  # Capiert

Senior Members

470

## Profile Information

• Interests
Classical physics
(no calculus)
• Favorite Area of Science
Classical physics

## Recent Profile Visitors

5675 profile views

## Capiert's Achievements -59

### Reputation

1. But (if you want) you could create a(ny) new "thing" unit, (depending on how you wanted it to be(come)). I suppose if you divided your stew into 3 equal portions, then it would be 3*[portions] (of that stew). I.e. That'( i)s wrt (only) that stew itself (with only 3 ingredients & their own proportions, on the spot, so to speak) NOT anything else. E.g. NOT necessarily 3*[bowls or cups etc]. The new unit [(equally_divided)_portion] can be found by converting all 3 units to any same desired_unit & then dividing by 3. That would be your (new) "anything" (unit). E.g. Some other (irrational?) factored unit of your (common) desired_unit. It'( i)s only a conversion (method).
2. Pronounced: "six foot, 3 (inches)". (Also, please notice the singular (1st) unit (foot, NOT feet) although the number (6), is >1; until we (might) get stuck in details by stating the 2nd (number's) unit(s (as more than 1, e.g. 3)).) That looks like 2 answers, stuck (=connected) together. E.g. 6'+3". Where the (empty) space (between them (both)) represents a virtual "plus", + (symbol). But why is there NO (empty) space between the (number) 6 & (unit) '=[feet] or [foot] (symbol); & between the (number) 3 & (unit) "=[inch] (symbol). The SI convention seems to use the empty space between number & units (Notice the s (on units) for both: singular; or plural or more) as a virtual multiply=multiplication. E.g. 6 [m]+3 [m]=9 [m], represents 6*[m]+3*[m]=9*[m]. There is also a subtle difference between infinitive, e.g. stone (in a quarry, to build a castle) versus more_than_1 e.g. plural or more=many, e.g. (made of) stones. E.g. Should we say, the building is 5 [meter] high? (infinitive). E.g. NOT 5 [meters]. (Plural or more). We often say 20°C (twenty degrees Centigrade, please notice: NO (empty) space at the °). But 300 K (three_hundred Kelvin (infinitive); NOT Kelvins (many).) Btw When I look at this (= all that (grammar) needed for the math) I am considering artificial_intelligence (e.g. program(ming)) too. (=NOT two, nor plur(e)al (~for crying out load, at reality).) & (I am) considering what sort of math (algebra) would be needed to incorporate such mixed units (singular or more). Algebra is perfect equality (e.g. balance); but NOT so with grammar that is brought in to distinguish finer differences. Our brains recognize those discontinuities (=differences).
3. Did anyone suggest that they might be? Yes, John. Added (verb) & addendum (noun) are (probably) NOT exactly the same; but it (=the added_onto method) suggests (to me), (that its meaning is) going in that (similar) direction. E.g. A hang_on, (that can be) added on(to almost anything).
4. 3?! I've only got 2 [feet]! & no (way, back)[yard]. (in the back :-). (Again, & again. So I guess there is a (small?) language problem (obstacle, of incompatibility) with the grammar('s singular versus plural "s", etc); versus the math('s algebra); & I suppose, the units' acronyms(' short_forms) help us (out) there, (at least) a bit, by ignoring the plural(s). E.g. 5 * meters = 5 [m]. Or unit meter(s)=[m].
5. How How (then) did you think about it (=their connection, relation to each other) (if NOT (as) multiplication of number & unit)?
6. Are number(_value)s multiplied by the unit? (Surely NOT added.) 1 * meter=1 [m].
7. Please explain. vi included: is the general equation. But without vi: is a limited (specific example) formula, that can NOT work for all cases. What I mean is: (vi was missing from the "general" equation, (NOT (just a) formula.) How do I know when I have the general equation, (if or when I start with only (limited (specific example) formula) fragments)? I'm searching for the general formula. I (attempt(ed) to) maintain vi (initial_speed) to try to NOT get lost ((&) for other things (=projects, concepts, extrapolations)). (You (may) think) you do NOT need it (=vi), (?) fine(!); but I do. E.g. vi remains an invisible (hidden (excluded)) term for you(r) speed(_difference) v=vf-(vi). It's always there.
8. I'll do my best! Thanks. (I got a good chuckle (out of that).) Yes! That is my intention. You obviously have NOT read this thread's file. It's NOT complicated! It's easy. Please explain. vi included: is the general equation. But without vi: is a limited (specific example) formula, that can NOT work for all cases. Locked threads DON'T allow quoting. Maybe (other_options) sharing can help linking, a bit.?
10. That surprises me because I can read the following (from above) The fallen height (taken from a graph), h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2 is only 2 terms: the constant (initial_)speed term vi*t; & the accelerating term g*t*t/2. & also in my posted (above, 2nd of 2) .pdf's (above). https://www.scienceforums.net/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=23252 Surely you will be able to determine when that (equation) was posted. Good! (for that product). But now for the quotient -2*vi/t in g (alone). Someone to assist me in getting the WRONGLY strikedthrough text (above) to be NOT strikedthrough, anymore. Would you help? But to answer your question: Again, clearly -2*vi/t was NOT present in g (before my threads). I have NOT seen that term in books; but algebraically it is correct (as to how I gave it to you). Science should confirm itself, but it seems (to me) you (might) probably prefer NOT that the g equation be intact, when rearranged (e.g. if you leave out that term -2*vi/t)? (Is that possible?) I have only moved the acceleration g to the left side, & all other terms to the right side. That should give the correct g (equation). (Otherwise, the (general) equality is either destroyed, or distorted.) It'(=What I have done i)s NOT complicated.
11. From g. You obviously disagree, otherwise you would NOT have asked. Why NOT? It works. (As far as I know) I have shared the equation: the fallen height (taken from a graph), h=vi*t+g*(t^2)/2. Typical is NOT all cases, but instead most (e.g. a majority). For me it was an unknown that I wanted to find, e.g. experimentally. Can someone please help me with unstrikethrough my text (above)?
13. I received the telegraph (message) instructions: "go east 3 strides, then go 4 strides north. Where are you (now)?" Answer: 5 strides east. Signed Virtual.