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

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.