Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed3-a.proxad.net!nnrp1-1.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails. From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:29:25 +0200 References: <693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com> <rQzdO.250256$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> <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <fLmcnSyR2vOM7OH7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 75 Message-ID: <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Jul 2024 21:29:26 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1720121366 news-2.free.fr 3283 213.10.137.58:52626 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 4146 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