Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.

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
>

>

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:

Now I excuse me while I consider a belittling
condescension then refrain.