Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 20:04:06 +0000
Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity
 fails.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com>
 <rQzdO.250256$RcM6.3626@fx13.ams4>
 <17db55a7e5709ab7$1933$480477$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <9283a49bcc091b1f621ebd566d650a38@www.novabbs.com>
 <fridnXzRMeebPOr7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <6677e170$0$11724$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <GgOdnRiQkYyT3ef7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <ldv7jcFpoddU9@mid.individual.net>
 <hRycnWu7NvCFvub7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <fLmcnSyR2vOM7OH7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:04:12 -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: <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5iudnThNzPCrnRr7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-W6xbMc4I/qRji0sgRYPywo0kpaTrJUvrSVb+L23K+zr+dSaFZ68KGD8k8owKtssxPDa4iwVTm3SJ+K9!0IhDmk44lhJcWath62A7+De9IGsv1IHPEgQmh4pE1O7FdT55srV/MqVn3i1RnEAxrO8MFWFNuxiG!CQ==
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: 4729

On 07/04/2024 12:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/26/2024 12:24 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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'.