On 04/27/2024 10:46 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Hi Ng
I had read recently something from Tom Bearden.
He wrote, that scalar waves are longitudinal waves, which vary in
velocity and are acompanied by a wave, which runs backwards in time.
The idea is a little strange and would require to give up the constancy
of the speed of light in vacuum, but to allow a variation of the speed
of light in vacuum.
This would cause a wavelike behavior, but longitudinal (opposite to
classical em-waves).
This behaviour was called 'polarized in the time-domain'.
Is this somehow correct?
(The 'backwards in time wave' is actually no prblem for me, because I
had assumed something similar before.)
TH
It only goes backward, if at all: zero, so, ....
What that models is that there is a region, all the region
of the affected course of the wave, that is a "locale",
that is a locality, and that according to observer
effect and "real wave collapse", of a superclassical
wave of a locale an extended region, that the "real
wave collapse" is "superclassical flux", i.e. instantaneous.
I.e., the only reason "model of a wave backward in time
as if time was a dimension not a ray", is because,
otherwise it's "model of a wave instantaneous in an
extended region of space". It's only a projection,
because, the real perspective, is a regional perspective,
which is the locale, not just the point perspective.
Waves are considered general models of change in open systems.
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
Actually meant were:
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
On 04/29/2024 11:10 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000030, 30.04.2024 um 07:55 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had
to have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
Actually meant were:
lightyears and years.
And c = 1 lightyear/year
This is (trivially) true, but has units.
TH
...
The reason to require a unit for c:
EVERY physical quantity is composed from a numerical value and a unit!
In case you would like to use something called 'natural unit(-s)' as
unit, this would be perfectly ok, but only if - say - 'nu' is properly
defined.
If you like to define 'nu' you would end up in a dilemma, because c is
assumed to be 1 one these natural units.
That would be a definititon, which is based on itself (what is not
allowed).
Such a 'circular' definition is something, which is referring to itself.
Such definitions violate important principles of logic.
TH
The dimensional analysis of course is the attachment of a mathematical
model to a physical model at all, then with regards to usual
"dimensions" being quantitative and geometrical.
The dimensionless really does have any number of "balanced implicits"
in it. Any sort of "1 unit/unit" is a thing, and as well in the
quantities, "1 goes-to-1-from-the-left/goes-to-1-from-the-right",
sort of arrives at the same thing.
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
say, that c is one.
The dimensional analysis of course is the attachment of a mathematical
model to a physical model at all, then with regards to usual
"dimensions" being quantitative and geometrical.
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.
Of course you can, and people (who know better than you)
Your misunderstandings in a nushell.
All it says is that 'length' and 'time' are measured in the same unit.
(apart from an inconvenient numerical factor)
This is precisely what all working physicists have been doing
ever since the abolition of the meter as an independent unit
at the 17th CIPM, 1983.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.
You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and
dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.
The dimensional analysis of course is the attachment of a mathematical
model to a physical model at all, then with regards to usual
"dimensions" being quantitative and geometrical.
The dimensionless really does have any number of "balanced implicits"
in it. Any sort of "1 unit/unit" is a thing, and as well in the
quantities, "1 goes-to-1-from-the-left/goes-to-1-from-the-right",
sort of arrives at the same thing.
Well, in reality 1 means a natural dimensionless number.
Nonsense. That 'dimensionless' doesn't belong there.
And 1 being a natural number doesn't have a meaning.
It is, by the mathematical definition of natural number.
Having no units says, that c is unitless and has only the numerical value 1.
Your misunderstandings in a nushell.
All it says is that 'length' and 'time' are measured in the same unit.
(apart from an inconvenient numerical factor)
This is precisely what all working physicists have been doing
ever since the abolition of the meter as an independent unit
at the 17th CIPM, 1983.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.05.2024 um 09:46 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to >> have units.
You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.
Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.
'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.
On 05/02/2024 11:56 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000001, 01.05.2024 um 09:46 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to >>> have units.
You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and
dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.
Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.
Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.
E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.
Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.
'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.
E.g. if you measure a distance, than the measure has the dimension 'length', even if you don't use the meter as unit, but angström, light-years or fourlongs instead.
...
TH
In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.
So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.
The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.
So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.
The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
Am Samstag000004, 04.05.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
Or, there's a physical constant.
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to >>>> have units.
You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and
dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.
Sure, you measure physical quantities.
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.
See? You are hopelessly confused betwen units and dimensions.
What you measure is a current in Amps.
One may asign a dimension [Current] to the unit Ampere.
wThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Samstag000004, 04.05.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)
On 05/05/2024 02:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
In mathematical logic, often there's something like a quantifier,
that there are explicit quantifiers, and implicit quantifiers.
So, sort of like dimensional analysis, is a quantifier analysis,
representing fixed or free parameters, and the implicitly
infinitely-many quantifiers, in front of a given classical
quantifier.
The quantities, are results of derivations, to represent measurables,
or the "real" and "virtual" quantities that result real quantities
that are measurables.
So, quantities are often results of infinite expressions and
thusly completions of infinite limits or continuum limits.
The dimensional analysis and what results the dimensionless,
gets into degrees of freedom as independent parameters, then
also gets into the implicits. The quantities are not purely
algebraic, yet ensconced in their derivations.
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,
Jan
It's more the point that classical mechanics has a richer
system of implicitly involved dimensions with regards to
the derivations of the equations or formulas of systems
of moving bodies and the dynamics of change, in the
orbifold of the orbits of the geodesy of moving bodies
their world-lines and trajectories, that length and
distance and metric and norm have separate derivational
attributes as systemic.
Am Sonntag000005, 05.05.2024 um 23:27 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
wThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Samstag000004, 04.05.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
A physical system has attributes.
These attributes can be measured.
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).
Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)
???
Before you measure something, you need to define WHAT you measure.
Without such a definition a measurement would be nonsense.
E.g. you have a multimeter and read out e.g. '204.5' from the display.
Now such a value makes no sense at all, if you do not say, what this
value is meant to measure.
In case of 'length' you need to say, what is meant with this word.
Something like 'spatial distance along a straight line' would be part of
that definition and that these distances can be summed up and these
partial distances may be infinetesially small.
Something in that realm would be a definition of 'length'.
And once you measure something similar, you need to say, that this measurement should be understood as length, even if the line measured is
not streigth, but e.g the circumference of a circle.
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
For example, your tape rule, or balance, or... may have a marking
that says 'not for purposes of trade'.
What it says is an impression only.
Selling goods using it is illegal,
and will be punishable.
BTW, setting standards for weights and measures
is one of the oldest functions of the state,
going back as least 4 000 years,
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.
Simple example:
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the
size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not
the measured distance.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.
Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.
Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.
Simple example:
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the
size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not
the measured distance.
You forget the only length unit that is still in everyday use,
the second, up to an unconvenient conversion factor.
Do I really need to remind you again that the meter has been abolished
as a primary standard, and that all length measurements
must (by the definition of the meter) be calibrated in seconds?
W dniu 07.05.2024 oÂ 18:42, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.
Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities
of the measurement results.
Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.
Simple example:
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the >>> size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not
the measured distance.
You forget the only length unit that is still in everyday use,
the second, up to an unconvenient conversion factor.
Do I really need to remind you again that the meter has been abolished
as a primary standard, and that all length measurements
must (by the definition of the meter) be calibrated in seconds?
Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like SI-units.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
On 2024-05-07 07:43:50 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like SI-units.
In a measurement only one unit is used so there is no requirement on system.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined.
You need not use a defined system of dimensions. You may define your own dimension system. For example, you can define a system whith different dimensions for horizontal and vertical distances.
Am Dienstag000007, 07.05.2024 um 18:53 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 07.05.2024 o 18:42, J. J. Lodder pisze:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000006, 06.05.2024 um 13:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
On 2024-05-06 09:36:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.
Possibly. Or the manufacturer or certifier or the national
laboratory may have a reference that they compare directly
to the definition.
Certainly. Whatever,
the point is and remains that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to an SI standard.
In many cases this is even required by law.
Whatever is doing the calibrating must be a state-approved agency.
Well, no!
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.
Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined. >>>
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities >>> of the measurement results.
Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.
Simple example:
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the >>> size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not >>> the measured distance.
You forget the only length unit that is still in everyday use,
the second, up to an unconvenient conversion factor.
Do I really need to remind you again that the meter has been abolished
as a primary standard, and that all length measurements
must (by the definition of the meter) be calibrated in seconds?
Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.
The dimensions 'time' and 'length' are different, hence you cannot
define units of length by units of time.
Right. Only final results of measurements should be converted.
Our American frieds may have problems with this,
so they may crash a Mars lander every now and then.
And aforteriori, there is never any need for any 'dimension'
in anny measurement proces.
Again, your 'are' is wrong.
What you should say is:
'my preferred dimensions of length and time are different'
Again again, a 'dimension' is NOT a property of a physical quantity,
it is a property you assign to it, in any way you please.
(as long as you are consistent about it)
The usual notion of various coordinate settings,
each having a metric and norm in the near and far field,
yet, only after some affine (if that) transformation,
or even the "non-linear" or "highly-non-linear" in
the dynamics of the relativistic extremes, resulting
yet all what is overall an isotropic and flat space-time,
makes that tensors are a very general claim of the
conformal mapping, with regards to, Regge map and Ricci tensor.
You can use any other consistent system of units, if you don't like
SI-units.
Certainly, and you can use any other system of dimensions
than the one that is conventionally associated with the SI.
But actually I was talking about dimensions and how those are defined. >>>>>
That term refers to WHAT is measured, while units define the quantities >>>>> of the measurement results.
Sure, you can invent your own definitions,
but that is not how the term 'dimension' is used in physics.
Simple example:
you have a distance of roughly 1 meter and want to measure that.
you could use inch, yards, forlongs, lightseconds, Angstroem, mm and the >>>>> size of the emperors feet.
The choice of a unit would only influence the numerical value, but not >>>>> the measured distance.
You forget the only length unit that is still in everyday use,
the second, up to an unconvenient conversion factor.
Do I really need to remind you again that the meter has been abolished >>>> as a primary standard, and that all length measurements
must (by the definition of the meter) be calibrated in seconds?
Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies, Lod.
The dimensions 'time' and 'length' are different, hence you cannot
define units of length by units of time.
Again, your 'are' is wrong.
What you should say is:
'my preferred dimensions of length and time are different'
Again again, a 'dimension' is NOT a property of a physical quantity,
it is a property you assign to it, in any way you please.
(as long as you are consistent about it)
On 05/09/2024 01:02 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 05/09/2024 12:55 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000008, 08.05.2024 um 22:13 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
...
The usual notion of various coordinate settings,
each having a metric and norm in the near and far field,
yet, only after some affine (if that) transformation,
or even the "non-linear" or "highly-non-linear" in
the dynamics of the relativistic extremes, resulting
yet all what is overall an isotropic and flat space-time,
makes that tensors are a very general claim of the
conformal mapping, with regards to, Regge map and Ricci tensor.
????????
Do you use software to generate buzz-words randomly??
(or drugs)??????
TH
I am a regular user: of caffeine and nicotine.
Caffeine: beams of light,
Nicotine: the five-minute RAM doubler.
... And that is all.
Neither gets either blame nor respect
for I write all my own words, courtesy
all the experienced mutual influences, of my
schooling, learning, education, and practice.
Once they studied people who'd grown up
in the cold mountains, and those who'd
grown up on the hot seaside. What they
found was, less oxygen and heat overall
was better for most people.
The "scalar infinity", and natural units
where the unit is also a limit, make for
much reflection about total inversion about
points, near zero, and, going to infinity.
...And getting there.
MfG / E.S. / keine Beleidigung beabstichticht
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tODnCZvVtLg&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=12
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 146:32:09 |
Calls: | 6,931 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,392 |
Messages: | 5,437,206 |