The problem becomes calculating the net force between two shells of negative charge ($Q_{1{}-},Q_{2{}-}$), of radii $r_r, r_2$, separated by a distance $R_{12}$ and two positive point charges ($Q_{1{}+},Q_{2{}+}$). (positive and negative are bound, )***

Since $M_1\gg M_2$ and $r_1\gg r_2$, the polarity of the larger object is positive, and the net polarity of the smaller object is negative, thus overall attractive force, like gravity. Next, in this final post, The Surfer will quantify these details and show how gravity is an indirect (actually quite direct) electromagnetic phenomena.** (in far field. Will be presenting Maxwell's equations for the near, intermediate, and far fields showing exactly and approximations.

The larger mass has a net positive charge in the far field because the electron clouds because there is a finite probability that the electron cloud is on average farther away wrt to a far field observer - the electron shell , at least a half hemisphere is farther away than the central positive charge, thus, the electron cloud does not shield 100% the positive charge- by shield I mean cancel exactly. While the net charge is zero, there are residual forces, whose sum is zero. And the smaller mass has its electrons pulled slightly closer to the larger mass due to the net positive charge... much like the polar water molecule, yet more symmetric - average shield probabilities may result in a clean G derivation... TBD.

If this doesn't match Nature, the next approach will be to ratio the surface and equatorial cross-sectional areas and compare to data.

**WIP - these concepts are yet to be correlated with measurement nor peer reviewed - speculative at this point... compared to data after final derivation...

Crash and burn time again???

0 in 2, how about 0 in 3?

***key concept is the dynamic of the electrons blinking in and out of existence, there is a finite time when they disappear into the event horizon only to re-appear. Similarly, the proton is doing the same thing. (speculative, check math)