is extremely weak does not alter this. No matter how weak the dipoles are, some lining up will occur, and the total sum will not be zero.

It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the dipole on dipole effect described in my hypothesis should be included in Morton Spears' theory, in which case no discrepancy between his theory and my hypothesis will remain.

Once integrated into Morton Spears' theory, the dipole on dipole effect will prove to produce a repelling force at the centre of large bodies such as our planet, and this fact was probably Morton Spears' motivation for his insistence on having these forces average out to zero. He must have disliked the idea of hollow planets so much that he chose to argue against it as best he could.

Interestingly, Morton Spears waited until the conclusion of his second book to argue that dipole on dipole action would average out to zero, and his argument is almost as if it is directed directly against my hypothesis. He even mentions the inverse cube law that I merely speculate on. It appears, therefore, that he was fully aware of the implications of dipole on dipole interaction, and that he felt he had to say something to defuse the argument.

However, with mounting evidence to support both the fact that our planet is hollow and the fact that our planet is expanding, as laid out in my essay “The Gravity Mystery”, Morton Spears may have been less reluctant to support these ideas if he had been with us today.

Instead of stubbornly arguing against the fact that dipoles do line up and that they will not average out to zero, even if they spin and wobble, Morton Spears should have incorporated this fact into his theory. It would not have changed his findings much. All that it entails is that our planet gets a hollow core and that large objects will have a natural tendency to avoid collisions with each other. Apart from that everything remains Newtonian. However, the mere mention of a hollow earth would have had eyes rolling and ridicule being spewed all over his work back in 1991, so it is understandable that he made such an effort to explicitly deny this.


By allowing for capacitors of all sizes to be incorporated into Morton Spears theory, and by also including the dipole on dipole effect into his theory, we get a perfect match between the hypothesis presented in “A Capacitor Model of Gravity” and Morton Spears' “Capacitor Theory of Gravity”.

This means that we no longer have to point to the mere possibility that there might one day be a theory that supports the notion of a hollow expanding earth. We can point out that there already exists at least one complete theory of gravity that supports our position.

This theory, we can call “Morton Spears' Modified Theory of Gravity”, to highlight the fact that two modifications are required to his original theory to make it fit our requirements. However, these two modifications are completely reasonable. In fact, it can be argued that Morton Spears made a mistake in ignoring both macro level capacitance and the dipole on dipole effect. The omissions are poorly explained in his work, and neither of them make any sense from a philosophical viewpoint.

With “Morton Spears' Modified Theory of Gravity” we now have a complete theory of gravity in support of our position that our planet is both hollow and expanding.

Related Reading

The Gravity Mystery:

A Capacitor Model of Gravity:

Summary of Morton Spears' work presented by James Heer:

Morton Spears' first book:

Morton Spears' second book:

*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC!Facebook!StumbleUpon!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
< Prev   Next >