in present science has prepared us for this ANSWER!
ANSWER in htm: -
ANSWER in htm: -http://rbduncan.com/answer.htm
Also ANSWER in Word:- http://rbduncan.com/answer.doc
And ANSWER in Adobe pdf:- http://rbduncan.com/answer.pdf
Re: Critique of M theory
While some will agree that what you say about string theory, M-theory, etc. is absolutely correct, there does exist in M theory the math with which to unify gravity with ALL the forces caused by the electron.
These are namely: magnetism, the electronic forces and this also includes sigma and pi chemical bonding, which at present few see as an electronic force but it most certainly is.
The reason for this is, while the electron spin gives us magnetism and the abovementioned forces, the quark spin - at a higher harmonic frequency - gives us gravity and the inertial forces. In fact this is where the quantity c2 comes from
The answer is simple as Einstein predicted.
It can be visualized and approximated as Dirac predicted.
String theory, M-theory, etc are correct about us having different dimensions.
Space, time and motion are SUBSET elements that exist ONLY in one single dimension.
Space, time and motion in one dimension can not even be seen outside of that single dimension.
Only the angular momentum of that motion through that space and time can be noticed outside that dimension.
As I said before: the first to prove all this mathematically will be the ones in M theory who believe in Mach's principle.
This is for the kids to prove, Milo.
It's time for us old codgers to bow out now. You've done even far more than your share.
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr.
Why E = mc2
Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers and Thoughts
Milo Wolff <email@example.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Gary Ehlenberger wrote:
> Take time to read the entire article. I respect Matti's mathematical
Comment by Milo:
The great short-coming of string theory, M-theory,etc. is that they
begin with theoretical speculations and end only in mathematical
manipulations of various kinds. There is only a hope that they may
eventually be useful if they relate to the experimental physical
reality of Nature. Unfortunately, none achieve this. Without any firm
statistically significant connection to reality, their only value is a
mathematical exercise for the joys of the authors despite
demonstrations of mathematical artistry.
Why do they continue to survive? Perhaps because there has been such a
dearth of conceptual advances after General Relativity and Quantum
Theory 1920-1930? Basic theory physics has been sterile for 70 years!
Nevertheless the journals publish them lacking anything better.
Publication is enthusiastically supported by all academic authors
because they profit in an academic system that merely counts
A prime reason for the failure of theory is the fact it has been
almost solely based upon the flawed ancient notion of the discrete
particle. If you build on errors, the result is errors. Baseless theory
continues, despite the advice of Einstein, Schrodinger, Clifford,
Dirac who proposed that matter must be a wave structure, continuous in
the space it occupies (or is part of). To their view, our particle
concepts are a result (not the cause) of the particle-like
'appearances' of the wave structures.
The recent emergence of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM). See
www.Google.com, opens a new door for physics.
Any agreement? Comments?
"Truth is no match for conviction." See Milo?s book.