Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382193

Re: Particle Physics

Show all headers | View raw

Am 23.04.2016 23:43, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 4/22/16 4/22/16 3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.04.2016 20:35, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> So when we say something has a length of 1 meter, what we actually
>>> mean is
>>> that the ratio of its length to the standard length of a meter is 1.
>>
>> No! If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length,
>> then a
>> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.
>
> You say "No!", and then say something equivalent to what I said.
> You REALLY need to learn basic logic.
>

You tried to justify, that the units are omitted in a measure. I had 
rejected this idea, since the dimensions are an essential part.

If - for example - you have '220 Volts' and leave the units, you have 
only '220'.

And I rejected this method, even if the meaning of the numbers would be 
clear from the context, since I regard it as 'bad practise'.

To say c=1 and claim this would be 'natural' is in my eyes nonsense.

c=1 would require units. To have the number 1 the unit of length must be 
'light-seconds', if time units of seconds are used.

so light moves in vacuum with 1 ls /s.

This is actually true, since it is a tautology.


>> But what do have against 'm/s' (or another type of dimension)?
>
> Nothing. But 1 is indeed more convenient than 299,792,458 m/s.
>
>> Only: 'time' and 'space' do not denote the same subject.
>
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
>
> While we humans do experience them differently, our best models of the
> world put
> them on equal footings (i.e. as the same "subject").

You want to use units against their intended purpose and measure length 
with a clock and time with a meter stick.

There might be a connection, but still you may not use the units in 
other ways then according to their definition.
>
>> So I wonder, why you would like to use the same unit for things, that
>> would
>> deserve their own units.
>
> Because:
> A) "Deserve different units" is a HISTORICAL claim, not based on the
> PHYSICS
> B) Natural units reflect a symmetry of our best model of the world
> C) Natural units simplify many calculations
> D) Natural units are CONCEPTUALLY simpler

I totally agree about most of this ideas. But still you cannot leave out 
these natural units (like light-seconds).

TH

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

Thread

Particle Physics Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:09 -0700
  Re: Particle Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 19:42 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 06:42 +0200
      Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:14 -0500
        Re: Particle Physics David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:01 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 19:49 +0200
          Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:06 -0500
            Re: Particle Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-23 01:37 +0200
          Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-22 13:35 -0500
            Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 22:29 +0200
              Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-22 23:32 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 06:15 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 22:25 -0700
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 23:18 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:55 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-23 15:53 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 20:36 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:59 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-23 16:43 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-24 07:16 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:02 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-25 06:55 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:07 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-26 22:24 +0200

csiph-web