Re: Fundamental Unit
mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 06/09/04
- Next message: MorituriMax: "Re: Reality"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- In reply to: Pathikrit: "Fundamental Unit"
- Next in thread: Tom Potter: "Re: Fundamental Unit"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Fundamental Unit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:27:23 GMT
In article <f1f25543.0406090101.650961fd@posting.google.com>, pathikritb@hotmail.com (Pathikrit) writes:
>Should'nt charge (Coulomb) instead of current (Ampere) be a fundamental unit ?
What unit is considered "fundamental" is a matter of practicality,
nothing else.
>Can anyone plz tell why has current been chosen instead of charge.
Because it is easier to perform precise measurements of current than
of charge. Practicality.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
- Next message: MorituriMax: "Re: Reality"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- In reply to: Pathikrit: "Fundamental Unit"
- Next in thread: Tom Potter: "Re: Fundamental Unit"
- Reply: Tom Potter: "Re: Fundamental Unit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|