"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.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (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 the
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:- . If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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.