Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:50:41 +0000
Subject: Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity
 fails.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 12:50:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <667bc249$0$11713$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <fLmcnSyR2vOM7OH7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3SjlbcedcMv02QemA1FrVyFZOgm4caTpVN93f+eHSTRcws7vSJb8shWxxgp2480L0Zk6XnkPmGpCMzb!wSVZfuHjluta8RVOxhF02MHexCgewy7v33QJgErOs59WKylm4ycebuwgn4qNVLaAllmsi/jZzziS
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4294

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.

The, "dimensionless", when a usual sort of "dimensional analysis"
is the Buckingham-Pi approach, is a detachment of sorts from
the "dimensional analysis".

Any ansaetze begins as a "dimensional analysis".

What's "physical", then?