[Aquarius]

 []

[alancalverd]

Occam's razor seems to be a bit blunt.

[PmbPhy]

Let's start again, I've only been developing this theory for a few days now, ...

It's unfortunate that people often misuse the term theory in physics/science so often. There's theory in its use among layman and that refers to contemplative thought whereas in physics/science it means a great deal more. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#In_physics

for more on this.

[Colin2B]

The dig at Quantum mechanics, was provoked by someone less elequent than yourself. I wont expand any further. ...... I think ive blasphemed enough now for amusement.

I wouldn't worry too much. Most of the physicists I've worked with spend a lot of time questioning accepted theory, particularly at the moving edge of knowledge, I don't think they would consider it blasphemous. However, the questioning does have to be clear and logical  []

If you every find yourself sailing UK south coast, PM me. We are somewhere along there most yrs.

[Colin2B]

.
Based on this relativity is wrong.

I must have missed the bit where you show that the speed of light is not constant. Could you go over that please?

[Colin2B]

...... do you think there is anyone on this website would care to review it, other than with someones razor, or maybe run with idea and glue some maths on it [] [?]. Up until now ive just been having fun with the idea, but it seems to be so simple it has to be correct. If you read the section on light you will see how theories about photons going through all possible trajectories to go through 2 slits is nonsense. []

I'm sure there will be folks willing to review and help, sometimes with razor []
A couple of suggestions.
It needs a lot of cleaning up so it doesn't read like a brainstorming session - perhaps post as a PDF?
With ideas dotted around it's easy to misread what you are saying eg my comment on light speed.
If you think gravity is from infrared you need to explain why hot objects are not (or are!) heavier or more attractive.
Also, gravity is not magnetic, so I personally would go for the idea of gravity dipoles, which have been proposed by someone at CERN.
I wouldn't get too hung up on maths terminology eg all possible paths. Least action + least time is just another way of deriving Newton's Laws and showing how light goes in a straight line.

If you can provide structured ideas, grouped under different concepts, with step by step logic I'm sure there will be people who will look. The ideas do need to be solid, not just pseudo waffle like too many posts in this section.

PS If you feel yourself falling off the dock again, take more water with it []

[guest39538]

''massless dipoles could also be described as the ether.''

no they could not. and what exactly is a massless dipole? are you refering to photons?

[alancalverd]

I think this removes the wave particle dualatiy problem.

There is no problem. We have two classical models, neither of which predicts every aspect of the behavior of nature, so we invent quantum mechanics which does the job a lot better.

The "problem", as with so many that appear in these forums, is in the minds of those who insist that classical mechanics must explain and predict everything, when it obviously can't and doesn't. The solution is lies in the realm of psychiatry, not physics. 

[Colin2B]

qThe bit in quantum theory i dont agree with is the description of the slit experiment describing light travelling all over the known universe before it goes through the slits.

I really wouldn't get hung up on this. If you look at the maths it is like planning a route between 2 cities, you could take an infinite number of paths, but if you do the calculations for least time (or energy, or distance) then one path becomes the most probable. For light it's a straight line!