Re: Are Unified Field Theories Justified?



Ofni wrote:
> 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://einsteinhoax.com/ . 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://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:- einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx
>
> 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.

xxein: The universe acts capriciously? Without cause and effect?
Well then I expect to see you on Mars yesterday.

That was your stupidest post! Others, I could see some logic if I
looked real hard.

.

Quantcast