Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<668eac20$1$11688$426a34cc@news.free.fr> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed1-b.proxad.net!nnrp3-2.free.fr!not-for-mail Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails. From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 17:43:29 +0200 References: <693b1f71c994c268d60983eb81fc6aaa@www.novabbs.com> <rQzdO.250256$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> <668baa12$1$3285$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <1w2dnUn8G_Nk0xH7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> Organization: De Ster Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6) Lines: 162 Message-ID: <668eac20$1$11688$426a34cc@news.free.fr> NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jul 2024 17:43:28 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58 X-Trace: 1720626208 news-4.free.fr 11688 213.10.137.58:56689 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Bytes: 7827 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/08/2024 01:57 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > 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 > > > > "What can't you reaD? This has been all about it." > > Hmm..., not very helpful. > > Force: is parameterized by time, > force is a function of time. > > In Einstein's theory, "Relativity", > "Relativity" has that the Space-Time > is an differential-system of inertial-systems, > parameterized by a "the time". > > So, it's implicit, and the implicits here reflect > paramterizations of functions who symbolic representations > represent algebraic quantities, and "implicit" has > its usual meaning from differential analysis. > > > Then, implicits like "the infinitely-many implicit > quantitiers in front of each variable in a logical > expression", gets into quantification, and, quantification. > > The "usual" meaning(s). And still not a word about 'implied units'. Can't you just admit that there is no such thing? Jan