"(Alpha)" Unified Field Theory?

This was the only statement in your reply which was correct.

Unifying electromagnetism and gravity is a pretty useless enterprise, mainly because there are two other forces to include.

like the nuclear strong and nuclear weak

the strong being what binds the nucleus of an atom and the weak is what binds the electrons to the atom
the strong being what binds the nucleus of an atom and the weak is what binds the electrons to the atom
No, that isn't true. The electromagnetic force keeps electrons around nuclei. The strong keeps quarks together and through a residual quantum effect the quarks form short lived particles called mesons which then bind nucleons together. The weak force doesn't find anything together because the bosons bosons mediate particle decay. If a particle emits a weak boson it's typically going to decay into something.
No, you haven't guessed right. GR is experimentally verified to a huge degree. This means that any new theory must reduce to GR at lowish energies, just as GR must (and does) reduce to Newtonian gravity at very low energies. All dual models and models which already combine gravity and electromagnetism lead to the same result, that GR is a valid classical limit of gravity. It's only at tiny distances (and so high energies) that the difference is apparent.

If you knew a bit about physics you'd know this already.

"No, you haven't guessed right". : UH was afraid that somebody would be grammatically challenged and so would not be able to follow very plainly worded standard English. And it has happened . Right on cue. AlphaNumeric is THE ONE. UH was guessing that BTM was bashful about admitting a specific science thing. UH was not guessing about anything else. BTM was obviously beating around the busch instead of talking about the obvious impasse involved in trying to combine an electric field theory which maintains constant quantity of charge regarding speed of electric body versus an gravity field theory which varies the quantity of gravity regarding the speed of the gravitating body.

The phrase "Have I guessed right?" was directed to BTM in the sense of " Have I guessed right that BTM does not have the guts to admit that the present gravity field theory and its field equations will need to be scrapped in order to combine the superlatively proven electric field equations with the controversial gravity field equations?". If you knew a bit about English grammar you would have known this already.

Your remarkably hazy understanding of my plainly stated position places everything you state at question.

If you and anybody else who has even a faint grasp of English grammar reads my posts in this thread they will easily see that I have been inquiring of learned opinions about the subject. I have made few statements and all my few statements cannot be faulted. I have asked some questions; I trust that only a really low grade moron can hear a question and then gayly claim that I have made an incorrect statement. A person who asks a question cannot be accused of making a wrong statement unless the accuser is such a low grade moron that they do not have the mental capacity to know the difference between a question and a statement.

I opened this thread in the interest of inspiring the propagation of learned opinions about a subject which has immense usefulness both in terms of advancement of science theory and practical technology. Immediately in my face was a plethora of negativity and jeering, from sock puppets and perhaps groupies. The progress of this thread has been the virtual OPPOSITE of what any reasonable person would expect of ALPHA rules administered by a competent administrator.

Are ALPHA rules on this site only the usual expected baloney? Or is this site finally above the stature of The National Enquirer in terms of a reliable science venue?
I don't think gravity field theory and its field equations will need to be scrapped, Uno Hoo. To unify the fields you don't unify electromagnetism and gravity. You unify the electromagnetic force and the strong force. I've written a paper on this, called A new appreciation of the Standard Model. It's with a journal, but they might not accept it, and discussion might not be welcomed here, so PM me if you want to see it.