| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Einsteinhoax" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 08:50:10 AM |
| Object: |
Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
Modern physics seems to be searching for ways to incorporate all
physical phenomena into a single unified theory. The question that comes to
mind is why? The question arises as to the conceptual need for such an
activity and whether the activity only adds to the complexity involved in
achieving an understanding of nature. The only apparent need for the
activity seems to be a quasi-religious motivation among mathematical
theorists to make the Science of Physics "elegant" (whatever that means). No
objective reason seems to have been presented to preclude the likelihood
that Nature operates through multiple independent mechanisms which may or
may not interact with each other to produce more complex phenomena.
Consider first the phenomena described by Maxwell's Equations. These
equations describe the manner in which electric and magnetic fields interact
to produce the electromagnetic field. They show that a changing electric
field produces a changing magnetic field and visa versa. They do not
preclude the existence of unchanging magnetic or electric fields. Indeed,
such fields are common and we have all experienced them. For example, static
magnetic fields are exhibited by permanent magnets and electromagnets
operated by a DC current and, in the region of space surrounding them at
least, where the magnetic field may be quite strong, do not involve an
electric field. Similarly, electric fields are readily observed, as
evidenced by the rising of the hair on your arm when it is placed close to
the faceplate of a TV set or when one slides a polystyrene cup from a stack
(such an induced electric field may make the lower cup "float" inside the
cup above it). In these cases an electric field is observed to be present
without an accompanying magnetic field. It is only when one of those fields
(electric and magnetic) has a rate of change with respect to time that the
other field manifests itself in accordance with Maxwell's Equations. It
should be obvious to all that electric and magnetic fields interact to
produce an effect which we denote as the electromagnetic field but in no way
is the electromagnetic field fundamental since both the electric and
magnetic fields can be observed independently. (An analogy from chemistry
would be salt since is composed of atoms of sodium and chlorine which are
combined into a molecule which we call salt. The molecule is hardly a
fundamental entity, it is a compound of two fundamental entities.)
A similar consideration may be made with respect to the combination of
gravitational and inertial accelerations. It is presently accepted that both
of these observable accelerations are aspects of a single phenomena caused
by the curvature of space impelling matter to follow a path termed the null
geodesic. Unfortunately for this view, as is the case with the magnetic and
electric fields, both gravitational and inertial accelerations can be
observed independently of each other. As you sit reading this you can feel
the effect of the force of gravity pulling you downwards (the acceleration
of gravity). When you analyze what is occurring and compare it with the
results which would be observed at the opposite side of the Earth (which
undergoes the same inertial acceleration as occurs at your location to an
accuracy of 0.03% or better) there is no legitimate way to ascribe the force
you feel in the seat of your pants to an inertial acceleration. (The writer
has received a few foolish responses asserting that the force we feel
results from the fact that, in sitting, we are preventing ourselves from
following our proper null geodesic path. That allegation is most certainly
true, but what impels us to attempt to follow that path if it is not the
classical force of gravity?) Just as we can sense gravity as an independent
force, we can also sense the force of inertial acceleration independently of
gravitational attraction. This is precisely what is done during the rocket
sled experiments conducted in the latter part of the last century.
When an object is in freefall about a gravitationally attracting object
it is acted upon by both acceleration and gravitational forces. The
gravitational force acts to impel the object towards the center of
attraction while the inertial effect resists that attractive force and
causes the object's velocity vector to change. The result is an orbital path
about the attracting object which is termed the "null geodesic". Just as is
the case of the electromagnetic field, the result does not represent a
single entity, it represents two individual interacting entities. To attempt
to treat that interaction as if it were and as the current practice seems to
do is, in itself, the height of folly. Gravitational theory does not produce
a unified field theory. As with electromagnetism, there are two independent
fields involved!
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
28 Mar 2005 10:27:32 AM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
[snip 100 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified? |
28 Mar 2005 09:02:18 AM |
|
|
Einsteinhoax wrote:
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?
Unification is where it's at!
Try: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
