From: Tom Roberts on
calvin wrote:
> On May 2, 11:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> ... Historically we use seconds and meters, which happen to
>> make c be a very large number with units meters/second; ...
>
> It's centimeters per second.

Actually, furlongs per fortnight is the usual example for other units.


Tom Roberts
From: calvin on
On May 3, 10:42 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> calvin wrote:
> > On May 2, 11:40 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> ... Historically we use seconds and meters, which happen to
> >> make c be a very large number with units meters/second; ...
>
> > It's centimeters per second.
>
> Actually, furlongs per fortnight is the usual example for other units.

Energy in ergs equals mass in grams times the square
of the speed of light in centimeters per second. Units
matter. If you want to rewrite the equation with the
speed of light in furlongs per fortnight, that's fine, but
you will need to adjust the units of the other terms
accordingly.
From: J. Clarke on
On 5/3/2010 10:50 AM, calvin wrote:
> On May 3, 10:42 am, Tom Roberts<tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> calvin wrote:
>>> On May 2, 11:40 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> ... Historically we use seconds and meters, which happen to
>>>> make c be a very large number with units meters/second; ...
>>
>>> It's centimeters per second.
>>
>> Actually, furlongs per fortnight is the usual example for other units.
>
> Energy in ergs equals mass in grams times the square
> of the speed of light in centimeters per second. Units
> matter. If you want to rewrite the equation with the
> speed of light in furlongs per fortnight, that's fine, but
> you will need to adjust the units of the other terms
> accordingly.

This is called a "unit conversion". If you have visions of becoming a
scientist or engineer then you should learn how to do them.

What _is_ the name of the unit of energy in the furlong-firkin-fortnight
system anyway?


From: spudnik on
"dimensionless constants" are well & good, so long
as you *know* what units are actually involved with "c"'
(as i recall, this is Einstien's abbreviation "celeras," or
some thing, which means "speed" in Latin), but
I'd hardly say that "c" is "dimensionless," even if
it is "one lightyear per year.... and "A" stood
for "arbeit" or work, as in "A=mcc;" he was not enough
of a schmuck to put his own initial into it, I guess.

> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
From: BURT on
On May 3, 10:12 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "dimensionless constants" are well & good, so long
> as you *know* what units are actually involved with "c"'
> (as i recall, this is Einstien's abbreviation "celeras," or
> some thing, which means "speed" in Latin), but
> I'd hardly say that "c" is "dimensionless," even if
> it is "one lightyear per year....  and "A" stood
> for "arbeit" or work, as in "A=mcc;" he was not enough
> of a schmuck to put his own initial into it, I guess.
>
> > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
>
> --Light: A History!http://wlym.com

The square of the universal speed limit is used to define the
fundamental amount of energy in mass. But why should that be the case?

Mitch Raemsch