Hi NG

there is something, what I don't like.

That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.

In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
the equal sign.

I could, on the other hand, say:

1m =100 cm

because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
sides of the equal sign.

But c=1 is based on this equality:

1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m

But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.

Actually meant with c=1 was:

c=1 lightsecond per second

But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.

If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.

TH

Le 17/08/2022 à 07:59, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.

I don't like this way either.

It's not very elegant.

> TH

R.H.

Op 17-aug.-2022 om 07:59 schreef Thomas Heger:
> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>
> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> the equal sign.
>
> I could, on the other hand,  say:
>
> 1m =100 cm
>
> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> sides of the equal sign.
>
> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>
> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>
> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.

Writing c = 1 is not "equating" 1 s with (rougly) 300,000,000 m.
Writing c = 1 is "*choosing units* such that light covers one
unit of distance in one unit of time". In that mindset, we no
longer have the second and the meter as the units of time and
distance.

>
> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>
> c=1 lightsecond per second

Yes, and when we *omit* the units (as below), this becomes c = 1.

>
> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.

Working in the system of SI-units, we can throw all units out
of our equations. The equations for the sentence
"when we cover 10 meters in 2 seconds, our speed is
5 meters per second"
are:
d = 10 m
t = 2 s
v = d/t = 5 m/s
but when we adopt the SI-units convention, we can write
d = 10
t = 2
v = d/t = 5
because we have a convention for the units, and the reader
is assumed to be aware of that.
In these latter three equations we have not "cancelled" the
units. We have *omitted* them because we have a convention
for the units.

Imagine a physics or engineering book where all the units
are explicitly present in all the equations. In our books
we omit the units.
Have you ever *opened* a physics or engineering book?
Good grief.

Dirk Vdm

>
> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
>
> TH
>
>

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.

Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.

> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.

Entirely a matter of choice.

> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> the equal sign.

Your problem.

> I could, on the other hand, say:
>
> 1m =100 cm
>
> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> sides of the equal sign.
>
> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>
> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m

Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.

> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.

This a very common misunderstanding,
fostered these day by an SI-only education.
Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.

> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>
> c=1 lightsecond per second

Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...

> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.

See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.

> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.

Nothing circular about it. You have length, speed, and time.
You must give definitions for two of them,
and then you can measure the third.
Olden days: length and time defined, speed measured.
Nowadays: time and speed defined, length measured.

You just need to get used to it,

Jan

PS You may wish to have a look at the tutorial I wrote some time ago
in that other SPR to explain why the speed of light cannot be measured.
If it would help I could write a dumbed down version for use here.

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:

> Op 17-aug.-2022 om 07:59 schreef Thomas Heger:
> > Hi NG
> >
> > there is something, what I don't like.
> >
> > That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >
> > In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> > the equal sign.
> >
> > I could, on the other hand, say:
> >
> > 1m =100 cm
> >
> > because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> > sides of the equal sign.
> >
> > But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >
> > 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >
> > But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> Writing c = 1 is not "equating" 1 s with (rougly) 300,000,000 m.
> Writing c = 1 is "*choosing units* such that light covers one
> unit of distance in one unit of time". In that mindset, we no
> longer have the second and the meter as the units of time and
> distance.

More precisely: the second still is a primary unit.
The meter otoh has become a secondary unit,
defined in terms of the second.
(which is by now the only primary unit left in the SI)

The secondary meter standard needs to be calibrated
against its definition. The present best value
is that the meter equals 1579800.762042(33) wavelengths
of helium-neon laser light in a vacuum.
(of a stabilised laser with a specified construction)

Note that there is an uncertainty,

Jan

środa, 17 sierpnia 2022 o 07:59:31 UTC+2 Thomas Heger napisał(a):
> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>
> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> the equal sign.
>
> I could, on the other hand, say:
>
> 1m =100 cm
>
> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> sides of the equal sign.
>
> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>
> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>
> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>
> c=1 lightsecond per second
>
> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
>
> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
>
> TH

This is normal, and simplifies equations.

For example:

c'(r) = c*(1 - 2GM/c^2r)

then using c = 1 as convention of units this is:

c(r) = 1 - 2m/r

simpler?

On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 11:58:04 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Op 17-aug.-2022 om 07:59 schreef Thomas Heger:
> > > Hi NG
> > >
> > > there is something, what I don't like.
> > >
> > > That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> > >
> > > In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> > > the equal sign.
> > >
> > > I could, on the other hand, say:
> > >
> > > 1m =100 cm
> > >
> > > because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> > > sides of the equal sign.
> > >
> > > But c=1 is based on this equality:
> > >
> > > 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> > >
> > > But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >
> > Writing c = 1 is not "equating" 1 s with (rougly) 300,000,000 m.
> > Writing c = 1 is "*choosing units* such that light covers one
> > unit of distance in one unit of time". In that mindset, we no
> > longer have the second and the meter as the units of time and
> > distance.
> More precisely: the second still is a primary unit.
> The meter otoh has become a secondary unit,
> defined in terms of the second.
> (which is by now the only primary unit left in the SI)
>
> The secondary meter standard needs to be calibrated
> against its definition. The present best value
> is that the meter equals 1579800.762042(33) wavelengths
> of helium-neon laser light in a vacuum.
> (of a stabilised laser with a specified construction)
>
> Note that there is an uncertainty,

And that all serioud timekeeping systeems we have
(UTC, TAI, GPS) are ignoring this ideological
nonsense of a bunch of brainwashed halfbrains.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 2:58:04 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Op 17-aug.-2022 om 07:59 schreef Thomas Heger:
> > > Hi NG
> > >
> > > there is something, what I don't like.
> > >
> > > That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> > >
> > > In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> > > the equal sign.
> > >
> > > I could, on the other hand, say:
> > >
> > > 1m =100 cm
> > >
> > > because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> > > sides of the equal sign.
> > >
> > > But c=1 is based on this equality:
> > >
> > > 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> > >
> > > But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >
> > Writing c = 1 is not "equating" 1 s with (rougly) 300,000,000 m.
> > Writing c = 1 is "*choosing units* such that light covers one
> > unit of distance in one unit of time". In that mindset, we no
> > longer have the second and the meter as the units of time and
> > distance.
> More precisely: the second still is a primary unit.
> The meter otoh has become a secondary unit,
> defined in terms of the second.
> (which is by now the only primary unit left in the SI)
>
> The secondary meter standard needs to be calibrated
> against its definition. The present best value
> is that the meter equals 1579800.762042(33) wavelengths
> of helium-neon laser light in a vacuum.
> (of a stabilised laser with a specified construction)
>
> Note that there is an uncertainty,
>

Program Gamma by c and you get zero...
C is a speed through dimension that is not as simple as your one jan...

Mitchell Raemsch

Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi NG
>>
>> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
>
>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>
> Entirely a matter of choice.

No

'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
wavefront in a certain time interval.

v=dx/dt

This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.

To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.

I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
denote different phenomena.

What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.

E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
the numerical value would change with the used units.

What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.

>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
>> the equal sign.
>
> Your problem.

Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.

>> I could, on the other hand, say:
>>
>> 1m =100 cm
>>
>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
>> sides of the equal sign.
>>
>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>>
>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>
> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.

I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.

>
>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> This a very common misunderstanding,
> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.

???

I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
distance.

This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
which gives a certain measurement result.

This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
something.

>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>>
>> c=1 lightsecond per second
>
> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
???

Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.

Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
quantities of energy.

>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
>
> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
????

You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
statements.

The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
codified in the definition of the term 'time'.

This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
this word.

Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
around and stays usually at its place.

Now speed of something is actually quite the opposite, because it means
relative motion between something moving and something else.

To equate time intervals and speed*time intervals would not make sense,
because timekeeping devices do not necessarily move
>> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
>> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
>> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
>
> Nothing circular about it. You have length, speed, and time.
> You must give definitions for two of them,
> and then you can measure the third.
> Olden days: length and time defined, speed measured.
> Nowadays: time and speed defined, length measured.

Wrong

If you have three quantities, which depend on each other, you need to
define at least one independently.

If we take light speed in vacuum and assume, this would always be the
same, we could use light as base for the definition of two of these
quantities:

speed of light
meter
second

but only if the definition of at least one quantity is based on
something else (independent from light).

For speed we need two definitions:
distance (m)
duration (s)

Now we can only define the meter by a reference to light, if we know the
the second.

But light speed already needs meters and seconds, hence we cannot define
the meter as a fraction of light speed.

A valid method was actually the platinum bar in Paris, which used an
arbitrary standard for length, while the second was derived from the
rotation of the Earth.

Now the arbitrary length standard can be chosen, that speed of light
gets an easy to remember value.

....

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> there is something, what I don't like.
> >
> > Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> > It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
> >
> >> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >
> > Entirely a matter of choice.
>
> No
>
> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
> wavefront in a certain time interval.

Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
in one second, by the definition of the meter.

> v=dx/dt
>
> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
>
> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.

Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.

> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
> denote different phenomena.

Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.

> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
>
> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
> the numerical value would change with the used units.
>
> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.

What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
Standard example:
Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.

> >> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> >> the equal sign.
> >
> > Your problem.
>
> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.

Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.

> >> I could, on the other hand, say:
> >>
> >> 1m =100 cm
> >>
> >> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> >> sides of the equal sign.
> >>
> >> But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >>
> >> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >
> > Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
> > is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
>
> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.

Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
The SI came too early.

> >> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >
> > This a very common misunderstanding,
> > fostered these day by an SI-only education.
> > Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
> > They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
>
> ???
>
> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
> distance.

An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
It is not inherent in the thing.

> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
> which gives a certain measurement result.

All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
It is just that you didn't know it.
Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.

> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
> something.
>
> >> Actually meant with c=1 was:
> >>
> >> c=1 lightsecond per second
> >
> > Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
> ???
>
> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.

If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.

> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
> quantities of energy.

Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
as horsepower for example.
Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.

> >> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> >> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
> >
> > See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
> > It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
> ????
>
> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
> statements.

Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.

> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
>
> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
> this word.
>
> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
> around and stays usually at its place.

See under 'proper time'.

> Now speed of something is actually quite the opposite, because it means
> relative motion between something moving and something else.
>
> To equate time intervals and speed*time intervals would not make sense,
> because timekeeping devices do not necessarily move

The GPS system is unknown to you?

> >> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
> >> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
> >> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
> >
> > Nothing circular about it. You have length, speed, and time.
> > You must give definitions for two of them,
> > and then you can measure the third.
> > Olden days: length and time defined, speed measured.
> > Nowadays: time and speed defined, length measured.
>
> Wrong

This is history. History cannot be wrong, it is what it is.

> If you have three quantities, which depend on each other, you need to
> define at least one independently.

You really need two, if you want to measure things.

> If we take light speed in vacuum and assume, this would always be the
> same, we could use light as base for the definition of two of these
> quantities:
>
> speed of light
> meter
> second
>
> but only if the definition of at least one quantity is based on
> something else (independent from light).
>
> For speed we need two definitions:
> distance (m)
> duration (s)
>
> Now we can only define the meter by a reference to light, if we know the
> the second.
>
> But light speed already needs meters and seconds, hence we cannot define
> the meter as a fraction of light speed.

Maybe you should go there, and inform those people at NIST, or BIPM,
or the standards lab nearest to you, of the errors of their ways.
I think it would be more prodictive though
if you would try to understand what they are doing,
and why they are doing it this way.
(and why this is the right and only possible way of doing it)

> A valid method was actually the platinum bar in Paris, which used an
> arbitrary standard for length, while the second was derived from the
> rotation of the Earth.

Yes, but both long obsolete,
because they couldn't be reproduced with sufficient accuracy.

Both replaced more than once, as a matter of historical fact,

Jan

On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 12:00:32 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi NG
> > >>
> > >> there is something, what I don't like.
> > >
> > > Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> > > It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
> > >
> > >> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> > >
> > > Entirely a matter of choice.
> >
> > No
> >
> > 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
> > wavefront in a certain time interval.
> Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
> in one second, by the definition of the meter.

See, poor halfbrain - not everything derived from
definitions is true. Communism has created a lot
of fine examples, we can see them also in Orwellian
newspeak, and the mumble of your bunch of idiots
qualifies very well, too.

> > But light speed already needs meters and seconds, hence we cannot define
> > the meter as a fraction of light speed.
> Maybe you should go there, and inform those people at NIST, or BIPM,
> or the standards lab nearest to you, of the errors of their ways.

There is no reason for that. Anyone can check TAI -
they're not really stupid enough to really apply
your ideological nonsenses.

Am 18.08.2022 um 12:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi NG
>>>>
>>>> there is something, what I don't like.
>>>
>>> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
>>> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
>>>
>>>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>>>
>>> Entirely a matter of choice.
>>
>> No
>>
>> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
>> wavefront in a certain time interval.
>
> Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
> in one second, by the definition of the meter.
>
>> v=dx/dt
>>
>> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
>>
>> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.
>
> Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.
>
>> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
>> denote different phenomena.
>
> Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.
>
>> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
>>
>> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
>> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
>> the numerical value would change with the used units.
>>
>> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
>> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.
>
> What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
> Standard example:
> Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
> but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.
>
>>>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
>>>> the equal sign.
>>>
>>> Your problem.
>>
>> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.
>
> Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.
>
>>>> I could, on the other hand, say:
>>>>
>>>> 1m =100 cm
>>>>
>>>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
>>>> sides of the equal sign.
>>>>
>>>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>>>>
>>>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>>>
>>> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
>>> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
>>
>> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
>> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.
>
> Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
> And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
> If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
> in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
> The SI came too early.
>
>>>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>>>
>>> This a very common misunderstanding,
>>> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
>>> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
>>> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
>> distance.
>
> An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
> It is not inherent in the thing.
>
>> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
>> which gives a certain measurement result.
>
> All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
> It is just that you didn't know it.
> Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
> unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
> Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.
>
>> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
>> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
>> something.
>>
>>>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>>>>
>>>> c=1 lightsecond per second
>>>
>>> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
>> ???
>>
>> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.
>
> If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
> it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.
>
>> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
>> quantities of energy.
>
> Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
> Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
> Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
> as horsepower for example.
> Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
> to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.
>
>>>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
>>>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
>>>
>>> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
>>> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
>> ????
>>
>> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
>> statements.
>
> Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
> And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.
>
>> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
>> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
>>
>> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
>> this word.
>>
>> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
>> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
>> around and stays usually at its place.
>
> See under 'proper time'.

I use a diffent concept, which I call 'subjectivism'.

That goes like this:

the observer is always somewhere and that location provides a timelike
context, which I call 'time-domaine'.

The observer uses this context and uses therefor only local time (and
nothing else).

He can synchronize clocks only with other clocks in the same
time-domaine (like, for instanc,e we Earthlings with other Earthlings on
planet Earth).

This time is proper time by definition and others are not available.

This concept would usually not allow synchronisation of remote clocks,
because such clocks do not necessarily run into the same direction or
have the same tick-rate.

This local time is therefore all that exists (for that particular
observer), hence is a proper as time can get.

>> Now speed of something is actually quite the opposite, because it means
>> relative motion between something moving and something else.
>>
>> To equate time intervals and speed*time intervals would not make sense,
>> because timekeeping devices do not necessarily move
>
> The GPS system is unknown to you?
>
>>>> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
>>>> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
>>>> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
>>>
>>> Nothing circular about it. You have length, speed, and time.
>>> You must give definitions for two of them,
>>> and then you can measure the third.
>>> Olden days: length and time defined, speed measured.
>>> Nowadays: time and speed defined, length measured.
>>
>> Wrong
>
> This is history. History cannot be wrong, it is what it is.

All history is wrong, because it is written by Winston Churchill.

>> If you have three quantities, which depend on each other, you need to
>> define at least one independently.
>
> You really need two, if you want to measure things.

Sure, but light was already mentioned and was the first phenomenon.

Now we need another neverchanging phenomenon to define the second
quantity, which must not be light.

But actually used by Einstein was only light, because he invented kind
of 'light clock'.

This would create a circular dependency of the three measures: length,
time and speed of light, because also the meter is based on light.

Now we could use atoms and hope, that their frequency and their state as
atoms would not be altered by motion (or anything else).

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 18.08.2022 um 12:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi NG
> >>>>
> >>>> there is something, what I don't like.
> >>>
> >>> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> >>> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
> >>>
> >>>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >>>
> >>> Entirely a matter of choice.
> >>
> >> No
> >>
> >> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
> >> wavefront in a certain time interval.
> >
> > Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
> > in one second, by the definition of the meter.
> >
> >> v=dx/dt
> >>
> >> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
> >>
> >> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.
> >
> > Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.
> >
> >> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
> >> denote different phenomena.
> >
> > Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.
> >
> >> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
> >>
> >> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
> >> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
> >> the numerical value would change with the used units.
> >>
> >> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
> >> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.
> >
> > What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
> > Standard example:
> > Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
> > but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.
> >
> >>>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> >>>> the equal sign.
> >>>
> >>> Your problem.
> >>
> >> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.
> >
> > Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.
> >
> >>>> I could, on the other hand, say:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1m =100 cm
> >>>>
> >>>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> >>>> sides of the equal sign.
> >>>>
> >>>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >>>
> >>> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
> >>> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
> >>
> >> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
> >> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.
> >
> > Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
> > And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
> > If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
> > in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
> > The SI came too early.
> >
> >>>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >>>
> >>> This a very common misunderstanding,
> >>> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
> >>> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
> >>> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
> >> distance.
> >
> > An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
> > It is not inherent in the thing.
> >
> >> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
> >> which gives a certain measurement result.
> >
> > All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
> > It is just that you didn't know it.
> > Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
> > unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
> > Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.
> >
> >> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
> >> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
> >> something.
> >>
> >>>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
> >>>>
> >>>> c=1 lightsecond per second
> >>>
> >>> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
> >> ???
> >>
> >> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.
> >
> > If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
> > it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.
> >
> >> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
> >> quantities of energy.
> >
> > Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
> > Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
> > Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
> > as horsepower for example.
> > Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
> > to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.
> >
> >>>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> >>>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
> >>>
> >>> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
> >>> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
> >> ????
> >>
> >> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
> >> statements.
> >
> > Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
> > And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.
> >
> >> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
> >> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
> >>
> >> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
> >> this word.
> >>
> >> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
> >> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
> >> around and stays usually at its place.
> >
> > See under 'proper time'.
>
> I use a diffent concept, which I call 'subjectivism'.

There is no place in physics for 'subjectivism'.
Your conceptions are of interest only to yourself.,
since they conflict with observable reality. (see below)

> That goes like this:
>
> the observer is always somewhere and that location provides a timelike
> context, which I call 'time-domaine'.
>
> The observer uses this context and uses therefor only local time (and
> nothing else).
>
> He can synchronize clocks only with other clocks in the same
> time-domaine (like, for instanc,e we Earthlings with other Earthlings on
> planet Earth).
>
> This time is proper time by definition and others are not available.
>
> This concept would usually not allow synchronisation of remote clocks,
> because such clocks do not necessarily run into the same direction or
> have the same tick-rate.
>
> This local time is therefore all that exists (for that particular
> observer), hence is a proper as time can get.

All this is thoroughly and hopelessly wrong.
We do need to synchronise clocks all over the solar system,
and cannot go by time on Earth. (TAI)
This is accomplished by converting all observed times to TCB,
(Barycentric Coordinate Time)
This is the time of a co-moving clock 'at infinity',
as far as the gravitation of the Sun is concerned.

Manoeuvring spacecraft through the Solar system with kilometer accuracy,
like landing a probe on a moon of Saturn, depends critically
on having the (relativistically corrected) timings right.

Most laymen, like you it seems,
have no idea of the amount of precision computing
of Solar system motions that is routinely going on these days.
(at JPL, for example)

On Friday, 19 August 2022 at 12:45:48 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Am 18.08.2022 um 12:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > > Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > >>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi NG
> > >>>>
> > >>>> there is something, what I don't like.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> > >>> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> > >>>
> > >>> Entirely a matter of choice.
> > >>
> > >> No
> > >>
> > >> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
> > >> wavefront in a certain time interval.
> > >
> > > Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
> > > in one second, by the definition of the meter.
> > >
> > >> v=dx/dt
> > >>
> > >> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
> > >>
> > >> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.
> > >
> > > Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.
> > >
> > >> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
> > >> denote different phenomena.
> > >
> > > Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.
> > >
> > >> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
> > >>
> > >> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
> > >> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
> > >> the numerical value would change with the used units.
> > >>
> > >> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
> > >> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.
> > >
> > > What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
> > > Standard example:
> > > Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
> > > but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.
> > >
> > >>>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> > >>>> the equal sign.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your problem.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.
> > >
> > > Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.
> > >
> > >>>> I could, on the other hand, say:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1m =100 cm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> > >>>> sides of the equal sign.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> > >>>
> > >>> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
> > >>> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
> > >>
> > >> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
> > >> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.
> > >
> > > Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
> > > And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
> > > If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
> > > in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
> > > The SI came too early.
> > >
> > >>>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> > >>>
> > >>> This a very common misunderstanding,
> > >>> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
> > >>> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
> > >>> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
> > >>
> > >> ???
> > >>
> > >> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
> > >> distance.
> > >
> > > An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
> > > It is not inherent in the thing.
> > >
> > >> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
> > >> which gives a certain measurement result.
> > >
> > > All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
> > > It is just that you didn't know it.
> > > Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
> > > unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
> > > Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.
> > >
> > >> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
> > >> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
> > >> something.
> > >>
> > >>>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> c=1 lightsecond per second
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
> > >> ???
> > >>
> > >> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.
> > >
> > > If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
> > > it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.
> > >
> > >> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
> > >> quantities of energy.
> > >
> > > Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
> > > Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
> > > Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
> > > as horsepower for example.
> > > Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
> > > to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.
> > >
> > >>>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> > >>>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
> > >>>
> > >>> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
> > >>> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
> > >> ????
> > >>
> > >> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
> > >> statements.
> > >
> > > Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
> > > And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.
> > >
> > >> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
> > >> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
> > >>
> > >> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
> > >> this word.
> > >>
> > >> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
> > >> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
> > >> around and stays usually at its place.
> > >
> > > See under 'proper time'.
> >
> > I use a diffent concept, which I call 'subjectivism'.
> There is no place in physics for 'subjectivism'.
> Your conceptions are of interest only to yourself.,
> since they conflict with observable reality. (see below)
> > That goes like this:
> >
> > the observer is always somewhere and that location provides a timelike
> > context, which I call 'time-domaine'.
> >
> > The observer uses this context and uses therefor only local time (and
> > nothing else).
> >
> > He can synchronize clocks only with other clocks in the same
> > time-domaine (like, for instanc,e we Earthlings with other Earthlings on
> > planet Earth).
> >
> > This time is proper time by definition and others are not available.
> >
> > This concept would usually not allow synchronisation of remote clocks,
> > because such clocks do not necessarily run into the same direction or
> > have the same tick-rate.
> >
> > This local time is therefore all that exists (for that particular
> > observer), hence is a proper as time can get.
> All this is thoroughly and hopelessly wrong.
> We do need to synchronise clocks all over the solar system,

Am 19.08.2022 um 12:45 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.08.2022 um 12:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi NG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there is something, what I don't like.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
>>>>> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Entirely a matter of choice.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>>
>>>> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
>>>> wavefront in a certain time interval.
>>>
>>> Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
>>> in one second, by the definition of the meter.
>>>
>>>> v=dx/dt
>>>>
>>>> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
>>>>
>>>> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and duration.
>>>
>>> Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.
>>>
>>>> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
>>>> denote different phenomena.
>>>
>>> Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.
>>>
>>>> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
>>>> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
>>>> the numerical value would change with the used units.
>>>>
>>>> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
>>>> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.
>>>
>>> What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
>>> Standard example:
>>> Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
>>> but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.
>>>
>>>>>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
>>>>>> the equal sign.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.
>>>
>>> Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.
>>>
>>>>>> I could, on the other hand, say:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1m =100 cm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
>>>>>> sides of the equal sign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>>>>>
>>>>> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
>>>>> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
>>>>
>>>> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
>>>> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.
>>>
>>> Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
>>> And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
>>> If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
>>> in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
>>> The SI came too early.
>>>
>>>>>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>>>>>
>>>>> This a very common misunderstanding,
>>>>> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
>>>>> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
>>>>> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
>>>>
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
>>>> distance.
>>>
>>> An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
>>> It is not inherent in the thing.
>>>
>>>> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
>>>> which gives a certain measurement result.
>>>
>>> All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
>>> It is just that you didn't know it.
>>> Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
>>> unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
>>> Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.
>>>
>>>> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
>>>> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>>>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> c=1 lightsecond per second
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.
>>>
>>> If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
>>> it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.
>>>
>>>> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
>>>> quantities of energy.
>>>
>>> Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
>>> Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
>>> Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
>>> as horsepower for example.
>>> Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
>>> to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.
>>>
>>>>>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
>>>>>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
>>>>> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
>>>> ????
>>>>
>>>> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
>>>> statements.
>>>
>>> Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
>>> And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.
>>>
>>>> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
>>>> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
>>>>
>>>> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
>>>> this word.
>>>>
>>>> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
>>>> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
>>>> around and stays usually at its place.
>>>
>>> See under 'proper time'.
>>
>> I use a diffent concept, which I call 'subjectivism'.
>
> There is no place in physics for 'subjectivism'.

Well, no!

It is not our decision how nature operates. We can only describe in
science what is there, not how we like things to be.

> Your conceptions are of interest only to yourself.,
> since they conflict with observable reality. (see below)

This is actually the question.

In physics we like to find out, how nature actually functions.

The 'machinery' of the universe is, what are interested in.

But often the mechanisms are based on principles, which make natural
phenomena difficult to use.

E.g. weather forcasts are difficult, because clouds are difficult to
predict, even if we precisely understands, how clouds are created.

Therefore we have to be happy with what is possible, even if that is not
always useful.

Now we see as individuals the world always from a different point of
view. This is so, because any material body, like e.g. yours, will
exclude others from that position.

Since any observer needs to be somewhere, that observer can only the
world, which is observable from there.

(This is 'subjectivism' with slightly different words.)
....
>> This time is proper time by definition and others are not available.
>>
>> This concept would usually not allow synchronisation of remote clocks,
>> because such clocks do not necessarily run into the same direction or
>> have the same tick-rate.
>>
>> This local time is therefore all that exists (for that particular
>> observer), hence is a proper as time can get.
>
> All this is thoroughly and hopelessly wrong.
> We do need to synchronise clocks all over the solar system,

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 19.08.2022 um 12:45 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Am 18.08.2022 um 12:00 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Am 17.08.2022 um 10:49 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi NG
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> there is something, what I don't like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your liking or not liking has nothing to do with it.
> >>>>> It is the CGPM that decides such matters at their perodic conferences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Entirely a matter of choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> No
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Speed of light' is means the quotient of a distance travelled by a
> >>>> wavefront in a certain time interval.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly, a distance of 299 792 458 m (exactly)
> >>> in one second, by the definition of the meter.
> >>>
> >>>> v=dx/dt
> >>>>
> >>>> This dx term means distance and the dt term means duration.
> >>>>
> >>>> To get a dinesionsionless 1, we would need to cancel distance and
> >>>>duration.
> >>>>
> >>> Right, just give x and t the same unit and dimension.
> >>>
> >>>> I have serious problems with this operation, because time and distance
> >>>> denote different phenomena.
> >>>
> >>> Not really, they Lorentz-transform into each other.
> >>>
> >>>> What we are free to choose, that are the numerical values of the units.
> >>>>
> >>>> E.g. we could use meters, yards, forlongs, lighyears or Angstroms to
> >>>> measure distance. But still a certain distance remains the same, while
> >>>> the numerical value would change with the used units.
> >>>>
> >>>> What we cannot do is to cancel different types of units, like e.g. Volts
> >>>> and Ampere, or Fahrenheit and Radians.
> >>>
> >>> What is, or isn't a different unit depends on how you define your units.
> >>> Standard example:
> >>> Electric and magnetic fields have different units and diimensions in SI,
> >>> but the same unit and dimension in cgs and Heaviside-Lorentz.
> >>>
> >>>>>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> >>>>>> the equal sign.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, my problem. That's why I'm writing about it.
> >>>
> >>> Writing about it is not enough. You need to reeducate yourself.
> >>>
> >>>>>> I could, on the other hand, say:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1m =100 cm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> >>>>>> sides of the equal sign.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Au contraire, c is not -roughly- 300 000 000 m/s,
> >>>>> is is 299 792 458 m/s -exactly-, by definition.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think, it would have been better to define the speed of light as
> >>>> 300000000 m/s, because that's far easier to remember.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but backward compatibility prohibits.
> >>> And while you are at it, 1 is even easier to remember.
> >>> If humanity could do it all over we would measure all distances
> >>> in nanoseconds, microseconds, etc.
> >>> The SI came too early.
> >>>
> >>>>>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This a very common misunderstanding,
> >>>>> fostered these day by an SI-only education.
> >>>>> Units and dimensions are NOT properties of physical quantities.
> >>>>> They are human constructs, and fixed by convention.
> >>>>
> >>>> ???
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean: the physical property is an attribute of something, like here a
> >>>> distance.
> >>>
> >>> An attribiute is something that you, how shall I say it, attribute.
> >>> It is not inherent in the thing.
> >>>
> >>>> This distance is measured by some human means, like e.g. a yard-stick,
> >>>> which gives a certain measurement result.
> >>>
> >>> All distances are measured in seconds nowadays.
> >>> It is just that you didn't know it.
> >>> Hint: a mesurement isn't a measurement
> >>> unless it can be referenced to a primary standard.
> >>> Think about how you know that your yardstick really is one yard long.
> >>>
> >>>> This measurement result is now not an attribute of the phenomenon, which
> >>>> got measured, but belongs to the realm of the human, who measured that
> >>>> something.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Actually meant with c=1 was:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> c=1 lightsecond per second
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, or 4.2 Joule/calorie, or...
> >>>> ???
> >>>>
> >>>> Velocity is distance travelled per time interval.
> >>>
> >>> If you make it dimensionless and 1, like you did,
> >>> it is equal to any other ratio of units that equals 1 by definition.
> >>>
> >>>> Joule and calorie are neither distances nor time intervals, but mean
> >>>> quantities of energy.
> >>>
> >>> Nowadays, yes. But before Joule, no.
> >>> Work and heat were believed to be different and incommensurate.
> >>> Work was force times distance, to be measured mechanically,
> >>> as horsepower for example.
> >>> Heat was the amount of the caloric fluid in a body,
> >>> to be measured in calories, by thermometry and calorimetry.
> >>>
> >>>>>> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> >>>>>> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See above. Having dimension 'time' is not a physical property.
> >>>>> It is a human convention. You cannot measure a dimension.
> >>>> ????
> >>>>
> >>>> You should stick to certain definitions, if you want to make useful
> >>>> statements.
> >>>
> >>> Certainly, a system of dimensions needs to be consistent.
> >>> And that is all, any consistens system of dimensions will do.
> >>>
> >>>> The term 'time' has a certain meaning. This meaning of the term is
> >>>> codified in the definition of the term 'time'.
> >>>>
> >>>> This definition is not a dimension, but declares, how we want to use
> >>>> this word.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now we can easily imagine time keeping devices, which do not move (in
> >>>> respect to the observer). E.g. the observers wrist watch does not fly
> >>>> around and stays usually at its place.
> >>>
> >>> See under 'proper time'.
> >>
> >> I use a diffent concept, which I call 'subjectivism'.
> >
> > There is no place in physics for 'subjectivism'.
>
> Well, no!
>
> It is not our decision how nature operates. We can only describe in
> science what is there, not how we like things to be.
>
> > Your conceptions are of interest only to yourself.,
> > since they conflict with observable reality. (see below)
>
> This is actually the question.
>
> In physics we like to find out, how nature actually functions.
>
> The 'machinery' of the universe is, what are interested in.
>
> But often the mechanisms are based on principles, which make natural
> phenomena difficult to use.
>
> E.g. weather forcasts are difficult, because clouds are difficult to
> predict, even if we precisely understands, how clouds are created.
>
> Therefore we have to be happy with what is possible, even if that is not
> always useful.
>
> Now we see as individuals the world always from a different point of
> view. This is so, because any material body, like e.g. yours, will
> exclude others from that position.
>
> Since any observer needs to be somewhere, that observer can only the
> world, which is observable from there.
>
> (This is 'subjectivism' with slightly different words.)
> ...
> >> This time is proper time by definition and others are not available.
> >>
> >> This concept would usually not allow synchronisation of remote clocks,
> >> because such clocks do not necessarily run into the same direction or
> >> have the same tick-rate.
> >>
> >> This local time is therefore all that exists (for that particular
> >> observer), hence is a proper as time can get.
> >
> > All this is thoroughly and hopelessly wrong.
> > We do need to synchronise clocks all over the solar system,
>
> No, we don't need to do that, because almost all humans live on the
> surface of this planet.
>
> What starship 'Enterprise' and captain Picard regard as necessary is not
> my concern.
> ...

On Saturday, 20 August 2022 at 10:36:51 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> All this requires extremely accurate navigation,
> because a close fly-by greatly magnifies all errors.
> And yes, you can only get that accuracy
> by applying general relativity correctly,
> both for the orbits and the clocks.

Well, that's of course a like, as expected from a
fanatic idiot; actually, as anyone can check in GPS,
we can only get proper accuracy bu pissing at
your Shit, its postulates, its wannabe standards
and its moronic screams that we're FORCED to.

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:59:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>
> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> the equal sign.
>
> I could, on the other hand, say:
>
> 1m =100 cm
>
> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> sides of the equal sign.
>
> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>
> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>
> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.

It's is a common confusion regarding units.
Look up "metrology" and study it a bit more.

--
Jan

Am 20.08.2022 um 10:36 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

>>>>> This is history. History cannot be wrong, it is what it is.
>>>>
>>>> All history is wrong, because it is written by Winston Churchill.
>>>
>>> Are you deliberately echoing Joseph Goebbels,
>>> or is that by accident?
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't know Goebbels personally, but Winston Churchill did
>> (most likely).
>
> A well known source is the Churchill quote:
> "I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself."
> (Winston Churchill, or was it?)
> No, it wasn't. The real source was:
> "Ich glaube nur der Statistik, die ich selbst gefälscht habe"
> (Joseph Goebbels, who circulated it as due to Churchill)
>
Both were similar wankers and I do not give a shit on what either said.

TH

Am 20.08.2022 um 14:59 schrieb JanPB:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:59:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Hi NG
>>
>> there is something, what I don't like.
>>
>> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>>
>> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
>> the equal sign.
>>
>> I could, on the other hand, say:
>>
>> 1m =100 cm
>>
>> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
>> sides of the equal sign.
>>
>> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>>
>> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>>
>> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> It's is a common confusion regarding units.
> Look up "metrology" and study it a bit more.
>

Common physicist often do strange things.

As I'm not a physicists I reject equating quantities with different
dimensions.

To me it is total nonsense to equate different types of quantities, say
length and temperatur.

TH

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:59:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Hi NG
> >
> > there is something, what I don't like.
> >
> > That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >
> > In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> > the equal sign.
> >
> > I could, on the other hand, say:
> >
> > 1m =100 cm
> >
> > because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> > sides of the equal sign.
> >
> > But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >
> > 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >
> > But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> It's is a common confusion regarding units.
> Look up "metrology" and study it a bit more.

True, but it is a widespread and very common confusion.
It is certainly not limited to crackpots.
Not surprising, since most of the teaching on the subject,
from high school onwards, is just plain wrong,

Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 20.08.2022 um 10:36 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
>
> >>>>> This is history. History cannot be wrong, it is what it is.
> >>>>
> >>>> All history is wrong, because it is written by Winston Churchill.
> >>>
> >>> Are you deliberately echoing Joseph Goebbels,
> >>> or is that by accident?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I didn't know Goebbels personally, but Winston Churchill did
> >> (most likely).
> >
> > A well known source is the Churchill quote:
> > "I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself."
> > (Winston Churchill, or was it?)
> > No, it wasn't. The real source was:
> > "Ich glaube nur der Statistik, die ich selbst gefälscht habe"
> > (Joseph Goebbels, who circulated it as due to Churchill)
>
> Both were similar wankers and I do not give a shit on what either said.

Then you shouldn't drag them into a physics discussion.
You really should try to get rid of those bad habits,

Jan

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 20.08.2022 um 14:59 schrieb JanPB:
> > On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:59:31 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Hi NG
> >>
> >> there is something, what I don't like.
> >>
> >> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
> >>
> >> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> >> the equal sign.
> >>
> >> I could, on the other hand, say:
> >>
> >> 1m =100 cm
> >>
> >> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> >> sides of the equal sign.
> >>
> >> But c=1 is based on this equality:
> >>
> >> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
> >>
> >> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
> >
> > It's is a common confusion regarding units.
> > Look up "metrology" and study it a bit more.
> >
>
> Common physicist often do strange things.
>
> As I'm not a physicists I reject equating quantities with different
> dimensions.

That is certainly a good thing.
You did not understand two things about it:
1) Dimensions have no physical reality, they are human-made conventions.
(limited only by consistency)
2) Dimensions may be assigned to numeric quantities.
(typical example: 4\pi * 10^-7 acquired a dimension
when interpreted as \mu_0)

> To me it is total nonsense to equate different types of quantities, say
> length and temperatur.

Which is what the previous CIPM has (almost) done
by giving Boltzmann's constant a defined value.
Energy and temperature are now the same kind of thing.
(but not a length, which is an inverse energy)

For those who need mental crutches to get along:
you can set c = 1 -AND- keep MKSA dimensions.
so put c = 1 with that 1 having the dimension [L][T]^-1.

In the olden days CERN for example catered to the needs
of the differently-abled by publishing results
as for example m_{top} = 175 GeV/c^2

Real physicists seeing this will of course know
that it is just 175 GeV, and they will be capable
of restoring that c^2 if it isn't written out explicitly,

Jan

On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 13:34:05 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> You did not understand two things about it:
> 1) Dimensions have no physical reality, they are human-made conventions.

And your bunch of idiots pretending that you've learnt
their properties from your precious experiments - is
just a bunch of idiots pretending.

On 17-Aug-22 3:59 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Hi NG
>
> there is something, what I don't like.
>
> That is using a unitless one for 'speed of light'.
>
> In my view this is total nonsense, because it violates the meaning of
> the equal sign.
>
> I could, on the other hand,  say:
>
> 1m =100 cm
>
> because the equality is given, because there is the same length on both
> sides of the equal sign.
>
> But c=1 is based on this equality:
>
> 1s =(roughly) 300,000,000 m
>
> But you should NOT equate quantities with different units.
>
> Actually meant with c=1 was:
>
> c=1 lightsecond per second
>
> But you cannot cancel lightsecond and second, because one has the
> dimension 'length' and the other one 'time'.
>
> If length would be defined by light and the meter (for instance) based
> on the lightsecond and the second based on the lightsecond, too, you
> would get a circular dependency of the definitions, what would be VERY bad.
>
> TH
>
>

Seems to me that one can choose one of the physical constants to be both
a unit and dimensionless.

If we set the speed to light to be dimensionless 1, then all speeds are
dimensionless, being simple fractions of the speed of light.

Distance and time then have a common dimension. And so on.

I suspect that this is not an original thought.

Sylvia.