Re: Scalar waves

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

Am Mittwoch000001, 01.05.2024 um 09:46 schrieb J. J. Lodder:

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
 

Am Montag000029, 29.04.2024 um 15:28 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>

>

>
>
It's rather as there's a physical constant.
>
It's 1.0. In natural units, it's infinity.
>
Or, there's a physical constant.
>
It's infinity. In natural units, it's 1.0.

>
>
I don't like this 'c=1 thing', because 1 is a natural number, while
speed/velocity have physical dimensions with v = dx/dt.
>
Because time and distance are not measured with the same units, c had to
have units.

 
You really need to work on your misunderstandings about units and
dimensions.
In particular, physical quantities do not -have- a dimension.
Conversely dimension is not a property of physical quantity.
You cannot measure a dimension.

 
Sure, you measure physical quantities.
 
Lets say: you measure a current in Amperes.
 
Then the measurement of - say- 100 mA means, that a certain electrical
current has a current strength of 100 mA.
 
Now 'current strength' is the quantity which is measured. This current
strength is then the dimension of the measurement and the value depends
on the used units, which are Ampere in this case.

See? You are hopelessly confused betwen units and dimensions.
What you measure is a current in Amps.
One may asign a dimension [Current] to the unit Ampere.
(which is what is done in the conventional system of dimensions
for the SI)
You may also measure it in another system of units,
and assign other dimensions to it.
Even for the SI you can define other systems of dimensions.

Now all measured quantities need some kind of dimension and unit, if
they should make sense in physics.

Wrong.

Even pure numbers have a dimension this way.

Again, wrong.

E.g. if you count eggs, the result would be a number. But the number
alone would not make sense, since 'number of eggs' can also be a dimension.
 

Dimensions are human constructs that can be assigned arbitrarily,
limited only by the need to be consistent about it.

 
'Human contruct' is ok, while to 'arbitrary' I would not agree.

The simple fact that you can define different systems of dimensions
for the same system of units should make it clear
that you are mistaken in this.
Perhaps you should look up the formal definition of 'dimension'
in general.

Your problem is that you know nothing at all about dimensions
beyond the -conventional- system of dimensions
that is usually associated with the SI.

Jan