I don't know what a "dielectric condensate" is. The term "dielectric" refers roughly to the electrical conductivity of something, and "condensate" just means something is "condensed" from something else. So, maybe he is saying in an unnecessarily obfuscatory way that matter is a condensed form of electrical charge, or something like that. Of course, we know that ordinary matter contains charged particles. For example, atoms contain electrons and protons, both of which carry electric charge. However, most atoms are electrically neutral over all. And yet, they are still subject to gravitational force. One question you might want to think about: why is gravity always attractive and never repulsive, whereas electrical forces can be either attractive or repulsive? If gravity were really some form of electromagnetism, couldn't we make matter that "anti-gravitated" - falling upwards rather than downwards? If not, why not? Coming back to the "new" theory that gravity is electromagnetism: there's nothing wrong, of course, in proposing any theory. But at some point the rubber needs to hit the road. You need to show how the new theory makes quantitatively accurate predictions about what is observed experimentally. So, the question is: does this theory have the same or greater explanatory power as our current theories of electromagnetism and gravity, in which mass is treated as separate from charge? In this theory, could we have a ball with mass 10 and charge zero, or a ball with mass 1 and charge 10? Because all experiments indicate that such things exist in practice. Any theory of mass and charge must account for this, among other things. Why is gravity always attractive and never repulsive? If we have a collection of electrons, all have negative charge, but apparently positive mass. Why? Explain how a generator or a motor relies on gravity.