That`s why I`m asking if mass is a vector!? Thus F=ma is to be reconsidered, like the other physical laws too.

Dear Hossein, I am afraid that it is the problem of verbal definition. We should not attach serious importance to words.

Dear Marat

What you mean of "the problem of verbal definition"?

Force and Power are derived quantities and not fundamental - and should be avoided at all cost, while Energy is the fundamental quantity as follows:

P = dE/dt

F = dE/dx

In 3D we replace d/dx with the Gradient operator ,or even with a Tensor operator in the most general case. We can in fact unite Power and Force into a 4-vector in Minkowski space as follows:

F + i·P/c = {∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z, (i/c)·∂/∂t} E(x,y,z,t)

The Energy (E) is a scalar function (potential), as is the Power (P), while the Force (F) is a 3D vector - or even a tensor in the most general case, such as the familiar Stress tensors in physics.

All the best,

Gudlaugur.

Dear Gudlaugur

Exactly, I agree with you on "Force and Power are derived quantities and not fundamental.."

In fact, fundamental forces are discrete amounts of energy. So, particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313164950_Making_up_of_Universe_by_Tiny_Energy_Including_Unique_Features?ev=prf_pub

Article Making up of Universe by Tiny Energy Including Unique Features

Dear Hossein,

The answer is simple; He did not know the main factor witch causing gravity, for this he did not be able to do an false invention of unified theory.

Best Regards,

Laszlo.

P.S.

I have made a English resume for the new article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313632704_AZ_ELMELETI_TUDOMANY_KENYES_JELENSEGE

I know what did do the LIGO researchers  

Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE

Einstein got nowhere with ALL his attempts at a unifying theory because EM Field theory is wrong to begin with, despite Albert's efforts in 1905 to patch up Maxwell's failure.

Dear Herb

Einstein has developed classical electromagnetic.

I read an answer to this issue that has written by Viktor T. Toth, on Quora, I think it is interesting, I rewrite here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-didn%E2%80%99t-Einstein-succeed-in-unifying-gravity-and-electromagnetism/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1?__snid3__=761471070&__nsrc__=4

You know, this “gravity isn’t a force” thing bugs me. I mean, we are talking physics here. Grab a brick. Feel its weight. It is a force, isn’t it? Don’t drop it on your foot, because then you might get a rather painful demonstration of that force. Or if you wish to be more formal, hang that brick off a tension spring dynamometer. It actually measures the force. So why should you believe those who are needlessly trying to impress the heck out of you by telling you that gravity isn’t a force?

Sure, the gravitational force has a (relatively) simple geometric explanation. Which tells us that in the presence of a gravitational field, inertial worldlines become curved 4-dimensional geodesics, thus keeping an object on a straight worldline (i.e., keeping it in place, preventing it from falling) now requires a force (so technically, the force arises not when an object falls and accelerates, but when it is kept in place). This explanation is possible, in part, because the gravitational field couples to matter universally. What this means is that all material particles respond to gravity in the same way. Which means that a clever geometric transformation can make gravity “disappear”, so to speak.

Why is this not possible for electromagnetism? Because electromagnetism is not universal. There are particles with charge and particles with no charge (or opposite charge). There are particles with and without a magnetic moment. And in any case, particle masses are different, and how a particle responds to the electromagnetic field depends on its mass, too.

Dear Hossein,

In my new Relativistic Alpha Field Theory (RA FT) you can find a new determination of field parameters in gravitational field. This solution gives the following possibilities:  unification of electromagnetic and gravitational fields in standard four dimensions, calculation of gravitational force with negative and positive (in an extremely strong fields) signs, existence of minimal radius (no singularity in a gravitational field), and so on. Maybe RAFT can gives the answer to your questions:

If Einstein discovered that gravity is not a force, why he worked to unify gravity and electromagnetism? Why he was unsuccessful?

If you are interested to RAFT, you can find it in my research-gate pages: Branko Novakovic.

Best regards,

Branko

Dear Branko

Thank you for comment and opinion. I saw your article in your RG homepage, but it is not available to open.

Best regards

@Hossein no idea whether the following mentioned by Victor Stenger 'Gravity is much weaker than Electromagnetism' answer your question or not but interesting and have reason.

Gravity Is Much Weaker Than Electromagnetism

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/myths-of-physics-2-gravit_b_5718233.html)

Dear Jetty

Thank you for attention and link.

Yes, Gravity Is Much Weaker Than Electromagnetism but the gravity force well.

In think we should take short steps and continue our work. So, I have tried to describe it by its mechanism. I hope following articles be interesting for you.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310003753_The_Mechanism_of_Graviton_Exchange_between_Bodies_Part_I

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310457967_The_Mechanism_of_Graviton_Exchange_between_Bodies_Part_II

Article The Mechanism of Graviton Exchange between Bodies, Part I

Article The Mechanism of Graviton Exchange between Bodies, Part II

Dear Hossein: Your attempt to use Einstein's name to support the research on gravity would have annoyed Einstein himself; who was always opposed to authority - especially when being used to justify research programmes. 

Read "Einstein's Mistakes" by H. C. O'Hanian to see how this physics idol made a lot of physics mistakes, including wasting half his life on his failed Unified Field Theory search

Dear Herb

Einstein was a great scientist, he has mistakes, because he was a scientist not a Prophet.

Einstein was actively promoted by people with hidden agendas.  Planck was delighted to see his quantum-guess actively used by Einstein in Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect but always objected to his 'photon' concept as Planck was over-committed to the mathematics of waves that were linked to optics.  Planck was also pleased that Einstein was 'German'; so he could stick it to the French Poincare and the Dutch Lorentz (nationalism was rampant around WW-1).  Also, the Jewish owners and editors of the "New York Times" actively super-promoted the celebrity of Einstein (after 1919) to counter-act widespread antiSemitism.  Furthermore, the Old Guard eventually died out (who resisted Spec.Rel. until 1940 in most countries around the world - see "Understanding Relativity" by Goldberg); this let the 'Youngsters' to then dive into a new pool with lots of 'new' work opportunities.  Incidentally, I think most of Einstein's theories were too simplistic and thus wrong. 

This does not change anything.