The Clay-Sphere Analogy: Understanding PEI’s View of Gravity
To explain its approach to gravity in an intuitive way, Paudelian Economics Institute (PEI) often uses a simple physical analogy: a clay sphere with an invisible magnet at its core. This analogy is not meant to describe gravity literally. Rather, it is a conceptual tool that helps distinguish what produces a force from what merely responds to it, and to clarify how PEI’s framework differs from classical and relativistic interpretations.
The setup of the analogy
Imagine a small sphere made of ordinary clay. From the outside, it looks uniform and unremarkable—just a solid ball of material. Hidden at its center, however, is a powerful magnet. The magnet cannot be seen from the surface, and its presence is not obvious through visual inspection alone.
Now place fine iron particles around the clay sphere.
What causes the attraction?
The iron particles begin to move toward the sphere. At first glance, one might assume that the clay itself is responsible for the attraction, since the clay is what we see and touch. In reality, the clay plays no role in producing the force. The attraction originates entirely from the magnet hidden inside the sphere.
The clay acts only as a container. It neither strengthens nor weakens the magnet directly; it simply surrounds it.
What happens as material accumulates?
As iron particles collect on the surface of the clay sphere, the magnet does not become stronger. Instead, the surface of the sphere gradually moves farther away from the magnet. Because the strength of magnetic attraction decreases with distance, the force felt at the surface weakens as the outer layer grows thicker.
This is a crucial point of the analogy:
The source of the force remains unchanged
The observed effect evolves because distance increases
How this relates to gravity in the PEI framework
PEI uses this analogy to illustrate a central idea in its gravity framework:
The magnet represents an internal generative core that produces gravity.
The clay and accumulated iron represent the exterior shell made of dust and debris.
The attraction of iron particles represents gravitational attraction.
Just as the clay does not generate magnetism, the exterior mass of an astronomical body is treated as gravitationally passive in the PEI framework. Gravity originates from the core, not from the accumulated shell. Accretion increases size, but it does not increase the core’s generative capacity.
How this differs from Newtonian gravity
In Newtonian mechanics, gravity is understood as arising directly from mass itself. In terms of the analogy, Newtonian gravity effectively treats the clay—the visible, accumulated matter—as the source of the attractive force. There is no conceptual distinction between an internal generator and an exterior shell; the mass distribution alone is taken to be responsible for gravity.
From the PEI perspective, this means Newtonian gravity does not “see” the invisible magnet at the core. It attributes the force to what is externally observable rather than to a deeper generative structure.
How this differs from Einsteinian gravity
In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity is not treated as a force produced by matter at all, but as the result of spacetime curvature. Matter and energy tell spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move.
In the clay-sphere analogy, this would be akin to saying that the surrounding space itself, rather than the clay or the magnet, is responsible for guiding the iron particles. The focus shifts away from any internal source and toward the geometry of the environment.
PEI does not deny the descriptive power of this view, but it asks a different foundational question.
PEI’s distinct focus: the primordial source
PEI’s framework differs from both Newtonian and Einsteinian views by directing attention to what it calls the primordial generative source of gravity. In the analogy, this corresponds to the magnet itself—the hidden, internal structure that produces attraction regardless of how it is enclosed or how space is described around it.
Rather than attributing gravity to:
the exterior mass alone (Newtonian view), or
spacetime geometry alone (Einsteinian view),
PEI examines whether gravity may originate from an internal generative structure, with mass accumulation and geometry influencing how that force is expressed, but not how it is produced.
Why the analogy matters
The clay-sphere analogy helps clarify three ideas central to PEI’s approach:
Source vs. appearance
What generates a force may not be visible from the outside.
Non-amplifying accumulation
Adding material does not necessarily strengthen the force source.
Geometric attenuation
Growth can weaken observable effects by increasing distance from the source.
What the analogy does not claim
It is important to be clear about the limits of this analogy. It does not suggest that gravity is magnetic in nature, nor that planets contain literal magnets at their centers. The analogy is purely heuristic. Its purpose is to help readers visualize a structural separation between force generation, mass accumulation, and geometric expression.
A tool for thinking differently
By separating the visible shell from the invisible source, the clay-sphere analogy encourages readers to reconsider a common assumption: that gravitational strength must always be explained solely by accumulated mass or spacetime curvature. Whether this alternative perspective ultimately proves useful or not, the analogy provides a clear and accessible way to understand how PEI’s gravity framework differs at a foundational level.
This conceptual clarity—rather than immediate confirmation—is why PEI presents the analogy as part of its exploratory work.