Also, Field Theories in Word:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.doc
& Field Theories in Adobe pdf:http://rbduncan.com/fieldtheory.pdfFitzpatrick's 1966 book showed the relative motion laws of A. Ampère unified the forces.
This was the way the site --below-- looked many years ago. - - Dan Fitz.
a Space and Motion caveat
In message 17719 of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheoryOfEverything/message/17719
Robert Kernodle asked,
>Does string theory accept SPACE as a fundamental given? Does string
theory deal with SPACE as a REAL physical entity?>
>What is the absolute fundamental ground of string theory?>
>Does string theory define MOTION? . . . believe that MOTION is REAL?>
I'd like to see Tony Bermanseder's answer to this but I must offer a caveat to accepting space and motion as Newton and our ancestors have accepted these two concepts that almost everyone believes he completely understands.
We all know that space changes as one approaches the speed of light.
But it changes well before that.
Speeds that are.0001 of the speed of light may even have things affected measurably.
The speed of the planet Mercury is .00017 of the speed of light and we need to use relativity corrections for its orbit precession.
So space is only as most people THINK it is for approximately .01% of the whole speed spectrum.
Not only that but it is about this percentage of the entire mass spectrum as well.
Space changes with both mass and speed.
We have problems with the concept of motion as well.
Quantum theorists are adamant that the microcosm is NOT like the solar system with motion and centrifugal force like Niels Bohr described and won the Nobel prize for in 1922 http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1922/ by matching each distinctive electron orbital drop to a distinctive color in the spectrum of light given off by that electron as it went to a lower orbital.
So horrified are the quantum purists of motion in the microcosm that they prevented Goudsmit from getting the Nobel prize when he discovered electron spin in 1925 and then again with Uhlenbeck proved it in 1927. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9074111
But there is a message here in what these quantum theorists are saying.
There very well may not be any such things as space and motion in this entire universe per se. And yet these are things that we firmly believe in.
Once we know that the speed of light is a constant then our steadfast belief in such things as space and motion gets pretty much shaken.
Want my opinion?
It's a wave/resonance universe just as Dr. Milo Wolffsays.
In my opinion it's because we are built like the best electronic detectors. We have an oscillator inside of us that detects similarly to the superheterodyne detector.
It is this oscillator that gives us this 3D universe of space, time and motion.
Is this why we don't see motion in the microcosm? We DO see the angular momentum (light spectrum) that this motion seems to be causing as Niels Bohr showed the world in 1922 and Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit in 1927.
Even though the quantum purists have convinced me that it's really all waves, I'm going to break with tradition and say we CAN use motion in the microcosm to give us the big picture of what's going on.
Our minds understand space and motion so USE THEM.
DON'T use them along with wavelets and wave math.
I do use space, motion and Ampere's Lawsto show me what's really going on and this way I can also see how it is really one force and not 4 fundamental forces.