Dear Ryan,
' ... "As the accuracy in one is equal to that in the other" ... shouldn't that be "is inversely proportional to the other?" - but I still understand your point ...'
Writing the uncertainty principle as dE = 1 / dt, this is Planck's law E = v, so both terms are equally accurate. I mean to say that a higher energy corresponds to a shorter time interval, and as in my book a higher energy is a less indefinite energy, a shorter time is a less indefinite time. Though the consensus is that a higher energy is a less definite energy, I hope to have made clear that this is not nature's idea.
' .... To be understood by the majority of scientists, one must adopt their parlance - study their methods and start with the common assumptions before showing anything new ...'
My problem in studying their methods is that though the methods and models may be sound, they're applied even when they shouldn't, making matters unnecessarily complicated. Having identified photons as carriers of the electromagnetic force, it may seem obvious to suppose other forces have their own carriers and think up fancy names for them like gravitons and gluons. However, if the assumption on which the idea of different forces is based on is invalid, if, gravity is attractive and repulsive, then this throws a completely different light on these 'forces', on the nature of energy and charge, and at least should lead to an inspection as to whether we really need them.
If a particle cannot distinguish by what force or field it is accelerated, if the field by accelerating it brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then we should apply the equivalence principle (if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck ... ) by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity. As long as we insist it to be a wholly different kind of force, completely independent from gravity, it indeed will stay a force unifyable with gravity. So when I read about the quest for the unification of gravity with electromagnetics, about gravitons and Higgs particles and other nonsense like Bing Bang and Inflation hypotheses, I wonder whether I should take the trouble to learn the lingo. To mee it seems that our toolbox (maths and models) has taken over physics, which, however invaluable, for different reasons is a sorry state of affairs. More about ducks you can find in my reply of 9 oct. to Arjen Dijksman above.
P.S. The mountaineer I've run across in some book I don't remember which.