This is my first time posting on this Forum. I am not an expert or highly schooled but I have some ideas. So I thought that I would propose a theory that would be the basis for a Unified Field Theory. I will start with Light. What if light travels at the speed of an infinitely dense force we’ll call S (sigma)? Light is just a hitchhiker (I’ll get to its guide later). Because light is substantive it can not pass through solid matter. However S can. Now to Gravity. The force of S travels through a body effecting the matter in it. This produces the strong and weak forces. At the same time it creates a slight shadow on the other side of the body. Now S travels at the speed of light in every direction at once. So on the backside of a body the strength of S would be weaker passing through the body then the strength of S coming into initial contact on the backside, having not passed through the body. This would create the effect of gravity. I propose that it is a side effect of S traveling through the planet. Thinking Outside the Box.
There's a poster here called MacM who has a very similar theory he calls UniKEF. There's a long, ongoing discussion of his ideas in the thread "UniKEF analysis", which you might want to look at.
Can you suggest any experiments that would directly measure or otherwise confirm the existance of the "force" S? That's the key to any theory. In any case, since you call it a "force" are you suggesting that S can cause masses to change momentum? That would easily suggest experiments but then why hasn't it been noticed before? Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would tell us what definition of "density" you are using, what you mean by "infinitely dense", and how something "hitchhikes" on a force.
You are far outside my box. Perhaps in a field of :m: ??? I put my "glasses" (actualy made of plastic, but none-the-less "matter") on to read your post more carefully. I was able to do so despite your statement about light and solid matter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, welcome, but be more careful in what you assert here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good suggestion and question. Certainly the momentum transfer of light to matter is well established - look how comets behave as the approach the sun and grow tails that point away from sun. In lab one can even confirm this for single photons: Insert a very light weight mirror, which can recoil a detectabel amount, in one of the paths of a two beampaths interferometer, and the interference on the screen dis appears until you lock the mirror down so it can't recoil. (To assure you are working with "single photons," you will need long time exposures (not a screen you look at) on photographic films and a very low intensity single-wavelength light source.)
Thanks for the unbiased referance. That is atypical. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Outside Thinker, Welcome. The concept called "Push Gravity" began over 300 years ago by LaSage. However, today we know much more about physics and space than we did then. FYI: Have a look to see if UniKEF is in the realm of our thoughts. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/ Based on your post the only link I see is the concept of momentum transfer by a flowing energy penetrating a mass.
Actually I believe the UniKEF Gravity Testing suggests strongly that gravity is an externally induced affect and not some mysterious attractive property of mass or that of curved time-space.
Actually one need not have such sophisticated equipment. The use of a laser shows the force of photons rather strikingly.
I am sad to note that MacM's comment about James R is at least supported by some evidence. I hope James will not provide MacM with more. MacM if you are going to proslitize for your uniKEF, I feel compelled to call "outside's" attention the the Jell-O project, even if I may have gotten off on the wrong side of him with my post tellin him he was "far out." Outside: See thread "Jell-O, Energy, Shape of Sun and uniKEF type theories" which now that I have the new one ""Co- authors wanted ..." I am willing to let slip down into the abyss of earlier pages, as it is currently doing. I could not restain my self from making non Mathematic posts in the original Jell-O thread. Now I only reply to MacM in his uniKEF thread, but have been to busy to do so recently. Unfortunately for me, you do not appear capable enough with math to become one of "co-authors" I seek with the new thread, but at least MacM is not trying to shoot down such a clearly mathematical thread as the "Co- authors wanted ...." thread with only verbal bullets.
Be sure to also read my responses to Billy T's speculations. I will remain on the sidelines for as long as the thread is not making the same mis-assumptions in your original thread. For a properly performed mathematical exercise will infact support my claims. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This idea originated with my father. He has written about it and posted his explaination on his website. For more details please read the articles that he wrote. I helped him form much of his ideas though he did all the writing on his own. http://robtdwilson.freeservers.com/Physics.html
I do not mean any personal abuse by this post but I must tell you the following: 1 - I speak for only myself. Many others may not be so affected as I in this matter. 2 - I went to your fathers web page and frankly I read maybe 5 words and left the site. He may well be a wonderful man and he may even have unlocked the secrets of the universe and one day get the prize. But I for one will not have even read his work. Why?. If you have a scientific point of view then present it as science. His opening statements and other referances to a God and his creator flat turns me off. I personally have no room for such concepts and will not indure such referrances in scientific work or any reading material I might pick up. Recommend that he rewrite his thoughts and keep them in regard to science and not his belief in a God. Thanks.
