Re: Fraud in Experimental and Theoretical Science


Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139958498.991011.57220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1139956403.313293.229980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Whew. For a moment I thought you'd really lost it, spaceman.
| > | Now we've at least established that
| > | distance = speed x time,
| > | because that's how you do it, as well.
| > | And, by the way, that's how the distance that light goes in that
| > | interval of time is determined as well.
| > | distance = speed x time.
| >
| > Yes, PD,
| > that is what I am stating.
| > You are using a speed to derive a distance.
|
| This is true. At least I'm not stating a distance IS a speed, as you
| were saying before.

It is still basically using such
Let me rephrase it
a distance = a speed per a time.

OK, as long as you turn this colloquial usage into math as distance =
speed x time, we're good. This, by the way, is the reason why algebra
is used so commonly in physics presentations -- it's a lot less
ambiguous. To you, "per" can translate into "x" mathematically, though
for most scientists "per" implies "/" and would thus tend to confuse.

It is still using a "speed"
It is still stupid for a standard.

|
| What's wrong with it?

It mixes standard dimension to find one standard dimension.
That is very stupid.


| We do this all the time. Remember the *standard* for electric charge is
| coulomb, defined to be an ampere*second.

Electric charge is not a base "dimension" of science.
It is an abstract of such dimensions.

Ah, now you're on to something. You are in fact correct. In a very real
sense, a meter is no longer considered a "base unit" of science. That
is, length is no longer a base dimension that is defined independently
of time. Before relativity was thoroughly experimentally confirmed, the
two were considered independent. Einstein and especially Minkowski
argued 90 years ago that they probably didn't need to be considered to
be independent, and they stated the reasons why this was so. Following
that came years of experimental verification of those reasons, and
following that came the active discussion among scientists that
convinced all of the following:
1. Space and time are not independent dimensions;
2. The unit of space (meter) and the unit of time (second) are
different only because of historical reasons and not because of
physical reasons;
3. The value of c is simply a conversion factor that converts seconds
to meters or meters to seconds, with no more physical significance than
the number that converts joules to calories or horsepower to watts or
centimeters to inches.
4. Therefore it makes perfectly good physical sense to *define* meters
in terms of seconds (where the standard of the latter is the only one
that needs to be independently defined), using the conversion constant,
in the same way that inches are *defined* in terms of centimeters using
a conversion factor.

If it were true that meter was a base unit independent of a second,
then it would indeed be stupid to define one in terms of the other. But
the meter is no longer a base unit, independent of the second.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with NIST.

PD

But ofcourse, you live in the rubber ruler spacetime
as one dimension joke, so maybe you will escape
if you ever break the brainwashing.
But, as it looks (observer wise) you are stuck
in rubber ruler land forever since you refuse to
allow such an attack on your religion of relativity type of views.
You are worshipping relatvity basically.
It is real sad for you.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast