MagInertia

@strange, photons are not supposed to act that way according to current laws, is what I meant. If predictions can be made to go against current laws of science, then not all laws are written in stone and can be upgraded or adjusted. Not exactly sure if we are miscommunicating with definitions, but predictions, postulations, proposed explanations or hypothesis, all aim to provide a unique interpretation to test (whether it is with math or experimentation) so no I do not have the mathematics or tools to experiment yet, and I know its an uphill battle because scientists tend to ridicule anything that doesn't fit a certain mold, which is confusing concerning that there are still several things that scientists haven't been able to explain yet but are very real. I joined this site hoping to have creative discussions and considering that I haven't proposed anything that is so off the fall someone would refer to it as a waste of time, produces some concern so one last question if I may. If the Big Bang is not a force, could it be the reaction to or of a force?

@strange, and the predictions of the experiment was that the rules regarding photons were incomplete. May not mean that the mathematics relating to photons was wrong, but that there was an aspect of photons that scientists missed out on

@sensei, theories are philosophical, when they are proven by math, they then become law. I know you are very intelligent and proud of what you know, but if you research the experiment I mentioned at the beginning of my post, you will see that it has been proven that what scientist 'know' is not always written in stone, otherwise how would have the sciences evolved? With that kind of perspective that what you don't know can only be found in what you know, and that someone who doesn't know what you know can not possibly figure out what you couldn't, one might be seen as pompous, right? @strange, not sure but isn't the weak nuclear force responsible for the reactions in the sun that release photons?

@strange, thanks for not being impolite. For the sake of analogy lets say F(6)=m(3)a(2), that would be the same as m(3)=f(6)/a(2), that sounds right to me.

@strange thanks for the response. I learned, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that most variations of the electromagnetic force (whether it be in the form of sunlight or radiation) are emitted due to the actions of the Weak force, so wouldn't that still indicate a force that propelled the photon (even if that photon has been traveling since the beginning of the universe, it would have been propelled by the big bang, a force). Also on the question of black holes, it is said that the gravitational pull is the cause for the curving of space-time, and gravity is still a force. @sensei, that's not entirely true. A theory is just that, a theory, and most theories are not proven (by experiment or calculation, for several years). Perhaps the reason why a ToE hasn't been developed is because scientists are working from the bottom up, rather than from the bigger picture downward. Atoms were theorized to exist long before we came up with calculations for them. The higgs-boson was theorized to exist years before we developed equipment sensitive or powerful enough to detect it. Just because we cant put our finger on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we don't have calculations for black holes doesn't mean they don't make sense. As long as a ToE can explain the existence of everything from a singular perspective or theme, isn't it worth investigating?

@Protist thanks. One more question if that's ok. If light speed can be deduced to being the result of a force that propelled it to that speed, couldn't the existence of black holes and lights inability to escape it, justify the existence of forces greater than the one capable of propelling to light speed? @sensei, not sure if you read your question, but its not completely clear. My purpose behind the post was to get an answer to the latter part regarding the formula f=ma. I did say that I am a novice to the quantum world, but in response to the latter part of your post...just because a chef doesn't know how a particular seasoning is made doesn't mean he can't put together a recipe including it.

I've been working on a theory for 'everything' for several years now. It has been very difficult because although I'm bursting with creativity, I am a novice to the quantum world despite my intense fascination with its products. The recent discovery of photonic molecules (they made photons, energy, behave like mass, by slowing it down and passing it through a cooled vacuum full of rubidium) gave me the final vindication for my Force Stream Theory. The theory has been able to explain (in layman terms) quantum entanglement, duality paradox, the uncertainty principle, black holes, and several others, as well as unite the fundamental forces. One question though, based on the photonic molecule experiment. If energy (or force particles) can be made to emulate the characteristics of mass particles through deceleration and interaction, couldn't we then say that another way of viewing f=ma, would be m=f/a?