| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Moc" |
| Date: |
29 Aug 2005 09:18:51 AM |
| Object: |
"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?" |
"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
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!
There seems to be no purpose for the attempts to produce a
unified theory other than the idea that the mathematics of Physics should be
pretty (excuse me, I think the term used is beautiful) other than to satisfy
the
mysticism of mathematicians.
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/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?" |
29 Aug 2005 01:57:03 PM |
|
|
Moc wrote:
"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
[snip 150 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>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.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.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/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
<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?" |
29 Aug 2005 09:56:22 AM |
|
|
Moc wrote:
"Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
