Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 20:04:06 +0000 Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails. Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com> <17db55a7e5709ab7$1933$480477$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <9283a49bcc091b1f621ebd566d650a38@www.novabbs.com> <6677e170$0$11724$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:04:12 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <5iudnThNzPCrnRr7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 79 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-W6xbMc4I/qRji0sgRYPywo0kpaTrJUvrSVb+L23K+zr+dSaFZ68KGD8k8owKtssxPDa4iwVTm3SJ+K9!0IhDmk44lhJcWath62A7+De9IGsv1IHPEgQmh4pE1O7FdT55srV/MqVn3i1RnEAxrO8MFWFNuxiG!CQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4729 On 07/04/2024 12:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 06/26/2024 12:24 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 06/24/2024 11:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>> Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 05:57 schrieb Tom Roberts: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. YOU have imposed specific units onto the formula/equation. The >>>>>>>> equation itself does not impose any particular units on its variables >>>>>>>> and constants [@], it merely requires that they be self-consistent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [@] There are many systems of units in common use. You >>>>>>>> seem to think there is only one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A forteriori, any result that depends on any particular choice >>>>>>> of units (or dimensions) is unphysical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, of course. Good point. Similarly, any result that depends on >>>>>> choice of coordinates is unphysical. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not quite... >>>>> >>>>> Because velocity is 'relative' (relative in respect to what you regard >>>>> as 'stationary'), kinetic energy is frame dependent. >>>>> >>>>> Since the used coordinate system defines 'stationary', you need a >>>>> coordinate system for kinetic energy and that for practically everything >>>>> else. >>>>> >>>>> TH >>>> >>>> When I hear "unphysical" I think it means "in the mathematical >>>> representation and having no attachment to the physical representation, >>>> in the system of units of the dimensional analysis in the >>>> geometric setting". >>>> >>>> The dimensional analysis and attachment to geometry and >>>> arithmetic usually is about the only "physical" there is. >>> >>> Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics. >>> Dimensions are man-made conventions. >>> Nothing would change if the whole concept had never been invented. >>> >>>> (Geometry and arithmetic and the objects of analysis >>>> and so on.) >>>> >>>> Things like "negative time" and "anti-deSitter space" are >>>> unphysical, as are the non-real parts of complex analysis, >>>> usually, though for example if you consider the Cartanian >>>> as essentially different from the Gaussian-Eulerian, >>>> complex analysis, then the Majorana spinor makes an >>>> example of a detectable observable, though, one might >>>> aver that that's its real part, in the hypercomplex. >>> >>> Well, yes, but that is another meaning of 'unphysical, >>> >>> Jan >>> >> >> Yet, "conservation", i.e. "neither the destruction or creation", >> of quantities, is exactly as according to the quantity its units. > > Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way. > >> The, "dimensionless", when a usual sort of "dimensional analysis" >> is the Buckingham-Pi approach, is a detachment of sorts from >> the "dimensional analysis". > > Yes, standard dimensional analysis, > > Jan > > Oh, here that's called 'dimensionless analysis'.