Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 02:27:19 +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>
 <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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 19:27:19 -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: <6689a154$3$3899$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <hzWdnc3fgeyaYBT7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 141
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JzPj0i2x0TqzZBNlkhUu0dyDcO9epG2Ptl6LrQkXh093U2kRwLulaIF2F/uboqlxbJNQHIbrYhe4BhX!A90xkxMrKrW9Li5H6RVAl+IuYYtQetKaUOmWFJtuUJEcP57oSHtUWgzFzCjALVNUhqRXpPBRRqNS
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: 7377

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
>

The mathematically implicit, which affects that functions
parameterized by particular other functions have particular
forms about their envelopes, boundaries, and singular points,
very much does get involved in physical concepts,
here particular the concept of kinetic force,
as a function of time, with regards to the infinitely-many
orders of acceleration, from infinity on down, with
respect to time, the laws of motion.

The laws of motion are about the most usual "physical concept".

When you ask what are the infinitely-many higher orders
of acceleration, or "what is change, at all",
then mathematics rather owes physics even a model of this,
to equip physics with a physical interpretation or "concept",
or what "is physical" or "real".

The implicits in parameterization are a rather fundamental
concept in the differential analysis, and analysis altogether,
about the derivations that result, "quantities", algebraic
quantities, about that even though physics often enough
arrives at singularities at the edges or right outside the
bounds, that's because regular singular points like the
0, 1, infinity of the hypergeometric are "real", mathematically.

Then, most people's first non-standard function is the
Dirac delta, an infinite spike at the origin with area one.
Then figuring out how the infinitely many orders of
acceleration arrive at smooth starting and stopping,
is here considered with regards to "Zeno's swath",
and "a stop-derivative, a walk-integral, a pause-integral,
and a run-derivative".

Also "Nessie's hump".


So, implicits, definitely do have a physical concept attached,
and force, is a function of time.