Thanks to you and a couple of others who responded, yes I have attempted to publish, and I have also placed the theory on line in a less rigorous format where it could be read by any scientist (not hidden away in a self-contained blog but on large forums with science sub-forums).
Never received any actual critique of the theory, which may mean it has some merit, although I would be first to admit, difficult to prove unless let’s say somebody on Mars or the Moon stumbles across obvious evidence that I’m right.
One detail I didn’t mention was that the binding force of various atoms weakens gradually the larger the atoms become, in a graphical format, these binding energy values fall fairly close to the line which would theoretically join up with the larger gravitational forces.
I haven’t developed any “empirical observational proof”, it is just a concept which once grasped you can either accept or reject, that G is not constant but varies with the central mass of any given field. Here on earth, experiments are conducted within that larger field, so it’s not clear whether they really demonstrate anything about constant or variable G.
The product G*M in any case would be the same as we now believe (it is indirectly derived by studying the orbital speed of satellites), so if G increases for lower mass than earth, and decreases for higher mass, then the masses involved would (a) increase for more massive objects and (b) decrease for less massive objects, in order to maintain the validity of the products G*M.
For the electro-magnetic force, mass is much smaller obviously so G must be much larger. I don’t have the figures in front of me but I recall that the electro-magnetic force in a hydrogen atom is 10^53 times G, or something similar. But for larger atoms with many electron rings, the binding energies indicate that the operating force for those has already fallen off to 1% of hydrogen, on a gradual downswing that ends up in the astronomical object range. My data points were based on whatever closest fit line from the hydrogen atom to earth’s known value of G (known to the extent that we know the mass of the earth, itself a conjecture). And it hit the mass of Mars at exactly 1.1, just enough larger than water’s 1.0 to suggest a 30-50 km crust surrounding a large water world (like Europa, so not that far-fetched).
For Venus, its similar mass to earth would only reduce the assumed mass slightly and in any case we were estimating that more from analogies than observed forces as Venus has no orbiting satellites.
Another thing in favor of this alternate view is that there is no longer missing mass. The galaxies are all hundreds of times more massive than we thought.
You're getting ahead of yourself and already assuming that a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) will be found. At present, that's still a speculation. For the time being, you should consider gravity, the electro-weak force (combined electromagnetic and weak - see Glashow, Salam, and Weinburg / 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics), and the strong force to be separate.
Regards,
Or...