Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.proxad.net!nnrp1-1.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: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:57:55 +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> <6689a154$3$3899$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <668a7047$0$11706$426a34cc@news.free.fr> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 128 Message-ID: <668baa12$1$3285$426a34cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Jul 2024 10:57:54 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1720429074 news-4.free.fr 3285 213.10.137.58:57440 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 6484 Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 07/07/2024 03:39 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > >> On 07/06/2024 12:56 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> 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 > >>> > >> [unrelated stuff] > >> Also "Nessie's hump". > >> > >> > >> So, implicits, definitely do have a physical concept attached, > >> and force, is a function of time. > > > > Word salad: Yes. > > Clarity about 'Implied units': No, > > > > Jan > > > > > From an article the other day: [snip yet another completely unrelated article] > Now I excuse me while I consider a belittling > condescension then refrain. And still not a word about what 'implied units' might be, Jan