Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:56:05 +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> <668842bc$0$7508$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <L4ecnY0vyKwbCBX7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <6689a154$3$3899$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Jul 2024 21:56:04 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1720295764 news-4.free.fr 3899 213.10.137.58:54123
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 5164

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

> On 07/05/2024 12:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 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
> >

[Higgs irrelevancies]

> Quantities, and their derivations, have implicit units,
> about them.

'Implicit unit' is not a physical concept,

Jan