UniKEF Gravity

[MacM]

I wasn't sure where to put this but I thought planetary motion and gravity might go together.

I formed a concept for gravity many decades ago but it is still in a very rudimentary stage and in need of additional testing and mathematical support.

However, I am posting it here in that it has been tested and appears to be supported and further suggests that GR is invalid.

Please see the testing section and give some feed back.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

Thanks.

[Toptunov]

Your model is original, but let me suggest you two conditions unless nobody will take it seriously in consideration.

First it requires a deeper mathematical formulation.

Second you should indicate some experiments in order to prove it.

In particular you should conceive a test to prove that your model fits reality better than the mainstream ones and propose it to the scientific community for a trial.

[Epsilon=One]

I thought planetary motion and gravity might go together.On this we agree.

I formed a concept for gravity...Please...give some feed back.

http://www.unikef-gravity.comQuick (and incomplete) thoughts on a complex subject.

In general, I like your theory. There is much in it that I find quite refreshing; however, I believe it can use some tweaking; and, needs more of a foundation than the mythical Big Bang. I recognize that you do consider “other origins”; with this I agree; and, I would like to see you expand upon these "other origins." I consider you to be on shaky ground when you consider “to expand time-space”; this concept needs much elaboration; particularly, without any precise definition of “time” that I can find in your theory.

I can’t quite find how you are reconciling gravity with light, and the strong and weak interactions beside just stating so. Or, the Why? of gravity’s evolutionary etiology. Please, advise if you have considered a reconciliation with the concepts of supersymmetry and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) that I may have missed. Not that these theories are not without much that is inexplicable; however, I consider no theory of gravity to be complete without such a reconciliation; regardless of which theory requires the most adjustment.

Gravity is several different effects; some are fundamental forces others are secondary forces. You seem to be primarily concerned with a secondary force, Cosmic gravity.

I don’t believe it is possible to overlook the pervasive effects of “dark” matter with any successful theory of gravity. How does your theory explain the Pioneer anomaly which seems to be within too short a distance for your theory. Your theory seems dismissive of “dark” matter and energy; are you also dismissive, as it seems, of a “quantum ether” that is generally accepted by all modern astro- and nuclear physicists.

I can find no reaction to your force (other than mathematical symbolism) such as Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI) (CI) as observed with accelerating, galactic recession. Your example of going “through zero” and becoming repulsive, without further physical explanation seems to be an over reliance on mathematical interpretation.

I believe that you can find the geometry of Cosmic gravity as you propose it ("the flattening of the curve at galactic scales"), to be explained by the elliptical geometry of Pulsoid Theory (overview) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV).

I may have read your theory too quickly. I do believe you have done an excellent job of refuting much of the simplistic existing theory; and you are on the right track. I do not believe that GR is so much “invalid” as you do; as, it is just too limited and too simplistic for today’s observations. As I’m sure you are well aware, all our space programs still rely solely upon Newtonian gravity.

I hope you will discuss some of the issues that I have raised.