Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp6-1.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails. From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:00:12 +0200 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> <5iudnThNzPCrnRr7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 84 Message-ID: <668842bc$0$7508$426a74cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jul 2024 21:00:12 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1720206012 news-3.free.fr 7508 213.10.137.58:53387 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 4668 Ross Finlayson wrote: > 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'. That's either an error or a silly neologism, Jan