|
Subject:
RE: New Theory
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:07:16 -0500
This
is a decent shot at getting at the unified field theory aspects.
These have been very well developed in basis, in Sachs' unified field
theory. The Evans O(3) extended electrodynamics is an important
subset of Sachs theory, and so for the first time one is getting into
the area of being able to do engineering of the general relativity
effects via use of extended electrodynamics.
A
somewhat more advanced expose of what Mr. XXXX is speaking of,
is to approach it on the level of where one chooses one's fundamental
units for one's model of physics. Most engineering students,
etc. are totally unaware that the fundamental units used are totally a
matter of choice and convenience. One actually needs only a
single fundamental unit, and then all other units become functions of
that one fundamental. It's done in physics, e.g., and the
fundamental unit usually chosen is length. Then everything --
energy, mass, time, the works -- becomes a function of length.
Actually
length is part of 3-space, and thus part of the "effect"
after detection/observation. By making length the fundamental
variable, we are ever in the business of trying to describe the cause
in terms of the effect.
A
better way is to choose energy as the fundamental unit, since the
energy concept is sufficiently imprecise as to apply regardless of the
number of dimensions. Then time, for example, becomes totally an
energy function. This then allows one to deal with the
"cause" directly, and derive the "effect" later.
Hopefully
in the future we will see this type of work done. Of course the
expressions for such models can be horrendous, but they models will
yield all the correct answers and so are "correct" (at least
as correct as the usual models).
So
his insight was on the right path, but in choosing directions in
3-space he still held to the effect.
And
of course the standard "illustration" (so-called) of the E
and B fields at right angles to the line of motion in 3-space is quite
wrong and a horrendous logical error. In fact, the editor of
American Journal of Physics took that standard diagram (it's in all
the texts) severely to task in one of his recent editorials.
Here is the reference:
Romer, Robert H., "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of Physics, 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109. Editorial discussion by the Editor of AJP of the concept of heat in thermodynamics, where heat is not a substance, hot a thermodynamic function of state, and should not be used as a noun. In endnote 24, p. 109, he also takes to task "…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place." Cheers, Tom Bearden
|