(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
Taken from:
[brevity snip, see OP's 1st post...]

My definition of physics:
Physics is the search for the smallest set of rules

Is smallest relative?

by which we can completely describe the behavior of
inanimate matter

Is animate matter exempt from physics?

under natural circumstances.

Is there any other kind of circumstances?

Pardon the abrasiveness of my questions.
Recently, I've conjectured that all invariants
are pure numbers, and all pure numbers may
be set to 1 after adujusting units.

IMHO, every CS agrees 1 =1, then work from there.

Back when mechanics was thought to be the correct program to found all
of physics, it made sense to think of matter as fundamental and
irreducible, but since the advent of field theories this is not so
meaningful, as the material particle itself can be modeled as a
"localization" or accumulization of field, like the bunching up of a
tablecloth.
Patrick

This "bunching up" in a GR context is equivalent to where
a particle exists in the *probability field* of QM.

The denser the table clothe gets in GR the higher the
energy density, (using G_uv = kT_uv).

Likewise, the denser the table clothe gets, the more
probablity the particle is there in QM.

So G_uv = Psi'_u Psi_v,

Please see,

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Is the Gravitational Constant Relativistic?

Today I posted a means to unify invariants.

Regards Ken S. Tucker