several ways of proving positron-gravity is superior to mass-gravity;

In the prior post I started to list a partial list of where positron-
gravity
better explains the actual data of gravity:


(a) Positrons would have no minimum mass to form a gravitational
bonded
system, whereas mass-gravity has a minimum that is larger than some
reported asteroids gravitationally bound. If you have a few positrons
in the
center of a asteroid you can quickly have a bound system with other
asteroids.

(b) The oblateness of planets and stars should not exist to the extent
seen
with mass-gravity. The agreement between observed oblateness and
theoretical
oblateness is better with positron-gravity.

(c) Resonance of gravitational bounded systems is easier to explain
with
gravity as Positrons than with gravity as mass.

Now let me add on a fourth one which is the essence of the difference
between positron-gravity and mass-gravity.

(d) In mass gravity systems, over time they should all disappear
into a central clump as they continue to lose energy and thus
become swallowed up inside the central clump. However, in
positron-gravity there is no steady inevitable decay of orbit
since the planet and star have a repelling gravity of its positrons
repelling other positrons. So in the old Newton mass gravity
you do not have that extra term of a gravity-repulsion that you
have with positron-gravity. This repulsion term provides stability
for which we see every day in the Solar System. If Newton's
mass gravity were true then our Solar System would have disappeared
some billions of years after it was borne, simply because
mass-gravity continually loses energy and swallowed by the central
star.

Archimedes Plutonium, www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies