Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #654488

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

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.
Date	2024-06-26 09:20 +0200
Message-ID	<le1tppF8524U5@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <fridnXzRMeebPOr7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6677e170$0$11724$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <GgOdnRiQkYyT3ef7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <ldv7jcFpoddU9@mid.individual.net> <hRycnWu7NvCFvub7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 22:05 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> 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".

'physical' means 'somehow observable'.

But that means only a certain subset of reality, which is in the 
observable realm.

Now we need to find a super-set of our reality, which behaves similar to 
our observable world, if we apply certain plausible 'visibility conditions'.

I found such a superset and called that 'spacetime'.

Matter in this view is a sub-set of spacetime and what I call 'timelike 
stable patterns' (in 'structured spacetime).



> 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 imaginary parts of complex numbers are actually real.

this is quite astonishing, but imho true.

So our universe was assumed (by me) to function similar to a field of 
'bi-quaternions', which are connected in a certain way, that you may 
call 'rotations'.

This is a certain multiplicative 'sideways' connection of pointlike 
'elements of spacetime' .

In case you are interested, you could read my 'book':


https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
...


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

csiph-web