"Pioneer Anomaly." The twin Pioneer spacecraft launched in the 1970s are not wherethey are supposed to be. There has been a surprising additional pull of gravity as theyhave gone farther out from the sun. And it is born out in movements of stars in outer galaxies. As one goes huge distances from gravitational centers, the classical gravitationalconstant seems to become "unconstant" and increase slightly. Not long after Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo came Newton and his theories,early discoveries and experiments with magnetism, electricity, and the nature of light. Butthere is something flimsy about this structure, too.Take electricity. No "magneton" or magnetic monopole has ever been found tocorrespond to the electron to complete the proposed electromagnetic symmetry. We goahead and use the logic systems of electromagnetic symmetry anyway because theywork. But is this really all that much different from ancient Sumerians digging fresh-water wells and being reinforced that their cosmology is correct?The mass of the electron is defined by electromagnetic fields. The mass is foundfrom how much it bends, or "weighs," in a magnetic or electric field after being shot intoit by an electromagnetic impetus. Milikan's experiment may seem to include gravity, butit is the pull of gravity on his oil droplets and his experiment was designed to find the unitelectric charge, which was then used to find electron mass. Electric or magnetic fieldsultimately determine electron mass. Nuclear conjectures then draw on theseelectromagnetic assumptions and analogies of mass.The force of gravity is too weak in our Earthly environment to define an electronmass in terms of gravity so it is left to this. It sometimes seems that defining an electronmass in terms of electromagnetic fields is a like saying the sky is blue because it is blue.Perhaps someone clever has by now defined an electron mass in terms of gravitational pull on it by using the tremendous gravitational pull of black holes? I don't know. But thewhole structure built on electron mass as defined by electromagnetic fields continues to be a foundation for a very large theoretical structure.Moreover, there is an inconsistency in the descrip tion of electromagnetic "waves"and electromagnetic "particles." In some ways these versions contradict each other.In addition, the behavior of electromagnetic "particles" -- photons -- in mirrorsmight raise some questions. This would be true of mirrors in which we see out lovelyfaces as it is for mirrors that mechanically make lasers work. Photons may have somemass. If so, then it seems curious that when approaching the surface of a mirror a photondecelerates from the speed of light to zero, reverses direction, and then accelerates to thespeed of light again.And what about those curious "holes" in solid-state physics that make transistorswork. Might there be something ever so slightly lacking in electromagnetic assumptionsthat forces scientists to use what might be a fudge-factor like "holes" to make things work out in the end?