Jump to content

Talk:Base unit of measurement/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Sodium (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Little_guru (talk)
No edit summary
Line 162: Line 162:


''[[little_guru]]''
''[[little_guru]]''




----
----



Removed - there didn't seem to be anything of substance. Also I don't think 'fundamental dimension' is not a common/proper term. -- [[sodiumtheperson|sodium]]

'''Removed - there didn't seem to be anything of substance. Also I don't think 'fundamental dimension' is not a common/proper term.



[[sodiumtheperson|sodium]]'''





Revision as of 17:46, 8 December 2001

I'm not sure about the tone of this article. Doesn't this discussion belong under 'dimensional analysis'? --


The Anome


Hmm, nah, I've added this new page as a link to the physics page under the "Concepts" paragraph.


Little_guru


Yes, you did that, but the question is whether a link to dimensional analysis (and maybe adding some information to that page) wouldn't have sufficed.


AxelBoldt


And whilst we're at it, what about geometric algebra? (See http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~clifford/introduction/intro/intro.html for a discussion). --


The Anome


I worked as a computer science technician in 2 different Electrotechnical labs, and I can assure you that imaginary numbers exist in the calculus of alternate currents.


Is this what you were aiming to talk about?


Little_guru


No, I'm not claming that complex numbers don't exist. I was talking about vector sums between quantities of different dimensions. Of course all of these notations are abstractions - do the natural numbers 'exist' in reality? How 'real' they (and all the other abstractions) are in physical theory has only to do with the falsifiability of their predictions.


The Anome




I think this material is (or should be covered) on dimensional analysis. Also, the tone is too colloquial here.


AxelBoldt




So what Axelboldt, you don't like having a small_talk once every while?


little_guru




... and that we CAN NOT obviously add a Time measurement (say 5 seconds) to a Length measurement (say 1 mile) because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense.


It would make quite lot of sense. In fact, it's quite often being done in physics.


5 seconds + 1 mile = 5.0000053681938 seconds = 931412.99 miles.


Taw



Sorry, but i got to disagree with that Taw.


  • Because V=S/t where


    • V = Velocity


    • S = Space


    • t = Time


  • Because 1 mile=1.609 Kilometers


  • Because the speed of light is 300,000,000 km/sec that is 186,451,211 miles per second


  • Because of the fact that a light ray needs 0,000005363 seconds to "run" for a mile (that is 5,36E-6 in exp notation)



What are you adding?


Duh?


5 oranges + 1 apple = 5.0000053681938 oranges = 931412.99 apples


LOL


We could become MILLIONAIRES at the speed of light in selling fruit! (apples of course)


ROTFL



Q.E.D.


little_guru




Removed - there didn't seem to be anything of substance. Also I don't think 'fundamental dimension' is not a common/proper term.


sodium