Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:24:58 +0200
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>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jun 2024 09:24:57 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1719386697 news-2.free.fr 11713 213.10.137.58:64826
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 3439

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