Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax · Guest

hanson wrote:
[quote]"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1a79aa42-fbcc-4e54-b0b6-402704611cb9@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Andrews, you are a bit short on education. Boltzmann>s constant has
physical units... And there are more base units than LMT, including
thermodynamic temperature.
"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote
I know all this. The physical dimension of Boltzmann>s constant is 1,
since both energy and temperature are ML^2/T^2.
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html
Base quantity Name Symbol
------------------------------------------------
length meter m
mass kilogram kg
time second s
electric current ampere A
thermodynamic temp. kelvin K
amount of substance mole mol
luminous intensity candela cd
"Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote
While the first four are derived from the physical quantities
M, L, T, and Q, the last three do not correspond to anything
physically real.
The candela, especially, is defined using the CIE
luminosity function for the eye. Even if it were a perfect
description of the human eye>s sensitivity, it obviously would
not be a fundamental quantity.
hanson wrote:
Guys, ALL physical constants can be expressed in
terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
[/quote]

So how do you define charge in terms of MLT?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

hanson · Guest

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f0qtlF97d8vU4@mid.individual.net...
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a99b13a584dc5c5f?hl=en
[quote]
ALL physical constants can be expressed in[/quote]
terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
else your entire house of physics will collapse like
a house of cards. -- Even the mole is not exempt. The
mole is simply a scale factor that tells you how many
units of something is in the same bag (Avogadros #).
The particular units in SI, MKS or cgs were chosen
by arbitrary choice, heuristic custom and convention.
Think about it: All we can do in physics is to COMPARE
things/processes/events to arbitrarily chosen standards.
There is nothing absolutely "fundamental"... ahahaha...
[quote]
We went over that many times in the past few years...[/quote]
.....ahahahanson
[quote]
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote[/quote]
So how do you define charge in terms of MLT?
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
Charge squared = M * L^3 / T^2
Charge is M^(1/2) * L^(3/2) / T --- See here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/582ad81589e05346?hl=en
.... or, one of the ways of doing it, in the cgs system, is
to take the relation of the square of the charge which is
e^2 = h*a*c/(2pi)
h = action = energy * time. -- a & pi are dimensionless.
h*c = M*L^2/T^2 * T * L/T = M*L^3/T^2 = also e^2
So, the charge e = sqrt(e^2) = M^(1/2)*L^(3/2)/T = gr^(1/2)cm^(3/2)/s,
For the quantitative amount look up the experimental
values of h, a, c and pi.
hanson
[quote]
PS:[/quote]
Dirk, as long as I have you on line check my post on
the issues of MeSal/Aspirin you were asking about:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/eccb4521b62d0f3e?hl=en

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 26, 1:24 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

[quote]If Boltzmann>s constant has no units, then entropy has no units:

S = k ln(omega)
[/quote]
That>s correct.

S = log W

is the only correct form. Remember, entropy is a mathematical
concept, and thus must be unitless.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 26, 1:26 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

[quote]Oh yeah, because we measure ev in the lab doing calorimetry so easily!
[/quote]
You>re really, incorrigibly, stupid, aren>t you? It>s no harder to
convert your results into ev than into any other unit!

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 26, 9:21 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

[quote]Charge squared = M * L^3 / T^2
Charge is M^(1/2) * L^(3/2) / T --- See here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/582ad81589e05346?hl=en
... or, one of the ways of doing it, in the cgs system, is
to take the relation of the square of the charge which is
e^2 = h*a*c/(2pi)
h = action = energy * time. -- a & pi are dimensionless.
h*c = M*L^2/T^2 * T * L/T = M*L^3/T^2 = also e^2
So, the charge e = sqrt(e^2) = M^(1/2)*L^(3/2)/T = gr^(1/2)cm^(3/2)/s,
For the quantitative amount look up the experimental
values of h, a, c and pi.
[/quote]
That>s one way of doing it. I prefer not to define Q because
it>s clearly a different thing than any of the mechanical
units.

Also, the coupling
constant of the electromagnetic force is not, properly, the
square of anything, while the Gaussian system tells us to
write

alpha = e^2 / hbar c

Andrew Usher

hanson · Guest

AHAHAHA... This is a good one that must be presented
to the Einstein Dingleberries in s.p.relativity to see them
go "aga-ooga" over it.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
[quote]
"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message[/quote]
news:SBBik.15945$Gb2.11918@newsfe29.ams2...
[quote]
Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:[/quote]
[snip]
[quote]
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message[/quote]
news:O8yik.69$JH5.26@trnddc06... or see here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a99b13a584dc5c5f?hl=en
hanson wrote:
Guys, ALL physical constants can be expressed in
terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
else your entire house of physics will collapse like
a house of cards. -- Even the mole is not exempt. The
mole is simply a scale factor that tells you how many
units of something is in the same bag (Avogadros #).
The particular units in SI, MKS or cgs were chosen
by arbitrary choice, heuristic custom and convention.
Think about it: All we can do in physics is to COMPARE
things/processes/events to arbitrarily chosen standards.
There is nothing absolutely "fundamental"... ahahaha...
[quote]
We went over that many times in the past few years...[/quote]
.....ahahahanson
[quote]

Androcles wrote[/quote]
As I browsed this I was wondering who could be so stupid
as to think otherwise and so I scrolled up... and there was Wormey...

Mass/matter, the stuff protons and neutrons are made of... whatever it
is it needs a name. Mass, length and time are measurement... yet at the
fundamental level the neutron is eternal in time and finite in length.

Consider force as fundamental. Mass = F/a

Science is dragging its arse for want of language. The human psyche
is such that if you don>t give names to things they do not get thought
about. A simple example of this is the ghost frame Einstein got confused
over.

A mathematical function is a mapping from domain to image (or codomain)
with some rule applied, so if we take the domain as all x in R with the
mapping rule x' = x-vt we have a function with codomain R.
We write
f: x |->x-vt and f(x) = x-vt

If we then have a second function g such that
g: x |-> x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and g(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

The composition of functions is this:

DOMAIN->function->CODOMAIN->function->IMAGE
x x-vt
(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now we give names to the generic term "domain" and look at what Einstein
says:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

DOMAIN CODOMAIN IMAGE
"stationary" frame ghost frame "moving" frame
system K "system of values" system k

The unnamed "system of values" is the ghost frame.

To get from the ghost frame to the moving frame we need a velocity
but we>ve already used it. How fast does the "moving" frame move
RELATIVELY to the ghost frame?

Einstein was never a mathematician and the reason his blunders
we not easily spotted is the failure to name the ghost frame.

Are scientists really this DUMB?

Two squaddies are eating a meal.
One says "This shit is awful, who called the cook a cunt and upset him? "
The other replies "Who called the cunt a cook?"

[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
ahahahaha... This is a good one that must be presented
to the Einstein Dingleberries in s.p.relativity to see them
go "aga-ooga" over it.... ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax · Guest

hanson wrote:
[quote]"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f0qtlF97d8vU4@mid.individual.net...
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a99b13a584dc5c5f?hl=en
ALL physical constants can be expressed in
terms of M, L, T... even Q, A, K & cd... which must be
convertible into each other. ---- It has to be that way
else your entire house of physics will collapse like
a house of cards. -- Even the mole is not exempt. The
mole is simply a scale factor that tells you how many
units of something is in the same bag (Avogadros #).
The particular units in SI, MKS or cgs were chosen
by arbitrary choice, heuristic custom and convention.
Think about it: All we can do in physics is to COMPARE
things/processes/events to arbitrarily chosen standards.
There is nothing absolutely "fundamental"... ahahaha...
We went over that many times in the past few years...
....ahahahanson
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote
So how do you define charge in terms of MLT?
hanson wrote:
Charge squared = M * L^3 / T^2
Charge is M^(1/2) * L^(3/2) / T --- See here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/582ad81589e05346?hl=en
... or, one of the ways of doing it, in the cgs system, is
to take the relation of the square of the charge which is
e^2 = h*a*c/(2pi)
h = action = energy * time. -- a & pi are dimensionless.
h*c = M*L^2/T^2 * T * L/T = M*L^3/T^2 = also e^2
So, the charge e = sqrt(e^2) = M^(1/2)*L^(3/2)/T = gr^(1/2)cm^(3/2)/s,
For the quantitative amount look up the experimental
values of h, a, c and pi.
hanson
PS:
Dirk, as long as I have you on line check my post on
the issues of MeSal/Aspirin you were asking about:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/eccb4521b62d0f3e?hl=en
[/quote]
Thanks - I saw it when you first posted it.
On of the reasons I was asking about MeSal was that I occasionally still
get the eye irritation of rosacea. I actually got it years before the
condition showed in the skin. What I do now is just rub a few mg of
MeSal on the bridge of my nose and it clears it rapidly.

Right now I>m more interested in the effects of grapefruit juice on
various drugs.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.chem Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Since energy and temperature have the same units

This news will come as a big surprise to the people at the Bureau International
des Poids et Mesures (http://www.bipm.org), who are in charge of the
definitions of the units of the SI, and who seem to think that temperature
is expressed in units of "Kelvin" (a base unit in the SI), while energy is
expressed in units of "Joules" (a derived unit equal to 1 kg m^2/s^2).

This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don>t even have a clue about which clue you>re missing."

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 27, 1:22 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quote]In sci.chem Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Since energy and temperature have the same units

This news will come as a big surprise to the people at the Bureau International
des Poids et Mesures (http://www.bipm.org), who are in charge of the
definitions of the units of the SI, and who seem to think that temperature
is expressed in units of "Kelvin" (a base unit in the SI), while energy is
expressed in units of "Joules" (a derived unit equal to 1 kg m^2/s^2).
[/quote]
Really, so if the SI standards are the final arbiter of what>s
fundamental ...

a) what is the physical significance of the candela?
b) is current more fundamental than charge?

(The answers are obviously none and no.)

[quote]This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.
[/quote]
Not to anyone who understood them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant#Value_in_different_units

Andrew Usher

Richard Schultz · Guest

In sci.chem Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Really, so if the SI standards are the final arbiter of what>s
: fundamental ...
:
: a) what is the physical significance of the candela?

AFAIK, it cannot be derived from the other six fundamental units.

: b) is current more fundamental than charge?
:
: (The answers are obviously none and no.)

In any system of units, one can define either a unit of current or a unit
of charge, in which case the other can be derived from the defined unit.

The Kelvin is a "fundamental" unit because it cannot be derived from the
other six fundamental units. The Joule is *not* a fundamental unit because,
once given the meter, kilogram, and second, it *can* be derived.

:> This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
:> thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.
:
: Not to anyone who understood them.

Anyone who understands statistical mechanics knows that it is possible to
determine the energy of a single particle, but that it is meaningless to
even speak of the "temperature" of a single particle, temperature by
definition being a property of an ensemble of particles.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don>t even have a clue about which clue you>re missing."

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 27, 3:23 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
[quote]In sci.chem Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Really, so if the SI standards are the final arbiter of what>s
: fundamental ...
:
: a) what is the physical significance of the candela?

AFAIK, it cannot be derived from the other six fundamental units.
[/quote]
Avoiding the question.

[quote]: b) is current more fundamental than charge?
:
: (The answers are obviously none and no.)

In any system of units, one can define either a unit of current or a unit
of charge, in which case the other can be derived from the defined unit.
[/quote]
Avoiding the question.

[quote]The Kelvin is a "fundamental" unit because it cannot be derived from the
other six fundamental units.
[/quote]
Wrong. It is equal to 1.380650e-23 J. Ir has to be.

ENTROPY IS MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED TO BE A PURE NUMBER.
Since mathematics is prior to physics or chemistry, arguing with this
is stupid, ignorant, or insane.

[quote]:> This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
:> thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.
:
: Not to anyone who understood them.

Anyone who understands statistical mechanics knows that it is possible to
determine the energy of a single particle, but that it is meaningless to
even speak of the "temperature" of a single particle, temperature by
definition being a property of an ensemble of particles.
[/quote]
I don>t speak of the 'temperature' of a signle particle. But the
temperature
in a system _is_ related to average energies per particle.

Andrew Usher

Dwib · Guest

On Jul 27, 4:27�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]I don>t speak of the 'temperature' of a single particle. But the
temperature in a system _is_ related to average energies per particle.
[/quote]
Well, finally you>ve said something that makes some sense.

But don>t you think you>re arguing about... nothing! People were
referring to the "temperature" of things LONG before they referred to
the "average energy of a system".

Boltzmann>s constant IS NOT evil.

Boltzmann>s constant IS convenient.

Dwib

Lloyd · Guest

On Jul 27, 5:27 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 27, 3:23 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

In sci.chem Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Really, so if the SI standards are the final arbiter of what>s
: fundamental ...
:
: a) what is the physical significance of the candela?

AFAIK, it cannot be derived from the other six fundamental units.

Avoiding the question.

: b) is current more fundamental than charge?
:
: (The answers are obviously none and no.)

In any system of units, one can define either a unit of current or a unit
of charge, in which case the other can be derived from the defined unit.

Avoiding the question.

The Kelvin is a "fundamental" unit because it cannot be derived from the
other six fundamental units.

Wrong. It is equal to 1.380650e-23 J. Ir has to be.

ENTROPY IS MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED TO BE A PURE NUMBER.
Since mathematics is prior to physics or chemistry, arguing with this
is stupid, ignorant, or insane.

[/quote]
So how do you add delta-H and T-delta-S to get delta-G? You can>t add
numbers that don>t have the same units.

[quote]:> This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
:> thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.
:
: Not to anyone who understood them.

Anyone who understands statistical mechanics knows that it is possible to
determine the energy of a single particle, but that it is meaningless to
even speak of the "temperature" of a single particle, temperature by
definition being a property of an ensemble of particles.

I don>t speak of the 'temperature' of a signle particle. But the
temperature
in a system _is_ related to average energies per particle.

Andrew Usher
[/quote]
So does work have units? delta-E = q + w, and you>ve said q has no
units.

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 28, 12:24 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

[quote]ENTROPY IS MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED TO BE A PURE NUMBER.
Since mathematics is prior to physics or chemistry, arguing with this
is stupid, ignorant, or insane.

So how do you add delta-H and T-delta-S to get delta-G? You can>t add
numbers that don>t have the same units.
[/quote]
No, they all have units of energy.

[quote]:> This news will also come to a big surprise to anyone who has studied
:> thermodynamics and/or statistical mechanics.
:
: Not to anyone who understood them.

Anyone who understands statistical mechanics knows that it is possible to
determine the energy of a single particle, but that it is meaningless to
even speak of the "temperature" of a single particle, temperature by
definition being a property of an ensemble of particles.

I don>t speak of the 'temperature' of a signle particle. But the
temperature
in a system _is_ related to average energies per particle.

So does work have units? delta-E = q + w, and you>ve said q has no
units.
[/quote]
Again, all have units of energy. Perhaps you>re confusing energy
and entropy?

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher · Guest

On Jul 28, 3:10 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[quote]Obfuscation on your part and refusal to admit the use of practical
quantities does not an argument make. A mole is a counting artifice
similar to a dozen or a hundred or some other bunch invented for
convenience.
[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]You inability to accept such means that you are blinded by
artifices of equally arbitrary nature that you learned from physicists
who really wanted to be mathematicians.
[/quote]
I accept them as long as the people that use them acknowledge
them for what they are, which is to say they>re not mystical
'base units', nor are they theorerically important.

[quote]Even the molecule suffers from
arbitrariness. The wave function for a particle in a "molecule" is
infinite in extent but is too ephemeral to deal with as such and so the
approach of the chemist to deal with it as if it were a
nonelectromagnetic field but rather some fuzzy particle with reasonable
boundaries and em properties only when you are very close to it.
[/quote]
Well, this is technically true, but it makes the world a lot easier to
deal with when you think of atoms and molecules as definite
particles!

[quote]Since names and properties for
real things make them useful as opposed to pure numbers which are good
only for counting items.
[/quote]
So dimensionless numbers aren>t useful? That>s strange ...

[quote]It appears to all others that I do not agree with you at all. Your last
equation is perfectly acceptable as way to deal with chemical
reactivity. However if you want to deal with amounts of things that are
to few to even be visible then you have to deal with dozens, or gross,
or moles.
[/quote]
I fully endorse this: the use of moles is convenient for practical
calculations but ought not to be used for theoretical equations.

Andrew Usher


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5