Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.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: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:39:03 +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> <6689a154$3$3899$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <hzWdnc3fgeyaYBT7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <668a7047$0$11706$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 Jul 2024 12:39:03 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1720348743 news-4.free.fr 11706 213.10.137.58:56488
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 7424

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

> On 07/06/2024 12:56 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 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
> >
> 
> The mathematically implicit, which affects that functions
> parameterized by particular other functions have particular
> forms about their envelopes, boundaries, and singular points,
> very much does get involved in physical concepts,
> here particular the concept of kinetic force,
> as a function of time, with regards to the infinitely-many
> orders of acceleration, from infinity on down, with
> respect to time, the laws of motion.
> 
> The laws of motion are about the most usual "physical concept".
> 
> When you ask what are the infinitely-many higher orders
> of acceleration, or "what is change, at all",
> then mathematics rather owes physics even a model of this,
> to equip physics with a physical interpretation or "concept",
> or what "is physical" or "real".
> 
> The implicits in parameterization are a rather fundamental
> concept in the differential analysis, and analysis altogether,
> about the derivations that result, "quantities", algebraic
> quantities, about that even though physics often enough
> arrives at singularities at the edges or right outside the
> bounds, that's because regular singular points like the
> 0, 1, infinity of the hypergeometric are "real", mathematically.
> 
> Then, most people's first non-standard function is the
> Dirac delta, an infinite spike at the origin with area one.
> Then figuring out how the infinitely many orders of
> acceleration arrive at smooth starting and stopping,
> is here considered with regards to "Zeno's swath",
> and "a stop-derivative, a walk-integral, a pause-integral,
> and a run-derivative".
> 
> Also "Nessie's hump".
> 
> 
> So, implicits, definitely do have a physical concept attached,
> and force, is a function of time.

Word salad: Yes.
Clarity about 'Implied units': No,

Jan