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 pf
mathematicians.

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://www.members.aol.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://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com

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.

Lecnach wrote:
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?



Try: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...VITYMECHA NIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...ITYMECHA NIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

In article ,
Lecnach wrote:
Are Unified Field Theories Justified?

Yup. They were justified two days ago, and they're still justified today.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992

Lecnach 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://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

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://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
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
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
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 (so does the proposal)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
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

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 ass - 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