Re: Units of IBD


John Edser wrote:

> JE:-
> I noted EK's list. All of them remain "dimensionless quantities" within
> mathematics but none of them are "dimensionless quantities" when they become
> employed within a valid theory of science. This is because they become
> irreversibly combined with other numbers that are not " dimensionless
> quantities". This is the reason why I asked EK to provide an EMPIRICAL
> example, i.e. an example of these numbers used within a scientific
> proposition.

Well stated, John.

Jim


.

Quantcast