Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:50:41 +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> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:50:59 -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: <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 71 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-3SjlbcedcMv02QemA1FrVyFZOgm4caTpVN93f+eHSTRcws7vSJb8shWxxgp2480L0Zk6XnkPmGpCMzb!wSVZfuHjluta8RVOxhF02MHexCgewy7v33QJgErOs59WKylm4ycebuwgn4qNVLaAllmsi/jZzziS 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: 4294 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. The, "dimensionless", when a usual sort of "dimensional analysis" is the Buckingham-Pi approach, is a detachment of sorts from the "dimensional analysis". Any ansaetze begins as a "dimensional analysis". What's "physical", then?