Re: grand unification theory

From: SeanSinjin (delphiconsultingguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: 27 Dec 2004 06:08:43 -0800

> pressing experimental consideration. Also our current theories
require a
> number of constants to be put in by hand - a truly fundamental thoery
would
> require no or perhaps one constant. The posters ideas in no way
addresses
...
> It is obvious you do not understand what an explanation is. Any
theory, and

I think the term 'explanation' can be confused for 'calculation'. Do
you think those formulas lend one iota to the reason for gravity? I
don't believe they do.

> I suspect you do not understand what an explanation is.

Perhaps I'm not satisfied with merely the ability to predict a
phenomenon

> > As well, GR does not currently
> > interrelate gravity and magnetism.
>
> Proposals fully in accord with experiment exist eg
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9805018

As is my entry. How, in a realm of physics with only proposals, can my
proposal be completely disregarded by your insistence that we already
have closure? What are these proposals supposed to represent if we
already have the explanation you purport?
 
Sean