Are Unified Field Theories Justified?

From: Einsteinhoax (einsteinhoax_at_isp.com)
Date: 03/28/05

  • Next message: Tom Kirke: "Re: Question: If your body is made of baryons..." 
    Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:50:26 -0500

    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@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@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:- einsteinhoax@isp.com

         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.

  • Next message: Tom Kirke: "Re: Question: If your body is made of baryons..."