Kismet, where do you dig up this stuff?
Look at the paragraphs that precede the part you quoted.
Did they make sense? Not to me...Then how can their gravity theory based upon them make sense? Why bother to continue...but we will, for the hell of it. Hope my italic and bold fonts work.
"Photon energy is inversely proportional to photon wave length; the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy. Since photon speed through space is a constant, shorter wavelengths must pass a point in space in less time than longer wave lengths. Because of this, and the
(a) fact that the maximum possible electric and magnetic amplitude of any point in space is a certain finite value, photon action, expressed as Joule-seconds is a constant for all photons regardless of frequency.
(b) Planck's constant is this amount of electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space. Note that it is not a property of a photon, but rather a property of space itself. It is therefore not only the maximum amount but also the minimum amount of action available for a photon in space. This property of space is the key to the how gravity is caused by the Planck's-Constant phenomenon.
Planck's constant is this amount of electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space. Note that it is not a property of a photon, but rather a property of space itself.
(c) It is therefore not only the maximum amount but also the minimum amount of action available for a photon in space"
(a) Dunno where this "fact" came from... maybe the photonics book? Dunno what photonics is really, something to do with propigation of energy through matter I think. All I can say is Wiley is a "real" publisher of scientific books. But it looks to me like these guys are trying to carry the properties of solids, liquids, gases to the "empty vacuum" of space. Valid? Certainly a topic in and of itself.
(b) Point? 1-D geometrical point which is infinitely small and of which there are infinitely many infinitely close together? Hardly seems limiting when discussing waves with non-zero wavelengths. Not this kind of point? What then, a volume? How big? No, not infinitely close together? What density, and why? Why Planck's constant? No justification for something which is main idea #4 of this paper.
(c) Whaaat? Some clarification certainly needed here...The photon consumes a chunk of "action" for as long as it takes a wavelength to pass? "Empty" space is quantized?...
Do these concepts of space, and photons fit with the rest of physics where they are also used? It's their burden to demonstrate this, not someone elses.
Should you happen to run accross the best, or any decent theory of gravitation I won't be able to tell you. The few folks I've known who did stuff like that started with a pile of equations from accepted theory and a postulate as a starting point, worked the equations into other mathematical forms, and kept doing that until they got a form which they could interpret as physically meaningful. Sometimes took years, since they maybe had to learn some new (to them) field of math along the way. In the past, new fields of math have been invented (discovered?--philosphical question) during this process, or some obscure field of math previously of interest only to mathematicians suddenly found an application.
Note that it is easier to show something's internally inconsistent or ill-defined than to show it is fully consistent, adequately precise, and does the best job of explaining what's known and should replace a current theory. They have a much higher burden of proof than me just B.S.ing around with you.
The goofy non-intuitive things in current physics eventually appear after mathematical manipulation of equations that are taken as the best representations of the physical world.Somebody didn't just think up black holes or time-dilation and then scribble down a theory in ordinary language. Representations of the theory in ordinary language are short-hand for the mathematical constructs and have full meaning and precise meaning only to those who understand the mathematical construct. The people who do this stuff think and communicate in mathematics. For many purposes, a less complete, intuitive understanding is adequate. (No relativistic problems driving to the store, or using a flashlight, or etching computer chips with UV light) But if no math error is found along the way, and the initial equations are still accepted, then one is stuck with the result until it's done another way that does as well or better. If one can't examine the work in that detail, one must rely on others who can. Peer review is a good thing, especially if no one except those peers can understand it.
Somebody who fiddles around with the imprecise lingusitic representations of fundamental concepts like this instead of doing the hard work described above, and then says "I've a better theory, you do the real work and prove me wrong" is asinine and infantile IMO. Kinda like scribbling a picture of a giant bridge on a napkin and saying "This is the design for the strongest and cheapest bridge that can be built, I'm better than any engineer, they haven't showed it can't be done."
That's about all the help I can give you, I suggest you try and find a non-mathematical description of gravitation written by someone who does work that's peer-reviewed before publication. Or perhaps a web-site that contains something from a college physics course. Sounds snobby and academic, but unless you've a few years of advanced physics under your belt, I think you'll have to trust such people to do the job of evaluating gravitation theories. That's what I do (but it is sometimes fun to see if I can find the flaw in wacky ones). Just like one must sometimes trust a tax attorney or airline pilot.
Good luck.