OG a écrit :
"YBM" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.
Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?

No, I've been thinking about it.

Explain again how c can be be made to be dimensionless - given that it
represents both distance and time
I'm listening.

What's are you babbling ? Making c=1 is not making c dimentionless.

BTW, in a way this could be done in SR, but I'm afraid going on this
would confuse you even more.

"YBM" wrote in message
...
OG a écrit :
"YBM" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation
if you are able.
Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?

No, I've been thinking about it.

Explain again how c can be be made to be dimensionless - given that it
represents both distance and time
I'm listening.

What's are you babbling ? Making c=1 is not making c dimentionless.

Ah, that's where the confusion lies.
I said "But c cannot = = 1, as c is not a dimensionless number"

So whar happened is that I said 'c is not dimensionless' and you said I was
wrong. You now agree that c is NOT dimensionless, so you agree with me in
that c is not 'a dimensionless 1'

Glad we cleared that up - was there anything else?





BTW, in a way this could be done in SR, but I'm afraid going on this
would confuse you even more.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:51:04 +0200, YBM wrote:

OG a écrit :
"YBM" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:
....
It may do lots of other things as well - so I'd rather an explanation if
you are able.
Arguing with Ralph Rabbidge (aka Henry Wilson) is quite a pleasant game,
and a useless one isn't it ? I'd undertand how successfull you feel to
show how right you are in front of such elementary stupidity. You are
completely right : Wilson is an idiot of the worse kind.

BTW, you was supposed to enlight all of us by explaining us how using
c=1 (or 2, or whatever) would break dimensional analysis as you are
suposed to have studied it (what I doubt). Then you became suddenly
silent. Did you loose your thongue ?

No, I've been thinking about it.

Explain again how c can be be made to be dimensionless - given that it
represents both distance and time
I'm listening.

What's are you babbling ? Making c=1 is not making c dimentionless.

Roberts seemed to think it does.

BTW, in a way this could be done in SR, but I'm afraid going on this
would confuse you even more.

Tell us how, Yodelling Babbonbrained Marauder.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....