Matter and associated mysteries.

[I-try]

I am relatively new to the WWW and to Forums. For the last 4 month I have attempted to have my paper on the Fundamental Dynamic Nature of an Electron’s Gravity, Gravitation, Electric Charge, Inertia etceteras subjected to examination on another Forum, all to no avail because nobody on the other forum would undertake a fair reading. Due to their ignorance of my work and my inability to explain it in the confines of a post, I was unfairly banned on a charge of trying to introduce crackpot scam; the crackpot scam being that there is a fundamental difference between the phenomenon of gravity and the phenomenon responsible for gravitation. In that regard, is there anybody on this Forum sufficiently interested in fundamental dynamic physics and willing to assist me by a reading? If there are such persons, I am willing to attempt to answer all questions or inquiries provided they are not simply statements demanding that I provide mathematical explanation or references to corroborating papers that support my beliefs other than those presently extant in the scientific literature.

 

Complements of a moderator on the other Forum, I am able to provide a WWW reference to my published work.

 

 

 

The paper consists of 68 pages and it would only require a reading of the first 10 to 12 pages to gain an understanding of the principals on which the provided information is based.

 

I have read the rules of this Forum; also the definition of what is unkindly termed a crackpot, and whilst I agree that there are many who are inclined to excessively believe and defend that their ideas are correct, there is also a general belief that a person willing to undertake such studies of unknown phenomena has to be a crank. In that regard, my work is available for critical scrutiny without any claim that it is a flawless description of reality. Also I believe that a lack of mathematical description is not necessary a fault because all excepting extensions to that of gravity (I do not have such mathematical ability, therefore requiring the efforts of a mathematician) have already been long provided in scientific literature.

 

 

 

The information in the paper represents 70 years of effort to understand and provide an instant by instant conceptual description of the fundamental dynamic nature of “that” we call matter, and to communicate the findings to the scientific community. It would appear that the communication is by far the hardest to achieve simply because of satisfaction with concepts now conforming to what is called Mainstream Scientific Beliefs. In that regard our technology has been well supported by the mathematics pertaining to gravitation despite the difference between gravity and gravitation.

 

 

 

With regards my work’s ability to benefit humanity, which involves concepts such as the potential to teach the young person by the provision of an instant by instant conceptual description, exactly how the forces acting on the particles composing them change with increases in speed. The Gravitational thermodynamic effect as outlined in the paper has the ability to provide an explanation as to why the water of our great oceans can relatively rapidly undergo heating and cooling; and so on.

 

However, by the provision of a conceptual description of the difference between gravity and gravitation, then the main purpose is in the attempt to redirect the future direction of physics away from the large amount of scarce financial resources being spent annually attempting to detect nonexistent phenomena

[ajb]

Also I believe that a lack of mathematical description is not necessary a fault because all excepting extensions to that of gravity (I do not have such mathematical ability, therefore requiring the efforts of a mathematician) have already been long provided in scientific literature.

 

 

If you have "a theory", then by definition it must be a mathematical model. If you do not have some framework in which to perform calculations of physical observables that can at least in principle be tested against nature then you do not have a theory.

 

If your work is experimental, then I would expect less "high brow" mathematics, but lots of statistics and other analysis of the results.

[michel123456]

(...) It would appear that the communication is by far the hardest to achieve (...)

 

Sure. You have a point.

 

I understand that you are not sure if you can put a link here to your work.

I am not a Mod, so I cannot answer that.

But I am willing to have a quick look.