• Scalar waves

    From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 28 07:46:54 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 29 06:36:45 2024
    Am Sonntag000028, 28.04.2024 um 18:19 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    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.

    I had written this 'book':

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

    There I use a certain mathematical construct about which I assume, that
    nature would behave similarly on a very fundamental level.

    This contains an expansion and a contraction (wave), which build a
    standing wave and that 'timelike stable structures', which I assume to
    be what we call 'matter'.

    The concept is therefor called 'structured spacetime'.

    The wave and the anti-wave are actually connected, because the world is
    assumed to be composed from anti-symmetric pointlike elements of
    spacetime. These are connected with the neighbors, as if these elements
    would twist each other in a certain mathematical way, as if they were multiplied to the neighbours like quaternions (actually bi-quaternions).

    Now it easy to assume, that the negative timeline is regarded as
    positive for a comoving observer, who in turn would regard our timeline
    as negative.

    That is quite an unusual concept, but would make sense (at least to me).


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 30 07:55:34 2024
    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
    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 30 08:10:19 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 30 10:44:39 2024
    W dniu 30.04.2024 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
    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.

    Yes, they can. They can even say it's natural.
    Oh, they're true idiots.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 1 08:18:45 2024
    Am Mittwoch000001, 01.05.2024 um 07:27 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    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.


    Well, in reality 1 means a natural dimensionless number.

    Having no units says, that c is unitless and has only the numerical value 1.

    Since it assumed to be measured in 'natural units' (called 'nu' here),
    these nu have to cancel out, because nu would also have to have
    dimensions (because ALL physical quantities have numerical value and dimension).

    Since c=1=nu/nu

    these 'nu' things must be equal in dimensions and numerical value.

    But we know also, that c ~= 300.000 km/s

    The assumption is: 300.000 km/s =c =1

    But, how do we get rid of the dimensions 'length' and 'time' in the
    usual speed of light measure?

    This would require :

    300000 km/s =1
    hence
    1nu=300.000 km =1 s = 1nu

    hence:

    c*t=1 nu

    That would define 'nu'.

    But this is not allowed, because that would be a 'circular definition',
    because c is already based on nu.


    ...


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed May 1 09:46:08 2024
    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.

    You cannot deduce anything from a clash of dimensions
    beyond the undeniable fact that you have made a mistake.

    Now 1 has no units whatsoever (because it is just a number) you cannot
    say, that c is one.

    Of course you can, and people (who know better than you)
    do it all the time.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed May 1 09:46:09 2024
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:


    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.

    Right. Dimensional analysis is meta-analysis.
    It doesn't analyse Nature,
    it analyses systems of equations used to describe Nature.

    If, in addition, you introduce systems of units
    to go with those equations the dimensional considerations
    naturally transfer to those units.

    All this is completely irrelevant, as far as Nature is concerned.
    For that you need to go back to the original equations,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 1 11:21:11 2024
    W dniu 01.05.2024 o 09:46, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
    limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

    Oh, your idiot guru has refuted this common sense
    prejudice and demonstrated us consistency isn't
    necessary in physics.


    Of course you can, and people (who know better than you)

    Or at least they believe they do...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 1 11:23:54 2024
    W dniu 01.05.2024 o 09:46, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    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.

    Not quite. Just like Like other groups of religious
    cranks - you only pretend ou're obeying the rules
    you've officially announced.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 3 08:56:23 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 3 08:46:27 2024
    Am Mittwoch000001, 01.05.2024 um 09:46 schrieb J. J. Lodder:


    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.


    The symbol '1' has a meaning: it is meant as numerical value 'one'.

    Since it is a number only, it contains no units or dimensions of
    whatever kind.

    This is the meaning of the term 'number'.

    Physical quantities are never numbers only, because any quantity is
    composed of a numerical value and a definition, to what that number belongs.

    Since c=1 means 'the speed of light in vacuum is always one', the
    dimensions 'length' and 'time' in c=~ ckm/s' must have somehow vanished (mysteriously).

    In our usual world you cannot cancel km and seconds, hence in the realm
    of light-speed space and time must be of the same dimension (otherwise
    they could not be canceled).

    The number 300.000 is no big deal, of course, and we could use
    lightseconds and seconds instead of km and seconds.

    BUT: still lightsecond is a unit of length, which you must not cancel
    with seconds.

    TH




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 5 08:00:05 2024
    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).


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Sun May 5 23:18:03 2024
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> 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.

    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.
    (which is what is done in the conventional system of dimensions
    for the SI)
    You may also measure it in another system of units,
    and assign other dimensions to it.
    Even for the SI you can define other systems of dimensions.

    Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
    they should make sense in physics.

    Wrong.

    Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.

    Again, wrong.

    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.

    The simple fact that you can define different systems of dimensions
    for the same system of units should make it clear
    that you are mistaken in this.
    Perhaps you should look up the formal definition of 'dimension'
    in general.

    Your problem is that you know nothing at all about dimensions
    beyond the -conventional- system of dimensions
    that is usually associated with the SI.

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun May 5 23:18:03 2024
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    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 angstrm, 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.

    Right. A system of dimensions is just a consistent mapping
    of a system of equations into a finite-dimensional algebra,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to wThomas Heger on Sun May 5 23:27:54 2024
    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)

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 07:35:31 2024
    Am Sonntag000005, 05.05.2024 um 23:18 schrieb J. J. Lodder:


    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.

    No, that's wrong.

    Any measurement measures something real.

    This measured something is the real entity and has some attributes,
    which we can eventually measure.

    So we have e.g. some current in a wire and want to measure the strength
    of this current.

    The current strength is an attribut of the electric current, but no
    current itself.

    Therefore the Ampere measures the strength of electrical current, which
    is therefore the dimension, to which the unit Ampere belongs.

    The unit is only altering the numerical value of the measurement, but
    not the measured quantity, if the units are changed (e.g. to milliAmps).

    TH




    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 6 07:26:56 2024
    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.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon May 6 11:36:27 2024
    Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

    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.

    Again, your -has- is fundamentally wrong.
    a dimension is a human construct,
    it is not a property of a physical quantity,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Mon May 6 11:36:27 2024
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    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.

    No need for all that at all.
    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.

    None of your verbiage is needed for any of this.
    Nothing but calibrations and comparisons involved.

    And of course it is just the same for other physical quantities,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon May 6 13:48:16 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Mon May 6 13:52:52 2024
    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,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 7 09:43:50 2024
    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.

    I personally dislike the so called 'imperial units'. But those are
    consistent and well defined, too.

    Or you invent something on your own and use that.

    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.

    Science and trade are not exactly the same thing.

    Sure, for trade, especially international trade, you need agreements
    about the used measures.

    But that is a different topic and political in nature.

    BTW, setting standards for weights and measures
    is one of the oldest functions of the state,
    going back as least 4 000 years,


    Sure.

    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.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Tue May 7 18:42:30 2024
    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?

    And yes, that includes your tape rule,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 7 18:53:49 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 8 08:04:10 2024
    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.

    That idea itself stems from Einstein's SRT.

    But Einstein's SRT is in my view a bunch of crap.


    If you actually do that and define the meter by a certain fraction of
    the lightsecond, you need the lightsecond in the first place.

    To define the lightsecond, you would need the speed of light and the second.

    To define the speed of light, you would need the meter.

    Now we get apparently a 'circular definition' (what is not allowed),
    because the meter is based on the speed of light.


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed May 8 12:15:05 2024
    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 usint 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.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Wed May 8 14:52:33 2024
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    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.

    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.
    The main use of 'dimensions' is to have something
    to teach to the kiddies, to set exam questions about.
    Real scientists don't need them to know what to do.

    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.

    Indeed, 'pilots units' from one of my postings of long long ago.
    Pilots measure vertical distances in feet,
    and horizontal distances in (nautical) miles.
    So their glide angle is in feet per mile. [1]
    Whether or not you define a systems of dimensions
    to go with those units is, just like you say, optional.

    Jan

    [1] Real piots do have a very good idea of what the value of it is.
    It really helps when you are going to park your Airbus,
    in the Hudson river.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Thomas Heger on Wed May 8 14:52:33 2024
    Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

    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.

    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)

    Jan

    --
    The best system of dimensions of all is the trivial one:
    dimension = [I] for every physical quantity.
    You can't go wrong with it.
    It is obviously consistent, hence a valid system of dimensions,
    and length and time do obviously have the same dimension.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 8 15:18:08 2024
    W dniu 08.05.2024 o 14:52, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    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.

    Sure, true measurement is a liturgy in which
    a physicist unite with The Nature to speak in
    Her name. No dimensions needed for that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 8 15:20:46 2024
    W dniu 08.05.2024 o 14:52, J. J. Lodder pisze:

    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)

    After all these years - it's still amazing how
    completely physicists are lost in their delusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 9 09:55:08 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 9 09:49:40 2024
    Am Mittwoch000008, 08.05.2024 um 14:52 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

    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)


    No!

    See here:
    https://www.me.psu.edu/cimbala/Learning/General/units.htm

    Quote:

    "There is a difference between dimensions and units. A dimension is a
    measure of a physical variable (without numerical values), while a unit
    is a way to assign a number or measurement to that dimension.

    For example, length is a dimension, but it is measured in units of feet
    (ft) or meters (m). "


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 10 18:46:20 2024
    Am Donnerstag000009, 09.05.2024 um 22:18 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
    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


    (Sorry for my comment above...

    Now I'm listening to your video.)


    I had some years ago contact with professor Peter Rowland.

    He wrote a book 'From zero to infinity':

    https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Infinity-Foundations-Physics-Everything/dp/9812709142

    Its extremely difficult to read, but I think you will like it.

    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)