The Unified Field Equations in Disguise!

Abstract: I will show that we have had not one but two correct and successful unified field equations for centuries.

Both Newton’s and Coulomb’s famous equations are unified field equations in disguise. This was not understood until I pulled them apart, showing what the constant is in each equation and how it works mechanically.

A unified field equation does not need to unify all four of the presently postulated fields. To qualify for unification, it only has to unify two of them. The unified field equations that will be unmasked in this paper both unify the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field. This unification of gravity and E/M was the great project of Einstein and is now the great project of string theory. But neither Einstein nor string theory has presented a simple unified field equation. As time has passed this has seemed more and more difficult to achieve, and more and more difficult math has been brought in to attack the problem. But it turns out the answer was always out of reach because the question was wrong. We were seeking to unify fields when we should have been seeking to un-unify them. We already had two unified field equations: which is why they couldn’t be unified. We were trying to rejoin a couple that was already happily married.

Yes, both Newton and Coulomb discovered unified field equations. That is why their two equations look so much alike. But the two equations unify in different ways. Newton was unaware of the E/M field, as we know it now, so he did not realize that his heuristic equation contained both fields. And Coulomb was working on electrostatics, and likewise did not realize that his equation included gravity. So the E/M field is hidden inside Newton’s equation, and the gravitational field is hidden inside Coulomb’s equation.
http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

So if the universe is expanding, then the acceleration force creates gravity...via expansion of the radius, just turn Einsteins curvature of space inside out...and voila...it all fits.

Good stuff from Miles Mathis.
Mass is Charge Volume and Charge Radius, a combination field effect.
Check it out and learn how Coulombs Constant and Newtons Constant are really the UFT.

 

Junglelord, I look forward to your (or Miles) next installment.

How do you introduce relativistic transformations into this?

(I also agree the fruitless search for a non existant Grand Unified Theory is just an excuse to stay supplied with Bagels and Hadrons at the State's expense.)

 

Hi, I was introduced to Miles Mathis over at the Electric Universe forum.
I suggest you read his papers, as he has answered your question in his large body of work.

Try these to start.
An Algebraic Correction to the Transformation Equations (The Lorentz Equations) of Special Relativity.

An
Algebraic Correction
to
Special Relativity​

by Miles Mathis​

Here at the very beginning I want to state clearly that in correcting the transformation equations of Special Relativity, I am not thereby exploding Relativity as a whole. I accept time dilation and length contraction. I accept the speed of light as a constant. My critique of Einstein's equations is an effort to fine tune them, not to jettison them.

I fully understand the current state of the conversation on Special Relativity. I know that SR has met fierce resistance from "classicists" and that the scientific status quo has been forced to take a rather extreme stance against those who seem to them unable to follow the concepts and math of the theory. However, I will show that the math is subtly flawed nonetheless, and that it must be corrected in order to make the equations continue to match experiments. In that sense, this paper is an effort to bolster the theory of Special Relativity, not to tear it down. If this paper proves anything, it proves that a return to pre-Einsteinian concepts cannot be preferred.

As an olive branch to the classicists, though, I must admit that the mathematical errors made by Einstein have been a large part of the problem in understanding his theory. It is no surprise, really, that it has remained impenetrable to many intelligent people. My conversations within the scientific status quo have shown me that none of them understood it either. They simply had access to raw data that confirmed the theory, and that was (understandably) good enough for them. Only now that we have reached a level of precision where experiments are no longer confirming SR is there an opportunity to look again at the equations objectively, without all the name-calling and high emotion.

So, I repeat, this paper is not a philosophical or metaphysical treatise. It is not an attempt to discredit Einstein or Special Relativity. It is not the call for a return to Newtonian physics. Nor is it the proposal of any supraluminal or trans-Einsteinian theory. It is the discovery of the actual mathematical errors in Special Relativity. I follow Einstein line by line and show precisely where the mistakes are. In this, I believe I may be the first. The most notorious critic of Einstein, Herbert Dingle, said (Nature, 1967) "I have enough mathematical insight to see that it is a waste of time to look for mathematical flaws in the theory." Few, if any, have bothered to look at the basic math in the years since, believing the equations to have been already combed by the best minds of the century and proved beyond a reasonable doubt by field tests. But in the last decade, field tests have put the equations into question again. Despite this, nearly all (if not all) of the mathematical and theoretical work has gone into making these new tests fit the equations, rather than vice versa. This paper shows that the fault lies in the transformation equations and that they are easily correctable.

Specifically, this paper was written in response to the call by the Jet Propulsion Lab for help in understanding why the equations of Relativity were yielding wrong numbers in their calculations on space satellites (the so-called Pioneer anomaly). To date, no explanation has been offered for the discrepancies, despite many replies to the call for help and many theories published in Physical Review Letters and elsewhere. My paper is unique in that it offers new transformation equations, with which I make predictions about the numbers generated by JPL. That is, I have solved a concrete problem of applied mathematics, and I have the numbers to prove it.

I first discovered the central tenets of this paper in November of 2000. The bulk of the paper was written before Thanksgiving of 2000, and it was in final form before the end of that year. What follows is the paper almost exactly as it was presented to PRL in early 2001.


http://milesmathis.com/long.html

A Final Simplification
of the Problem
of Special Relativity​

by Miles Mathis​

Part One
The Current Derivation​

In other papers I have extensively critiqued the mathematical proofs of Special Relativity by Einstein, Lorentz and Minkowski. In this paper I will present the shortest, most concise explanation of the problem and its solution.


http://milesmathis.com/simp.html

You can find all his work right here....so take some time and give it a read.
http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

Cheers.

 

Junglelord, I look forward to your (or Miles) next installment.

How do you introduce relativistic transformations into this?

(I also agree the fruitless search for a non existant Grand Unified Theory is just an excuse to stay supplied with Bagels and Hadrons at the State's expense.)

SECTION 1: RELATIVITY​

6. Relativity as a Concept. An introduction to the problem, preparing the reader for the mathematical arguments in later papers. 6pp.

7. Relativity Demystified. Here I try to explain both SR and GR in the simplest and clearest possible terms, for laymen and experts alike. 14pp.

8. The Michelson/Morley Interferometer. Here I explain the flaws in various conceptualizations of the interferometer, showing that no fringe effect should have been expected. It was originally published as Appendix A to the long paper in chapter 11. 12pp.

9. A Final Simplification of the Problem (of Special Relativity). This is a short paper glossing my main corrections to Einstein’s transforms. It was written after the papers in chapters 9, 10 and 11. 6pp.

10. The Discovery of First-Degree Relativity and the Refutation of Gamma. This is the paper I sent to several journals, including Annalen der Physik and Physical Review Letters, from 2001 to 2004. It condenses the information from the longer papers in chapters 10 and 11. 21pp.

11. A Critique of Einstein's Original Paper. Here I attack Einstein line for line, using "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Annalen der Physik, 1905) as my text. This was to answer critics of my first paper [chapter 11] who believed that Einstein’s paper of 1905 still had precedence over math published later in the books Relativity and The Meaning of Relativity. This paper was originally published as Appendix C to the longer paper below. 12pp.

12. An Algebraic Correction to the Transformation Equations (The Lorentz Equations) of Special Relativity. This is my first paper on Special Relativity. It includes new first- and second-degree transforms, as well as new transforms for movement toward an observer and at an angle to an observer. In addition, it explains the interferometer, discusses the Hafele-Keating experiment, and suggests a solution to the Pioneer Anomaly. 48pp.

13. The Light Clock. A close analysis of the light clock, showing the many ways it fails as a visualization of time dilation. 3pp.

14. A Final Argument against x' = x - vt</U>. A short addendum to my proofs against this equation, once again using a text of Feynman as an example. 2pp.

15. The Equation x' = x - vt, Again. One more useful visualization of the problem, focusing this time on the immobility of origins in relative motion. 3pp.

16. Proof that Classical Action is Invariant in a Galilean Transformation. A reply to a paper in American Journal of Physics that claimed that action was not invariant in a Galilean transformation. This transformation is x' = x -vt. 3pp.

17. Why the Transforms of Special Relativity are not Symmetrical. A return to this familiar problem, explaining it as a question of symmetry. 3pp.

18. A Break in the Pioneer Case. An article written for a popular journal showing, in the simplest possible way, the cause of the anomaly. 4pp.

19. How the Loss of Gamma affects Minkowski’s Space-time Equations. In this paper I show how Minkowski’s math must be affected by my corrections to Special Relativity. Also see chapter 27 below. 5pp.

20. How New Transforms in Special Relativity Affect Mass, Momentum and Energy Equations. Here I show that Einstein’s mass and energy transforms are also incorrect, including the famous E=mc2. I also show, for the first time, that the classical equation E=mv2/2 is not an approximation. Finally, I derive the number 108 for the proton. 41pp.

21. New Mass and Energy Transforms—a Gloss. A much shortened argument, compressing the paper in Chapter 14. 11pp.

22. An Overview of my Mass Increase Papers. A 2-page presentation of findings only, with no derivations and no analysis. 2pp.

23. Lorentz Invariance. How my corrections affect so-called Invariance, covariance, and violations. 4pp.

24. A Critique of General Relativity. A refutation of Einstein’s thought problem of the spinning disk and an analysis of the tensor calculus. Also, a solution to the primary problem of GR (the deflection of starlight) without tensors or Riemann. 13pp.

25. The Biggest Black Hole in General Relativity. There is no impulse to motion from rest in Einstein's field equations. 9pp.

26a. More Problems with General Relativity. I show that the current number 1.75 for bending of starlight is compromised by gamma. 4pp.

26b. An Explosion of the Pound-Rebka Experiment. I show that the math behind this experiment is a fudge. 10pp.

27. Why Hyperbolic Math is not applicable to General Relativity. Here I show the flaw in i and the assumption that time travels orthogonally to x, y, z. Also see #19 above and #28 below. 2pp.

28. Another Critique of Curved Space, using an analogy to the electrical field. 4pp.

29. The Trouble with Tensors, a critique of the tensor and the tensor field as used by GR. 8pp.

30. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.

31. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury, the short version A gloss of the longer paper. 3pp.

32. The Easy Solution to the New Saturn Anomaly. My solution to Mercury also solves the Saturn Anomaly. 3pp.

33. How to Solve General Relativity Problems without the Tensor Calculus (in 1/100th the time). The title says it all. 3pp.

34. A Mathematical Explanation of the Orbital Distance of Mercury. The Unified Field shows us exactly why Mercury is where it is. 8pp.

35. How General Relativity Solves the Metonic Cycle. A mechanical explanation of the cycle, with all the math. 9pp.

36. The Ether, does the ether exist, and if so, in what form? 8pp

37. Tesla and Einstein were Both Right, about the ether. 8pp.

38. The Born-Einstein Letters, extended commentary on QED, GR, and other subjects. 14pp.

 

Here is Miles' position on the difference or equality of transverse or longitudinal (scalar) EM waves:

Miles Mathis wrote:Some will say that I am assuming a longitudinal wave for light, whereas Fresnel proved that light has a transverse wave. If I am able to multiply my local spin wavelength by c2 to get a visible wavelength, my local wave must be longitudinal. But that is not correct. Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal. The local wavelength is just a radius of spin. However, since I have shown (in my paper on superposition) that any electromagnetic radiation must have at least two stacked spins to show a physical wave, this stacking can mimic either transverse or longitudinal waves, depending on the experiment and the effect studied. Fresnel was studying polarization, and although Young had already shown both longitudinal characteristics and transverse characteristics, the polarization experiments seemed to confirm only the transverse part of this duality. And, indeed, polarization can be explained with only the transverse characteristics of the stacked wave. Other experiments and effects are better explained as the stacked spins mimicking longitudinal waves. This is what is happening with Tesla or plasma waves which are longitudinal. In plasmas, the spins beneath the outer spin come into play, and the axial spin of the moving electron is no longer hidden. The charge field coheres or links these inner spins, creating uncommon effects. At any rate, wave theory will not advance beyond its current wall unless it comes to see that both transverse and longitudinal waves are a misconception, built upon a mistaken field wave theory that is an analogue of fluid or sound dynamics. Light waves are not field waves, they are spin waves. Light is its own field, since light is both the linear motion and the spin motion of the photon.


​

 

While I am reading all that stuff perhaps you would like to look back over some of the
anomalies that occur when one tries to apply maths blindly to physics such as I have posted here.
I do have an open mind to discrepancies - there are many unsolved problems in the physical world.

Start with post#11 of this thread.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=10758&highlight=time

 

It's unfortunate that the OP turned out to be remarkably ill-mannered, so this thread (originally posted into http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=32934 ) can't be pursued.