D.R. Lunsford is author of ‘Gravitation and Electrodynamics over SO(3,3)’ on CERN document server, EXT-2003-090.
I emailed him material on my mechanism for gravity extensively, and only received one reply from him, which said he would inform the police if I continued emailing him my ideas.
However, I like his idea at the end of the paper, where he concludes that gravity is some kind of 'residual' of the other forces. This prompts me to argue that the electromagnetic force is a residual of the strong nuclear force. This is fact.
The strong nuclear force is 137 times stronger than electromagnetism. The cloud of virtual charges in the surrounding ether are polarised around the core of a fundamental particle, causing a shielding or screening effect which reduces the observed electric field strength seen by us by a factor of 137.
This is the underlying reality to all the maths of quantum field theory. Now I read on Peter Woit's blog that Lee Smolin is posting comments about others doing this stuff by more rigorous arguments. Lucky they weren't suppressed. I'm really waiting for someone to plagarise my work, while pretending to come up with it independently. Was Darwin right to withhold his evidence for evolution until Wallace independently rediscovered it? No, that is horses***.
I quote from the Dutch Uncle himself, Mr Jeremy Webb, BSc (electronics), editor of the good old New Scientist: 'Scientists have a duty to tell the public what they are doing.'
Now read the horses***:
From: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk [mailto:Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk] Sent: Mon 30/08/2004 11:29 To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Cook, Nigel B Cc: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk
Subject: RE: Catt and New Scientist
Dear Ivor and Nigel
If this is mediation, I'm a Dutch uncle. ... Hawking and Penrose are well regarded among their peers. I am eager to question their ideas but I cannot afford to ignore them. Any physicist working today would be daft to do so. ...
More commentary on http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ and the page it links to at the bottom