Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #654455

Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.

Subject	Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
References	<693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com> <607327dc47c5e4a30def5234bbc92e59@www.novabbs.com> <Q8ydnSjWWsIhiuf7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From	Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2024-06-24 19:52 -0700
Message-ID	<jMqdnQfDPotdref7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/24/2024 06:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 06/24/2024 12:58 PM, JanPB wrote:
>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
>>
>> GR is a non-quantum theory. Why is this such a revelation for you?
>>
>>> A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
>>> and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using
>>> electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
>>> the speed of gravity.
>>
>> No, this is false. Or, more precisely, it's technical word salad.
>>
>>> B. The unified field theory failed to unify electromagnetism and
>>> gravity. ["Then, in the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein
>>> developed general relativity, a field theory of gravitation. Later,
>>> Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
>>> which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of
>>> a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity
>>> remains
>>> beyond attempts at a unified field theory."- Britannica]
>>
>> Yes, and also an old hat.
>>
>>> C. Therefore, general relativity fails to explain Mercury's perihelion
>>> advance and the bending of light.
>>
>> Not even wrong. Perhaps you should consider a different hobby.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> GR has "material points".
>
> https://d-meeus.be/physique/Maxwell-Einstein-en.html
>
>
> What you get is "space contraction" and "space frames"
> or "Rahme-Raumen und Raume-Rahmen" helping explain that
> in the atomic model the material bodies are mostly space
> and so the space they contain moves through the space
> they are in, in the frames in the frames in the frames.
>
> Einstein very much demands and expects a differential
> system free of singularities and particularly discontinuities
> in what he describes as "the time" in "Out of My Later Years".
>
> Also he has "Relativity" as always being both General and Special,
> and, you know, that the Special is "spacial" instead of "spatial",
> and local, and that GR governs SR not the other way around.
>
> Or, you know, what Einstein said, that "Relativity, the theory", is.
>
>
> You know there's a consideration in the optical that
> lensing has a complement after focus helping also explain
> the contributions to imaging, in terms of the spherical
> horizon, and that optical light is special.
>
> Special, you know, where mass/energy equivalency comes off
> down the kinetic not "e = mc^2 defining itself", Special
> in the General, not the other way around.
>
>
>

Theory is really simplified when all you're doing is
designing digital electronic circuits, it's much
simplified to not even have to care except for SR,
and the large amount of computing that goes into
space planning and connection finding, in what's
called the synthesis of high-level descriptions of
pinouts to logic and standard logic and at the
scales where it matters that there's only enough
room to have a sub-field of a corner of an overall
theory, that being its world, that SR has a place
significant enough that even things are kept
simplified in the "standard standard units"
just to accommodate the digital enterprise.


That said, everybody knows a gamma ray
can flip a bit.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

csiph-web