Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed4-a.proxad.net!nnrp3-2.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: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:56:05 +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> <668842bc$0$7508$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 99 Message-ID: <6689a154$3$3899$426a34cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Jul 2024 21:56:04 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1720295764 news-4.free.fr 3899 213.10.137.58:54123 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 5164 Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/05/2024 12:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > 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 > > [Higgs irrelevancies] > Quantities, and their derivations, have implicit units, > about them. 'Implicit unit' is not a physical concept, Jan