Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:58:23 +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> <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> <668baa12$1$3285$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <1w2dnUn8G_Nk0xH7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> <668eac20$1$11688$426a34cc@news.free.fr> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:58:36 -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: <668eac20$1$11688$426a34cc@news.free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 167 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-d2N5Gkqe/6Zcnz02a2kHkjjt+e4qSKzTv6ZugumpjeFQomIRzfL2e/ilkKpZ6SSbNVyONaKz4w3ETDD!5rVAsqO2UnpmKxZ8H0ir8zmLNzBHyBjinuxoNVg6IyAxa0AXCWCcMk4CgOsP4N1Bo9fifyoAMweU!Vw== 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: 8391 On 07/10/2024 08:43 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 07/08/2024 01:57 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> >> "What can't you reaD? This has been all about it." >> >> Hmm..., not very helpful. >> >> Force: is parameterized by time, >> force is a function of time. >> >> In Einstein's theory, "Relativity", >> "Relativity" has that the Space-Time >> is an differential-system of inertial-systems, >> parameterized by a "the time". >> >> So, it's implicit, and the implicits here reflect >> paramterizations of functions who symbolic representations >> represent algebraic quantities, and "implicit" has >> its usual meaning from differential analysis. >> >> >> Then, implicits like "the infinitely-many implicit >> quantitiers in front of each variable in a logical ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========