The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
the speed of gravity.
B. The unified field theory failed to unify electromagnetism and
gravity. ["Then, in the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein developed general relativity, a field theory of gravitation. Later,
Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of
a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity remains beyond attempts at a unified field theory."- Britannica]
C. Therefore, general relativity fails to explain Mercury's perihelion advance and the bending of light.
It will take more than vacuous denials if you want to be convincing.
Try this:
"FRAMING HYPOTHESES: Conceptions of gravity in the 18th and 19th
centuries"
Frans van Lunteren c.1991
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
The formula uses the speed of light for the force of gravity, employing
an electromagnetic assumption shared by Gerber and Einstein, among other
electromagnetic formulas used by both.
More nonsense.
The speed of light equals 1
Remarkably, you are so ignorant about relativity. During the last
quarter of the 19th century, many scientists, including Gerber, Lorentz,
and Einstein, speculated that gravity could be treated as
electromagnetic using electromagnetic formulas and the speed of light
for gravity.
Are you drunk? That looks like a run-on sentence that makes no sense.
Den 21.06.2024 22:04, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using
electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
the speed of gravity.
From whence did you get this stupid idea?
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf https://paulba.no/PerihelionAdvance.html
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
B. The unified field theory failed to unify electromagnetism and
gravity. ["Then, in the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein
developed general relativity, a field theory of gravitation. Later,
Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of
a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity remains
beyond attempts at a unified field theory."- Britannica]
It is well known that Einstein used the last 35 years of his life
on a theory which never worked.
But the General Theory of Relativity (The theory of gravitation)
is thoroughly tested and never falsified.
The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
the speed of gravity.
B. The unified field theory failed to unify electromagnetism and
gravity. ["Then, in the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein developed general relativity, a field theory of gravitation. Later,
Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of
a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity remains beyond attempts at a unified field theory."- Britannica]
C. Therefore, general relativity fails to explain Mercury's perihelion advance and the bending of light.
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
It will take more than vacuous denials if you want to be convincing.
Try this:
"FRAMING HYPOTHESES: Conceptions of gravity in the 18th and 19th
centuries"
Frans van Lunteren c.1991
In the 18th century they already knew
that gravity is caused
by the accumulation of phlogiston.
See: "Flogiston en andere nieuwlichterij" (Frans van Lunteren) <https://dwc.knaw.nl/column-flogiston-en-andere-nieuwlichterij-frans-van-lunteren/>
for an up to date reference,
(learn Dutch first to keep you busy)
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
Your formula (1) has c^2 and it is clearly not 1^2, and is in m/s,
contrary to Lodder.
Relativity still thinks gravity is electromagnetism even after the
unified field theory failed.
On 6/22/24 9:54 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
You got this backwards. In GR, changes in gravity propagate at the local symmetry speed, given by SPECIAL Relativity. It "just so happens" [#]
that electromagnetic waves travel at this same speed in vacuum. It is
merely an historical anomaly that it is called "the speed of light", due
to the round-about way Einstein first described relativity in 1905 --
the spacetime symmetry is MUCH more fundamental and important.
On 2024-06-22 09:26:07 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:teren/>
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
It will take more than vacuous denials if you want to be convincing.
Try this:
"FRAMING HYPOTHESES: Conceptions of gravity in the 18th and 19th
centuries"
Frans van Lunteren c.1991
In the 18th century they already knew
that gravity is caused
by the accumulation of phlogiston.
See: "Flogiston en andere nieuwlichterij" (Frans van Lunteren) <https://dwc.knaw.nl/column-flogiston-en-andere-nieuwlichterij-frans-van-lun
for an up to date reference,
(learn Dutch first to keep you busy)
Not necessary. Google Translate does a good job with Dutch.
On 06/22/2024 02:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
The formula uses the speed of light for the force of gravity, employing
an electromagnetic assumption shared by Gerber and Einstein, among other >> electromagnetic formulas used by both.
More nonsense.
The speed of light equals 1
and it doesn't appear in any formula of physics,
(in the right units)
Jan
That's in a mathematics with only numbers between 0 and 1, though.
Or, "only numbers only between only 0 and only 1".
On 6/22/24 9:54 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
You got this backwards. In GR, changes in gravity propagate at the local symmetry speed, given by SPECIAL Relativity. It "just so happens" [#]
that electromagnetic waves travel at this same speed in vacuum. It is
merely an historical anomaly that it is called "the speed of light", due
to the round-about way Einstein first described relativity in 1905 --
the spacetime symmetry is MUCH more fundamental and important.
[#] This is neither happenstance nor accident....
BTW modern derivations of SR don't use electromagnetism at all.
Your formula (1) has c^2 and it is clearly not 1^2, and is in m/s,
contrary to Lodder.
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.
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/24 9:54 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
You got this backwards. In GR, changes in gravity propagate at the local
symmetry speed, given by SPECIAL Relativity. It "just so happens" [#]
that electromagnetic waves travel at this same speed in vacuum. It is
merely an historical anomaly that it is called "the speed of light", due
to the round-about way Einstein first described relativity in 1905 --
the spacetime symmetry is MUCH more fundamental and important.
[#] This is neither happenstance nor accident....
BTW modern derivations of SR don't use electromagnetism at all.
Your formula (1) has c^2 and it is clearly not 1^2, and is in m/s,
contrary to Lodder.
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.
Despite the obviousness and triviality of this
Relativity still thinks gravity is electromagnetism even after the
unified field theory failed.
It doesn't move at the speed of light because it's not electromagnetism,
as shown by the failure of the unified field theory.The failure of the unified field theory is that there is no such theory. Non-existence of a particular theory says nothing about the Nature.
I thought it very strange that our Laurence
quotes a work by a philosopher/historian of science
about fumblings for theories from two hundred years ago
as if it is a research work with relevance for today's research,
On 2024-06-23 08:48:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
I thought it very strange that our Laurence
quotes a work by a philosopher/historian of science
about fumblings for theories from two hundred years ago
as if it is a research work with relevance for today's research,
During the last 400 years science has evolved much faster that
our brains.
"In electrodynamics, the retarded potentials are the electromagnetic potentials for the electromagnetic field generated by time-varying
electric current or charge distributions in the past." - Wikipedia
"The anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion can be explained by taking into account the second order in the delay of the retarded
potential (7) which is an approximation of the retarded potential (8)."
-Ibid (Gine)
On 2024-06-23 08:48:47 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
I thought it very strange that our Laurence
quotes a work by a philosopher/historian of science
about fumblings for theories from two hundred years ago
as if it is a research work with relevance for today's research,
During the last 400 years science has evolved much faster that
our brains.
The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
A. General relativity explains Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance
and the bending of light by treating gravity as electromagnetic using electromagnetic formulas and the assumption of the speed of light for
the speed of gravity.
B. The unified field theory failed to unify electromagnetism and
gravity. ["Then, in the early part of the 20th century, Albert Einstein developed general relativity, a field theory of gravitation. Later,
Einstein and others attempted to construct a unified field theory in
which electromagnetism and gravity would emerge as different aspects of
a single fundamental field. They failed, and to this day gravity remains beyond attempts at a unified field theory."- Britannica]
C. Therefore, general relativity fails to explain Mercury's perihelion advance and the bending of light.
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/24 9:54 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
You got this backwards. In GR, changes in gravity propagate at the local
symmetry speed, given by SPECIAL Relativity. It "just so happens" [#]
that electromagnetic waves travel at this same speed in vacuum. It is
merely an historical anomaly that it is called "the speed of light", due
to the round-about way Einstein first described relativity in 1905 --
the spacetime symmetry is MUCH more fundamental and important.
[#] This is neither happenstance nor accident....
BTW modern derivations of SR don't use electromagnetism at all.
Your formula (1) has c^2 and it is clearly not 1^2, and is in m/s,
contrary to Lodder.
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.
On 6/23/24 3:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 6/22/24 9:54 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Paul Anderson, thanks for the pdf. Your formula employs the
electromagnetic assumption that gravity moves at the speed of light.
You got this backwards. In GR, changes in gravity propagate at the local >>> symmetry speed, given by SPECIAL Relativity. It "just so happens" [#]
that electromagnetic waves travel at this same speed in vacuum. It is
merely an historical anomaly that it is called "the speed of light", due >>> to the round-about way Einstein first described relativity in 1905 --
the spacetime symmetry is MUCH more fundamental and important.
[#] This is neither happenstance nor accident....
BTW modern derivations of SR don't use electromagnetism at all.
Your formula (1) has c^2 and it is clearly not 1^2, and is in m/s,
contrary to Lodder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics.
Dimensions are man-made conventions.
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Now, I know mosts of yous have no idea what 'the unified field theory' IS, or what it even looks like...
I saw it on a blackboard.
It's a transporter.
Instead of shooting
a rocket to the Moon..
you just transport
the rocket to the Moon.
Simply put,
you dematerialize the rocket here, and
you materialize it on the Moon.
That is what Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory is all about.
More Simply put, it gets you from here to there.
On July 22, 1943, Albert Einstein was in Philadelphia giving testimony in the trial of Gerhart Eisler, on that same date July 22, 1943 the "Philadelphia Experiment,"
where a ship from Philadelphis teleported to Norfolk , Virginia. Coincidence????
Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory is all about...telepotation.
I mean, Albert Einstein wrote a teleportation article in Scientific American on April 1950 before it got out about the "Philadelphia Experiment".
If everybody had a portable teleport machine...the world would be upside down.
"Beam me one of those girls to my bedroom before my wife gets home...throw in an ounce of weed Pablo Escarbor."
I guess a teleport machine is worst than an atomic bomb.
I guess Albert Einstein was thinking of teleporting to Mars before everybody blows themselves up with his atomic bombs.
Of course you need a sender and a receiver 'telportation machines',
otherwise you can get stuck somewhere in the Twilight Zone.
(I know in China they are already expermenting with Dr. Albert
Einstein's Unified Field Theory Teleportation Machine)
I can teleport myself anywhere in the world? Is your wife home now?
Amazon Teleporting Shipping Same Second Delivery! (i haven't even
finished typing my order and it's already delivered!)autocomplete?
Is your wife home now? I cannot think of anywhere in the world I wanna
be but fucking your wife.
That can explain why Dr. Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory
Teleportation Machine was...shelved by him.
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.
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".
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'.
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
Quantities, and their derivations, have implicit units,
about them.
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:Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way. >>>>>
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".
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.
On 07/07/2024 03:39 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:[unrelated stuff]
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:Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way. >>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/24/2024 11:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics. Dimensions >>>>>>>>> are man-made conventions. Nothing would change if the whole >>>>>>>>> concept had never been invented.
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.
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".
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:[snip yet another completely unrelated article]
Now I excuse me while I consider a belittling
condescension then refrain.
On 07/08/2024 01:57 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/07/2024 03:39 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:[unrelated stuff]
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:Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way. >>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/24/2024 11:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics. Dimensions >>>>>>>>>>> are man-made conventions. Nothing would change if the whole >>>>>>>>>>> concept had never been invented.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A forteriori, any result that depends on any particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice of units (or dimensions) is unphysical.
[@] There are many systems of units in common >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use. You seem to think there is only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
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".
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
[snip yet another completely unrelated article]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.
And still not a word about what 'implied units' might be,
Jan
"What can't you reaD? This has been all about it."
Hmm..., not very helpful.
Force: is parameterized by time,
force is a function of time.
In Einstein's theory, "Relativity",
"Relativity" has that the Space-Time
is an differential-system of inertial-systems,
parameterized by a "the time".
So, it's implicit, and the implicits here reflect
paramterizations of functions who symbolic representations
represent algebraic quantities, and "implicit" has
its usual meaning from differential analysis.
Then, implicits like "the infinitely-many implicit
quantitiers in front of each variable in a logical
expression", gets into quantification, and, quantification.
The "usual" meaning(s).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:29:06 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,568 |