# Thread: A novel hypothesis describing a relationship between gravity and energy.

1. I have never posted to a forum before and I feel it's a little bit outside my comfort zone.

This is a hypothesis for a relationship between gravity and energy.
Everybody I've shown this to has either hummed and haad a bit or has said it won't work.

I would like to post it here to see what comments other people would make, I'm not looking for people to tell me what I want to hear, I can see that won't happen by comments made to other theory posters. I just want to get a feel for where I may have gone wrong, what I've missed that's obvious, can it be improved or will it even work??

Also I've cobbled together a bit of a web site to see if anything would come of it, but nothing has.
If you wanted to take a look it's at "www dot gravity-hypothesis dot com" I'm not the best writer so please forgive my haphazard style.

In short the hypothesis is this:-
1. Gravitational field strength influences the effective energy of a system.
a. A strengthening gravitational field decreases the effective energy of a system.
b. A weakening gravitational field increases the effective energy of a dynamic system
c. Leading to a modification of Einstein's Energy Mass Equivalence equation E=MC^2
i. E'=(MC^2)/a
ii. "E'" = Effective Energy as it changes with the gravitational field strength
iii. "a" = Gravitational field strength or gravitational acceleration.
d. The side effect of this equation is that it:-
i. Could preclude:-
1. Black holes from forming
2. The big bang from happening
ii. Could be the reason why we observe red shift from distant starlight, or stars accelerating away from us or blue shift from stars that appear to be accelerating towards us.
1. Variations or slopes in gravitational field strength may be a major contributor to the red or blue shift we observe.
iii. May be the cause of time dilation.
iv. Could give clues to the shape of the photon
2. The apparent shape or surface of a photon could be described by the parametric equation of the torus:-
a. (x^2+y^2+z^2)^2=(x^2+y^2)
b. (1 - sqrt(x^2 + y^2))^2 + z^2 = 1
c. x=(1+cos(v))*cos(u) y=(1+cos(v))*sin(u) z=sin(v)
d. A torus allows for both poloidal and toroidal rotations.
3. The shape of a photon's energy could be described by a six leafed torus knot:-
a. x=(1+cos(v))*cos(u) y=(1+cos(v))*sin(u) z=sin(v)
b. One complete poloidal rotation of the torus knot is equivalent to a photons wavelength
c. The toroidal rotation of torus knot may give rise to the electro-motive-force of the photon.
d. The influence of energy concentrating at the point like centre of the knot.
e. Energy levels concentrating at the centre of the knot follow the pattern of a sine wave about the zero axis.
f. The reason for a six sided torus knot has been chosen is because the angle between leaves may allow the 3 polarized filter experiment to work.
g. The torus knot component of the photon when combined with other particles may allow other particles to exhibit both particle and wavelike properties.

I don't have a particularly good grasp of mathematics, but what I have referred to are the closest shapes I could find, that fit in with what I visualise in my mind.

Due to family and business commitments I have not been able to give this as much time as I would have liked, hence my apologies for it being in in it's current crude state.

Please feel free to ask about my reasoning's and or statements, I will answer them to the best of my ability. Any errors or mistakes I've made i will acknowledge.

I will try and reply to any comments in a timely manner.

Thank you for looking.

Kindest Regards

Sean Hollis

2.

3. what do you mean by effective energy?

and what is a zero axis?

4. Effective energy is the wavelength of the photon and the zero axis is the zero axis of the graph of a sine wave, starting at 0, going to +1 back through 0 to -1 then back to the start at 0 again.

5. wavelength can't possibly equal energy as they don't have the same units (and of course don't describe the same things physically).

6. Effective energy is the closest phrase I can find at the moment, sorry I didn't make that clearer.
Energy and wavelength do have different units but they are related via the Planck-Einstein Relation.
This is demonstrated in the photo-electric effect where the energy of an ejected electron is related to the frequency of the photon.

7. then it seems you really don't know what you're trying to describe. like you said you kind of cobbled this together and it shows.

what reason do you have to justify a shape to a photon? how could this be observed?

8. Allow me to make a few remarks on this - I trust you are looking for honest feedback, right ?

1. Photons are point-like quantum objects; they have no surface and no volume
2. You need to find a rigorous definition for your term "effective energy"
3. The relation E=mc^2 is only a special case of the much more general energy-momentum relation; it is valid only for massive particles at rest, not for photons
4. The energy-momentum relation is the norm of the energy-momentum 4-vector; you cannot just decide to modify it without breaking all of the rest of physics in the process
5. None of what you have written has any relation to the FLRW metric used for the Lambda-CDM model, so I don't see what this has to do with cosmology
6. How do you define "gravitational field" ?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement