Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp6-1.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: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:00:12 +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> <6686f816$0$3283$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <5iudnThNzPCrnRr7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <668842bc$0$7508$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Jul 2024 21:00:12 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1720206012 news-3.free.fr 7508 213.10.137.58:53387
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 4668

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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'.

That's either an error or a silly neologism,

Jan