Introduction 
The Overthrow
 Language Translation
It is now possible to present both long and shortrange forces in local coordinate
form as arising due to the local validity of special relativity and the postulates of
quantum mechanics, so that relativistic quantum mechanics is built into the foundation
of field theory. That this is not true in general relativity when the field is
considered in local coordinates is an indication that general relativity is
probably wrong.
General Relativity features forces that are not described by locally Lorentz
covariant force field equations, but by field equations guaranteeing local Lorentz covariance
for components of the metric tensor only. This leads to a number
of troubling paradoxes in connection with the way GR gravmagnetic forces
(4 times larger than we expect in special relativity) arise from material currents.
All other forces are locally Lorentz covariant in field physics. Magnetic forces
in electrodynamics arise from properties of the Lorentz transformation in connection
with charged currents, but in General Relativity the gravmagnetic forces arise
in connection with offdiagonal elements of the metric tensor guaranteeing geodesic
motion. We expect gravmagnetic forces to arise in precisely the same way as
ordinary magnetic forces, based on a requirement for process synchronization with
a local lightclock, so that the processsynchronization rules are unified for
all fields of force. In other words, we expect all forcefield effects to synchronize
with a local lightclock in a way that guarantees the Principle of Relativity.
Classical General Relativity seems to be vulnerable
mathematically to a class of overthrow theorems based on nonselfconsistency
theorems originating in the nonLorentz covariance of the gravitational forces when
material currents are included. The first signs that nonselfconsistency theorems
existed appear in an article by Wolfgang Pauli and Fierz [1] communicated by Dirac
that was published in 1939, and other signs that nonselfconsistency theorems might
exist are described in Gravitation by Wheeler, Misner, and Thorne [2]. The best
treatment in English of nonselfconsistency theorems for GR is probably found in
Gravitation & the Electroform Model: From General Relativity to Unified Field
Theory , 11th edition, December 2002, by James A. Green [3]. I also worked out the details
of the electroform unified field theory based on a
symmetric generalization in MKS units (and in classical electromagnetic notation) of
vectorboson field theory from elementary particle physics. I managed to rule out
General Relativity's field equations in 1993 independently, while investigating
its field equations and the geodesic equation of motion according to a treatment
presented by Einstein in
The Meaning of Relativity [4]. At the same time,
he was doing readings on the electroweak model, which unified the electromagnetic
field and the weak interaction in the 1970s. This was described in
Introduction to Nuclear Physics
by Cottingham and Greenwood [5]. I lectured on these
discoveries to the Graduate Seminar in Physics
at Wichita State University 4 times in the early 1990s. The theory predicted
locally valid vectorboson field equations in flat space with a gravitationally
timedilated metric, so that it immediately produced the correct prediction for
the gravitational redshift. About 1997, I discovered how to derive the curvature
of light around the sun with the GR value from the unified quantum field theory of
forces he had developed, so that the radar timedelay predictions of General Relativity
were also predicted by his unified quantum field theory of forces. In 1998 I succeeded in deriving
the perihelion precession of Mercury with the GR value from the electroform unified
field theory also, and produced his 10th edition with the necessary derivations from
the foundations of his theory. This was really the final hurdle for the development
of the theory, although further development was clearly possible. Onethird of the
precession of Mercury's
orbit was due to the gravitational timedilation required by the principle
of equivalence to preserve synchronization of clocks, the other 2/3 was due to
the oneway timedelay in the retarded potentials associated with solutions for
the field [3,19]. In the case of the curvature of light around the sun, 1/2 of the
effect was due to the spacial variation in the speed of light around the gravitating
object, the EinsteinHuygens lightbending effect associated with the wave nature of
light that Einstein worked out in 1911.
The other half is due to the fall of a photon in a gravitational field like a baseball thrown,
which is independent of the spacial variation in the speed of light [3].
James A. Green, 1949Present, & 11th edition
The Strong Nuclear Force from the Electroform Unified Field Theory
__Another major milestone that occurred early was the development of the electrostrong
theory of the nuclear force by me, Green. It was necessary to derive the properties of
the both the weak and the strong interaction, as well as of gravitation and
electromagnetism, from one simple set of field equations. The
electrostrong model for the strong nuclear force was worked out from the
core field equations in 199394.[3]. I managed to derive a potential series
from his field equations that had virtually all of the
expected properties, including the attractive and dominant dipoledipole "tensor" nuclear force
originating in the transport of the nuclear charge by the spinning nucleon and
the spinorbit forces. The major surprise
was that the static part of the field was fundamentally repulsive, instead of
attractive, as it had initially
been visualized by Yukawa. Any other choice of the coupling for the strong nuclear
force automatically
produces the wrong properties for the other components of the nuclear force, as shown in detail in my
Papers on Unified Field Theory.
The Further Development of the Electroweak Model
__The theory of the electroweak force was overhauled and further developed from the
initial treatment that had been gleaned from Cottingham and Greenwood [5,3,6].
Cottingham and Greenwood showed how to derive the Fermi coupling constant from the theory [5].
I went somewhat further and derived the GamowTeller coupling constant from the electroweak model also [3].
Finally, in 1999 I succeeded in deriving the antisymmetric properties of the weak decays from his fundamental equations [6].
The Impact on Elementary Particle Physics
__It seemed clear that the electroform unified field theory could also furnish a complete theory of
the color force between quarks [7] and the forces between the Rishons in the subquark theory developed by Haim Harari at the Weisman Institute in Israel [8,9].
However, this development is not finished, so that a theory of the elementary particles in which the rest masses of
the elementary particles have been completely determined by exact solutions of the Dirac equation in the presence of this class of force fields
has not yet been definitively obtained.
However, this approach is expected to succeed when the effects of vacuum polarization are included.
The contact forces associated with heavyparticle interactions, when developed as a consequence of the fundamental vectorboson field equations,
should have the right form to produce the mass spectra in a definitive way.
Instead of a complete theory in which all properties of the elementary particles are determined
by the solutions of wave equations in the presence of specific force fields,
we have a sketchier theory that predicts virtually all qualities of such systems [3,8,9] except the exact mass spectrum.
In particular, Haim Harari's Rishon model predicts color and flavor characteristics of the elementary particles and the value of the Weinberg angle.
However, the precise details of the mass spectrum have not yet been obtained.
The Impact on Experiments and Astrophysical Quantities
__I also developed the consequences of the electroform unified field theory for
astrophysics and cosmology. The application of the unified field theory to
stellar astrophysics only impacted things where
general relativity's curvature of space was concerned, since in the unified quantum field
theory space is flat and
locally Lorentzian. The differences are in the predictions for the masses of supernova
cores and in the
mass limits for neutron stars [6,10].
Also, there are formally quantities that can
be theoretically measured that are different in the electroform model and in GR.
For instance, the total energy of a gravitational wave is larger in GR that in the
electroform model, although the part of the energy that is easy to detect corresponding
to the "electric" part of the field vector, is the same in both theories.
The magnetic part of the field energy is higher in GR, but this difference is impossible
to measure with existing equipment. Also, measurements made in the space around
an object with a strong gravitational field by a flatlander with a meter stick are
different in GR and in the unified field theory, but no one knows how to actually do
this experiment at this time. In addition, the unified field theory predicts that
gravitational wave amplification is possible with specific apparatus [11], but the
effect is tiny and difficult to measure. Other differences exist.
In particular, the forces between two gravitating bodies on the y'axis in the K' system
translated along the
xaxis of Einstein's special relativistic stationary system K are different in
General Relativity and in the electroform unified field theory, the gravitational
"magneticlike" components of the field being 4 times stronger according to Einstein
than in the predictions of the electroform unified field theory. But this experiment
is difficult and expensive, and so far has not been done. I note that
in the electroform unified field theory the Bfield forces exist solely due to the
timedilation properties of the Lorentz transformation, just as in relativistic
electrodynamics. However, in Einstein's general relativity these magneticlike
forces are 4 times stronger, due to the proposition that motion must be precisely
geodesic. Probably in the 21st century the associated experiments will be performed
in outer
space with special fast robotic spacecraft.
Using classical GR, according to an observer in K,
F_magnetic = 4(v/c)^{2}F_gravstatic,
so that the forces between two gravitating balls are repulsive for v > c/2, and the
observer in K must see the balls drifting away from each other! This would also be
true in the moving system K', so that the Principle of Relativity is violated: one
can detect what the velocity v is in K' just by doing a Cavendish experiment to measure
Newton's constant G in K'. Since we can get the classical GR 2ndorder effects via
our alternative model for locally Lorentzcovariant unified quantum field theory, we
can save The Principle of Relativity and still compute the perihelion precession of
Mercury, the curvature of light around the sun, and the gravitational redshift, the
special tricks that kept us hanging on to classical GR for more than 6 decades.
Another experiment using circulating currents confined in large loops may be arranged as
a Cavendish experiment to measure the factor of 4, but this would be more
difficult than employing special fast robotic spacecraft, as the torsion in the Cavendish
experiment is then proportional to (v/c) ^{2}, where v is the velocity
of the current in the loop. (In this connection see also the online notes on The Balance Point. )
The Impact on Our View of Cosmology
__In the electroform unified field theory, like a line from Charlton Heston at the beginning of
The Planet of the Apes, "...time bends, space is...boundless".
The magneticlike components of the field are negligible for the expanding universe in matterdominated era, and the static component of the field is
almost exactly Newton's force of gravity, except that it is defined by a retarded potential, as in electrodynamics.
Thus, solutions of the cosmology problem are solutions of
d/dt(dr/dt) =  GM(r)/r^{2}
to a high degree of approximation. The simplest, although not the unique, solution to the cosmology problem is then a universe with
r = a (t)^{(3/2)},
where a is easily determined by substitution into the equation of motion.
This corresponds to the case of a universe that collapses from infinity and then bounces back to infinity in an inelastic collision, certainly
an approximation. However, the solution is approximately correct for the case of a universe with constant density in the matterdominated era.
However, it holds everywhere, so that when we differentiate this
expression and manipulate it to find the Hubble constant, we get H(t) = (2/3)/t. However, this equation
describes the Hubble constant locally in meters per second per meter without including the observational
timedelay. When this is included, the Hubble constant is H(t,L) = (2/3)/(t  L/c), where L/c is the timedelay to the galaxy being observed.
This is supported by measurements of the Hubble constant presented in
Cosmology by
Micheal RowanRobinson, page 51.
I mean, a fit to RowanRobinson's data shows that this formula for H = H(t,L) works out perfectly at large distances.
One of the consequences of this is that when c = HL = (2/3)L/(t  L/c), we have L = (3/5)ct, so that we can only see
(3/5) of the way back to the Big Bang at t=0.
This effect, due to observational timedelay, makes galaxies at the limits of observation appear to approach velocities near c.
Furthermore, it means that at the same time the era of galaxy formation is invisible.
More detailed analysis shows that in this case distant
galaxies we observe in the Hubble Deep Field are roughly 1/2 as far apart on the average as they are in this neighborhood of the universe.
This seems to fit the actual observations made with the Hubble Space Telescope rather well.
If the solutions for the case of a collapse of a universe of dead galaxies from some finite maximum height or from infinity is done,
and the CrunchBang event is reckoned as inelastic due primarily to the photodisintegration of nuclei at collision time, one obtains
SqueezeBoom solutions with oscillatinguniverse properties.
In particular, for the present universe, the cycle time turns out to be approximately
232 billion years. If matter is radiated away over the universe lifetime into space,
as the electroform model pictures it, the oscillations go on for some thousands of cycles
before the universe burns itself to a cinder in a matter of some 20 trillion years or so.
This prediction, however, is dependent on perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter decays,
which have been shown to be violated for some mesons.
I note that the electroform model predicts that the maximum energy of a photon that may be generated by a known galactic process is about 120 GeV.
This obtained by considering the fall of heavy nuclei into the event horizons associated with supermassive objects.
In this case the event horizon condition is
2GM(r)/(c ^{2} r) = 1, so that
GM(mA)/r = [(c^{2})/2](mA), less than 120 GeV,
where mA is the mass of the heaviest nucleus, so that A is less than 256.
For some further notes on ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, see
The Effect of Gamma Rays on ManintheMoon Marigolds from WeatherVisions19.
The Impact on Our View of the Celestial Sphere
There is an associated theory of the organization of imagery on
the celestial sphere, including it's ornamental and wavemechanical
symmetries as well as it's mythic interpretation and pictorial
content. Imaging galaxies and imaging nebulae subillustrate
themes defined by nearby constellations in such a way that
the entire scene seems to be a mindmirror of our life here. However,
it is now visible how the mindmirror effect may be connected with
the fundamental mirrorsymmetry and longrange order associated with
field theory as described by the equations of the electroform model [3].
References
[1] W.Pauli & M.Fierz, "On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field",
communicated by P.A.M.Dirac, Proc. Royal Soc. of London, 29 Dec. 1939, pages 211232.
[2] Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler,
Gravitation, W.H.Freeman & Co., 1973.
[3] Green, James A., Gravitation & the Electroform Model:
From General Relativity to Unified Field Theory, 11th edition, December 2003 state,
Greenwood Research Books & Software.
[4] Einstein, Albert, The Meaning of Relativity,
Princeton University Press, 5th edition, 1974, page 102 shows an electromagneticlike equation of motion,
but the "magnetic" components are strangely 4 times larger than expected for a Lorentzinvariant static field.
[5] Cottingham & Greenwood,
Introduction to Nuclear Physics,
Oxford University Press.
[6] Green, James A.,
Thermonuclear Fusion in Stars, Greenwood Research Books & Software,
1999. See the sections on beta decay symmetries and the electroweak model.
[7] Halzen & Martin,Quarks and Leptons, John Wiley & Sons, 1984.
[8] Yuval N'EEman, on the elementary particles.
[9] Harari, Haim, published articles. Click for Haim Harari photo.
[10] Green, James A., Supernova Vignettes,
Greenwood Research Books & Software.
[11] Green, James A.,
Electromagnetic Radiation: Fundamentals and Applications,
Greenwood Research Books & Software.
[12] Green, James A., Thermonuclear Fusion in Stars,
Chapter 9, Greenwood Research Books & Software, 1999.
[13] Green, James A., Astronomical Maps: The Structure of the Celestial Sphere,
Greenwood Research Books & Software.
[14] Green, James A. Cosmology: From General Relativistic to Electroform Cosmology,
Greenwood Research Books & Software.
[15] Malin, David, Colours of the Stars,
Cambridge University Press, James & Jean [18] in the knee of Orion,
Figure 88. Also, in NGC 2264, page 123.
[16] Cherrington,
Exploring the Moon with Binoculars and Small Telescopes,
Dover Publications, Chart IV.
[17] Ferris, Timothy, Galaxies, Sierra Club.
See M51, which Green interprets as the "Beyond Within" theme,
in which he leaves heavy Susan in NGC 5194 for a bright romance in Tampa in 1986 in
the disco whirl of NGC 5195. Also, M83 seems to caricature a romance from his 1st visit to Tampa in 1983.
Note that M83 is situated at the Rump end of Hydra near Heaven's Gate.
[18] Jean in 1988. (See pics.html.)
See star names Gienah, Agena, also Corvus, Andromeda, smile in
Perseus, the Pleiades, and Aries, Cygnus, eye in Aquila. Lost Horizon.
[19] Roseveare, N.T.,
Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein,
Clarendon Press, 1983.
Chapter 6 on velocitydependent potentials. I note that Surdin's results
on roundtrip timedelay had an error of sign [3] that when fixed produces the
2/3 perihelion precession we require from the oneway timedelay associated
with a standard retarded potential instead of the roundtrip timedelays
considered by Surdin as described the end of Chapter 6. When this 2/3
precession is added to the 1/3 from gravitation timedilation, we get the full
perhelion advance [3,12].
[20] See unifiedsummary.html for a quick mathematical overview
of one of the nonselfconsistency theorems and the electroform unified field theory based on vectorboson field models in MKS units.

GREENWOOD RESEARCH BOOKS & SOFTWARE
 James A. Green's Home Page
Music[2]:
Green, Green by the New Christy Minstrels,
Greenback Dollar by the Kingston Trio.
