(March 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm)IATIA Wrote: I agree with you on the quality of the links and I do not fully subscribe to either one, but it is a good 'sounding board'. Not many subscribe to this idea at all. The various physics forums are as bad as christian fundamentalists when it comes to breaking out of their 'box'. They have no answer, but i am "completely wrong".
The 'density' of space would be relative to gravity on a one to one scale, similar to any cavitation. The schwarzschild equation will need some rework to define gravity as pressure rather than attraction. QM has 'proven' itself. so I certainly cannot ignore it, just rework it to include gravity as a 'medium' rather than a 'force'. And if all this pans out, there will be have to be either new words or new definitions for force, wave and particle.
You might think me a crackpot (and sometimes I wonder myself), but I have always been one to observe and question from outside the 'box'. The present theories have just as many 'I don't knows" as my hypothesis.
I don't view you or your idea as crackpot. Your idea several weaknesses: accounting for charge (electric & color), interactions with messenger particles, discreteness (spin and charge). Not to mention the big questions of why two cavities don't merge together and how do other forces are incorporated. The only advantage is the density of states which you use as a pressure term. I wouldn't argue it as a pressure term.
The biggest weakness I see (being a experimentalist) is that your theory doesn't seem to predict anything different from GR.
