Einstein was a wise old elf

From Painius:
The gravitational energy is what fuels the atomic nucleus, and keeps
it fueled. This would explain the source of the nuclear
forces...

To which the Pudz, in truest void-droid fashion, recited:

The gravitational force is FAR weaker
than the others.

Under the 'no medium' regime, there can be only separate, disparate
forces. Trying to unify the 'Wild Card', gravity, will forever amount to
chasing the rainbow. You can take perfectly good math and conjure up
'eleven dimensions' (or whatever number is currently in vogue) in a
convoluted attempt to relate gravity to the strong nuclear force. It
amounts to a modern "epicycles" caper, trying to use perfectly good math
to validate a false premise (Painius take note.:-)).

But replace the "void" with the hyperpressurized SPED, and the
unification of gravity happens unsought and unsolicited.. like a
friendly dog that trotted in thru the back door and sat down smiling.
(This unification, BTW, was one of the sidebars or 'spinoffs' of the CBB
model.)

As stated numerous times previously, one needs look no further than the
Casimir effect to see unification of gravity demonstrated, and
demonstrated dramatically. The two super-smooth, uncharged plates appear
mysteriously "attracted" to each other, but what's really going on? The
closer you approach the atomic level, the more pronounced becomes the
_accelerating flow of space_ into every atomic nucleus. The Casimir
effect is the _interface zone_ between gravity and the strong force.
It's at once the attenuated SF *and* the amped-up gravitational force
between the two plates, literally _pushing_ them together. It is the
SAME FLOW. It's analogous to a flowing river as it accelerates toward a
waterfall. The "quantum fluctuations" so popular with the QED guys are
analogous to rapids in the river.
Now Duckie at this point, will respond "math please."
You don't need no steenkin' math to understand it, dude.

Duckie will also holler, invoking the 'roach motel' issue: "Where does
the stuff go when it's ingested to the core of the nucleus?" To which
the rejoinder is "Where does the BB 'come from'?

If the flowing-space model's no good because it doesn't specify where
the stuff 'goes to', then the BB model's no good because it doesn't
specify where it 'comes from'.

Clearly, all indications point to a common, nonlocal 'ground state' with
gravitation and the BB process forming a natural dipole. To view the
process of gravitation is to view, literally, the inverse of the BB.
oc