Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.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: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:57:55 +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> <668a7047$0$11706$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <qpycnQZP2ZapaRf7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <668baa12$1$3285$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Jul 2024 10:57:54 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1720429074 news-4.free.fr 3285 213.10.137.58:57440
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 6484

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

> On 07/07/2024 03:39 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>
[unrelated stuff]
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
>  From an article the other day:
[snip yet another completely unrelated article]

> Now I excuse me while I consider a belittling
> condescension then refrain.

And still not a word about what 'implied units' might be,

Jan