Re: A short proof of the inconsistency of Einstein's physics ("chronons")

On 04/08/2025 09:27 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/08/2025 12:01 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 08.04.2025 07:58, skrev Maciej Wozniak:

W dniu 07.04.2025 o 20:40, J. J. Lodder pisze:

>
No doubt. However, after doing the unit conversion correctly
the result should be the same.
If not, it isn't a physical result,

>
>
An incompetent idiot is asserting! As a proof
he can insult and slander the opponent, must
be true.
>

>
Does this meaningless response of yours mean that you do not
understand that any time unit can be used if physics as long
as it is precisely defined?
>

>
... and it's a continuous quantity?
>
The Lorentzian, the difference of the sum of second partials
in space and second partial in time being as for a metric, "ds^2",
about the Laplacian, sum of second partials, harmonic, being zero,
after the Galilean, the time term "in", the space terms,
is pretty much about the metric, then pretty much the harmonic,
and "conditions, of continuity", then as for Lagrangians,
"all parameterized by time".
>
>
So, all these result necessarily, "precisely defined", and
it's sort of easiest starting with the classical, as regards
to the consistency, of the mathematical model, as with regards
to attachment, to the physical model.
>
>
Then, something like the Riemann tensor, whatever actually
maintains the metric, _and the norm_, has that the usual
formalism says nothing at all about how that's done except
that it's assumed. (Emphasis dot-dot-dot "... and the norm".)
>
Then, variously un-physical interpretations of time terms,
it's arguable that there's both the mathematical, and the
local physical, then also the wider physical, to keep "consistent".
>
There's also the, "deeper mathematical", "deeper physical",
about units in length and units in time, and, about the
dimensions of change, and the infinitely-many higher orders
of any acceleration, change, about that any time unit, also
results in the dimensional analysis, about the very, very small,
or the extremes of the regimes, when the space and time terms:
form an indistinct sort of fugue, about continuum mechanics,
as with regards to real continua and individua, and, laws of
large numbers, and convergence, and emergence.
>
Then, about there being, "natural", units of time, like for
mass as with regards to, for example, "1 AMU", or distance,
"1 AU", about for example, "1 Earth mass", or "1 Solar mass",
for examples, that, "chronons", as they may be, may result
some, "real", physical, basis of time.
>
>

>
For a theory where the real graviton is the atom again,
and, the "local partial current classical chronon" is
a solar year, vis-a-vis something like "proton lifetime",
then about the Planck regime under which time and length
and mass roll up in super-strings, there's that time is
a continuous quantity and units are physical, and, time
reversibility has never been falsified, there are no
closed time-like curves, and other aspects of the
orbifold/trajectifold as what's made of the geodesy,
keep themselves, "physical".
>
>