Re: Scalar waves

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Sonntag000005, 05.05.2024 um 23:27 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

wThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 

Am Samstag000004, 04.05.2024 um 17:38 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>

Consider the length of a body vis-a-vis the distance it
travels: both in units of length, yet distance as only
after a derivation of all the higher orders of acceleration
and deceleration whether it results a distance at rest, or,
a distance marking motion, that the other factors of the
dimensional analysis, go along with it, though algebraically,
at each point dimensionless.
>

>
A physical system has attributes.
>
These attributes can be measured.
>
The measure of this measurement has a dimension and a value.
>
>
The pyhsical system is space in this case.
>
In this space we have two points, which are somehow identifiable.
>
The distance is the length of a connecting streight line.
>
This length has the dimension 'length', which is quantified by
approriate units (meters in case of SI-units).
>
So the measure of that distance has a certain value (say 2) and certain
units (meters) and a certain dimension (length).

 
Again, how would you go about measuring a dimension?
(as opposed to defining it)
 

???
 
Before you measure something, you need to define WHAT you measure.
 
Without such a definition a measurement would be nonsense.
 
E.g. you have a multimeter and read out e.g. '204.5' from the display.
 
Now such a value makes no sense at all, if you do not say, what this
value is meant to measure.
 
In case of 'length' you need to say, what is meant with this word.
 
Something like 'spatial distance along a straight line' would be part of
that definition and that these distances can be summed up and these
partial distances may be infinetesially small.
 
Something in that realm would be a definition of 'length'.
 
And once you measure something similar, you need to say, that this
measurement should be understood as length, even if the line measured is
not streigth, but e.g the circumference of a circle.

No need for all that at all.
A measurement is not a measurement unless it can be traced
to a primary standard.
So your multimeter measures 204.5 mA when it says so
because the manufacturer of it says so.
Your manufacturer can guarantee that,
because he has calibrated the thing
against his standard ampere meter.
He knows that his standard meter measures amps
because he takes it to his national standards lab,
where they calibrate it for him.
And ultimately (if you live in a small country)
your national lab takes their standards to NIST, or BIPM,
where they do have a primary standard.

None of your verbiage is needed for any of this.
Nothing but calibrations and comparisons involved.

And of course it is just the same for other physical quantities,

Jan