Re: "Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"

Re: "Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:48:52 -0500, Rohtau wrote:

> "Are Unified Field Theories Justified?"

Of course they are!
If you have the RIGHT ONE!
After all, the whole universe
is one great big field!

>      (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
>
>      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?

To understand the ONE UNIVERSE!

> 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.

NO!

It creates SIMPLICITY!
[When you finally find it.]

> 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).

YES.  TRYING TO UNDERSTAND!

> 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.

Except that would preclude
the UNIverse itself!

>      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.

I thought they ALWAYS went together,
as in "ELECTRO-MAGNETIC!"'

> 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.

YES.  The electro-magnetic field has
both electric and magnetic aspects.

> (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.)

Which are not "fundamental" but are made of electrons, etc.
WHICH ARE MADE OF AETHER, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE!

>      A similar consideration may be made with respect to the
> combination of gravitational and inertial accelerations.

WHICH ARE THE SAME THING!

> 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.

SOME people with NO CLUE think that "space is curved".

> 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).

YES.

Gravity is just another acceleration,
caused by a sink-vortex in the aether.

> 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.

At least none
THAT YOU KNOW!

> (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.

SURE!

GRAVITY = ACCELERATION
caused the the aether wind
rushing ito the sink-vortex.

>      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.

???? Don't follow that.

> Gravitational theory does not produce a unified field theory.

AT LEAST YOU DON'T SEE IT ... YET.

> As with electromagnetism, there are two independent
> fields involved!

They are NOT INDEPENDENT!
THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED!

>      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.

So you see NO PURPOSE in UNDERSTANDING?
But you are STILL trying to understand?

>      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.

VERY TRUE!

So you call for a unified theory,
while denying it could exist?

>      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:- einsteinhoax2@verizon.net. 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.

I like you.
You see faults:
"einsteinhoax"
is a GREAT START!
But you are still
trying to understand.

GIVE YOURSELF A BREAK!

READ RADO!

He'll break it down for you!

IT'S REALLY *VERY SIMPLE*!

BY FAR the BEST book on physics EVER written:
============================================
AETHRO-KINEMATICS IS THE MAIN RADO TEXT
It’s 527 pages of tightly-reasoned analysis
by the greatest physicist of all time!
http://net-prophet.net/rado-ak/aethro_3.pdf
============================================

NO BULLSHIT!
I GUARANTEE IT!
JUST HARD-NOSED
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY!

It’s also the best
history of physics
ever written!

Even better than
Richard McKeon!

But Rado perfectly
illustrates both
McKeon’s analysis
AND PREDICTIONS!

HIS “LEAST PARTICLES”
ANALYSIS IS ONE OF MCKEON’S
FOUR PRIMARY MODES OF THOUGHT!

THE ONE THAT PERFECTLY
HEXPLAINS AND CONSTRUCTS
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

THAT’S A BIG
DOUBLE WOW-WOW!

CAUTION: *NOT* FOR
the faint of heart!
May be dangerous to
preconceived prejudices!

Steve’s site is:
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/

My intro to Steve’s work is:
http://net-prophet.net/nobul/rado/rado.htm

See “05* AETHER PHYSICS” in the
right-hand column of my blog at:
http://net-prophet.net/blog/
AND the “PHYSICS” CATEGORY
in the left-hand column!

Also see the “AETHER PHYSICS” TOPIC
under the “2-FORUMS” in the blog PAGES.

That’s the reading list for now,
but “Aethro-dynamics” will be
released ANY DAY NOW!


O
---  )
\


NEWSGROUPS:
alt.ucp,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,
PERMALINK: http://net-prophet.net/blog/?p70
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]