Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:05:44 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:05:53 -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: <ldv7jcFpoddU9@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <hRycnWu7NvCFvub7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NCfpZtnFrvFuNbHGqPE0pxQhGSRiRAOF4w68b6v5P97OKzlhAksGvUpnuHiQIW67JiHTtO/G/GJQjl9!UFAc37iAYCbCNB3J7zwDaKAQQz7lq1iwUYXF1fUtKrqUN3kE/YDgwfmeMwi/0BoDynQ7kO/eDpd/!9w==
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: 3780

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.

(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.

The Gaussian-Eulerian deserves a real break-down of
a deconstructive account about Euler's identity and
Gauss' integral and so on, about the regular singular
points of the hyper-geometric and so on (0, 1, infinity).


That wave mechanics have super-classical real parts
is a thing.


If it's a geodesy, it's a geometry. The "coordinate-free"
are just "hidden coordinates", patched together piece-wise.