To restate: Yes, I believe that I have solved the riddle of gravity,
and discovered the correct unification of gravity with the other
three fundamental forces of nature in a proper gauge-field format.

Yet, I do not have the "credentials" that mainstream science would
accept as qualifying me to make such a claim. So, my thesis is
likely never to be accepted by modern physicists.

In the future, perhaps, things will be different. But I expect that
the ideas I have come up with will not be appreciated for what they
can do for our overall understanding of reality until our technology
advances to the point at which the ideas can be tested in such as way
as to be proven beyond doubt.

Reminder: I suggest that gravity is faster than light, and is
therefore a tachyonic force. And, while this suggestion is not
original to me, I have devised an original method of describing
tachyonic quantities, and that is what has allowed me to explain
gravity in an empirical fashion (at least to my own satisfaction).

[For an abbreviated version of my thesis, click the "Tachyonic
Gravity" link at www.TachyonicsSociety.com.]

Unfortunately, in my opinion, today's physics community has become
much like the medieval Cathholic church, complete with its own
versions of God (nature), angelic beings (famous dead scientists),
priests (famous living scientists), followers (non-famous scientists,
science students, and suppportive laymen), dogma (the "prevailing
wisdom", or "consensus", among "established" scientists), and, let us
not forget, heretics (guys like me).

As for the followers, note that there are many "believers" in science
who are not themselves working scientists. I am, in a way, simply
one of these (because I consider myself a scientific thinker, in the
sense of the traditional image of the scientist as a detached seeker
of truth, and also because, formally, I have had some undergraduate
training in physics). But I am generally accused by most mainstream
scientists as promoting "pseudo-science" (in the sense of falsehood),
because my ideas stray so far from the mainstream view (i.e., "peer-
reviewed" dogma concerning the basic nature of the physical world).

On the other hand, I do not object to the term "pseudo-science" as it
applies to my ideas when the prefix "pseudo" is understood in the way
chemists use it; to imply similarity, rather than falsehood. And it
is in that sense that I have used the term myself, for example, in my
online article "Physics of the Gods", at the following URL -
http://hometown.aol.com/PhysicsOfTheGods/PseudoScience.html

In any case, despite the fact that I have no real credentials to
speak of, I think I have some good ideas, and I would like to think
that the scientific commuinity (and physicists in particular) would
be entirely open to, and eager to consider, new and innovative ideas,
regardless of where they come from (even from someone like me), if
the ideas have merit, and stimulate the search for breakthroughs in
our understanding of natural processes. However, clearly, the focus
of modern science, these days (like most institutions), is on money.
And, since my ideas do not involve the pursuit of some marketable
product, or sensational book sales, or other money-making effort,
then there is not going to be much interest - and, consequently,
little to no chance of funding for such a line of research, even
should it be requested by a highly-credentialed physicist.

Sadly, the chasing of money (research grants, big salaries, lucrative
patents, etc.) has had a profound retardation effect on innovation in
scientific thinking, because, like Hollywood beating a movie theme to
death with copycat films after the realease of a big "hit" movie, it
tends to channel research efforts into already proven money-making
endeavors, such as the development of communications equipment, new
consumer electronics products, and weapons for the military. And
that, in its turn, increases the importance of conformity.

Notice that the status-quo in physics is dictated by members of the
rather exclusive club known as "peers", who, upon submission of a
paper for publication in some peer-reviewed journal, pick over each
others work so as to make sure it conforms with their own views, or
does not, at least, propose or prove something that would bring down
theories in which they have vested interests.

Even degreed physicists with outstanding credentials have complained
that they find it hard to come across new ideas in the literature
associated with their field because new ideas will not get published
if they cannot be couched in conformist language.

I would greatly appreciate, for instance, some college professor
taking my ideas and running with them, but I am afraid that is not
going to happen in my lifetime. So, I post vainly on message boards
like this one, and maintain my web site (www.TachyonicsSociety.com),
merely to present my ideas to the public.


*******************

More to come.