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