Hello all.

Before I start I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the forum! :)

Below is my second group of ideas which I have finally got round to writing out and I was hoping you could help me in considering further ideas. I would appreciate any pointers that you could pass on to a non-trained mind like mine.

When someone such as yourself who tells us that (1) he has a non-trained mind and (2) is asking for help on his ideas in physics I suggest that they first try to obtain a solid understanding of the basics in physics before. Without doing that it can be difficult to impossible to give a response. A solid understanding of the basics will give you a command of the language of physics in which to frame your question. To demonstrate why I make such a suggestion I’ll comment on some of what you wrote.

Matter and anti-matter can be considered as both mass and energy which is bonded together down to a sub-atomic level.

This statement is incorrect. The term “matter” is not a well-defined term in physics. We use the term to refer to the “stuff” of the universe. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MatterThus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

While the term “matter” is not well-defined the terms “mass” and “energy” are. All matter has mass and since all matter has mass it also has and associated energy E = mc

^{2}. Your assertion that matter “considered as both mass and energy which is bonded together down to a sub-atomic level” is incorrect due to the fact that it’s contrary to the meaning of the terms mass and energy. I can’t say why you used the term “bounded” but I can guess that you might have an incorrect understanding of what energy is. To learn precisely what physicists mean when they use the term “energy” please read:

http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm Simply put, energy is a bookkeeping system. That means that energy is a quantity that is conserved as a conservative system evolves. For example: Let

**r** = (x, y, z) be the location of a particle having mass

*m*. Let the particle be subject to a force which can be represented in terms of a function V(

**r**) as

**F** = -grad V. Define K = mv

^{2}. Then it can be shown that the sum K + V is a constant of motion. The quantity defined as E = K + V is called the energy of the particle. The quantity K is called the kinetic energy and V is called the potential energy. For E to remain constant then it’s necessary for one term to increase when the other decreases and vice versa. Kinetic energy and potential energy are said to be “forms” of energy. There are many other forms of energy such as electromagnetic energy. This is precisely what I meant when I said that energy is a bookkeeping system.

Einstein had considered that the force of gravity was comparable to acceleration.

When you learn the language of physics you’ll learn that the correct way to say this is to say that

*a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference*. The more general way to phrase that is

*a gravitational field is locally equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference*. When you phrase it the way you just did a physicist, or someone versed in the language of physics, cannot be certain that what you mean is the same as what he may think that it means.

However if we consider acceleration which comes in units of distance against time squared ..

Here again you’ve chosen to phrase this in a way that is different than stated in the language of physics. We say that the units of acceleration are meters per second-squared. Your use of the term “against” is very awkward. It makes one pause to think about whether you and I have the same thing in mind.

…and that gravity can warp spacetime then should we not then consider that gravitational force is connected to a change in the rate of time with distance becoming relative to the strength of the gravitational force when those measurements are being taken?

This is a common misunderstanding about general relativity. It’s incorrect to say that gravity can warp spacetime. First off the appropriate term is “curve” not warp. The second thing to keep in mind is that only when there are gradients in the gravitational field is spacetime curved. Third, when there are such gradients present then “spacetime curvature” is merely the modern mathematical language for spacetime curvature. So gravitational tidal forces does not

*cause* spacetime curvature, it

*is* spacetime curvature. The rest is too convoluted for me to make any sense of.

The rest of your ideas have the same kind of errors in them. For that reason I’ll leave it at what I’ve just said and hope you choose to go back and learn physics from the beginning. I know that most people don’t want to do that because they want to jump right into theorizing but that’s why they never get anywhere. They don’t know the meaning of the ideas that they’re dealing with. Good luck.