Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382153

Re: Particle Physics

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Particle Physics
Date	2016-04-23 15:53 +0200
Organization	@somewhere
Message-ID	<nffup5$ri7$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <nfd4jo$lmq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dnv6gjFrsupU1@mid.individual.net> <a8idnSKNzdWW8ofKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <dnvftkFua8vU1@mid.individual.net> <nfftj1$pka$3@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Op 23-apr-2016 om 15:33 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> On 4/22/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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'.
>>
>> It can be a small number or a large number. So we could measure tiny
>> distances and extremely large ones with the same unit.
>>
>> For convenience we could measure atoms in very small units and stars
>> with light-years. But that's is not necessary. Meters are possible for
>> all possible distances.
>>
>> To leave out the meter in a measurement would make things difficult,
>> since nobody could interpret a certain number (say 453), if we do not
>> declare, which kind of units we would like to count with it.
>
> Fine, so keep the meter. Use it for time, too. One meter of time is a
> little over 3 ns. Now you have ONE unit that you can use to measure both
> time and space. There's absolutely no reason to retain two.

Provided they can wrap their mind around local light
speed invariance. Which they obviously can't. Bet?

Dirk Vdm

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