Dimensional Analysis BTFO!
retarded explanationthen v^2 should also have the same dimension as v if it's on a line
>>16926996So, one distance multiplied by another would represent different distance lengths traveled at different rates of speed. >More speed, more distance and vice versa. So, we average quantities by multiplying them together and then dividing them by the total amount of quantities. If you had the start of a pattern that would have milestones depending on how you would chart it out, you could input any variable and get the rest of the outcome.>>16926997Yet, Velocity is distance over time, times a distance over time.The real question is, wtf is Time^2 ???
>>16927018A complex unit circle of always-now, with +time,-time, itime, and -itime
squared has nothing to do with if they physically form a square or not...
Ok but why cannot sin or tan have dimensions? Thats a true question
>>16927233sin is one length divided by another. unitless
>>16927287what if the length you divided by is on the same line tho?
Dimensional analysis has always been the most retarded branch of math.>Giving a unit to "number of things" makes it a dimension! I swear!>But angles? Nuh uh! Dimensionless!>Information? Definitely dimensionless!>But light intensity... Which is qualia and nothing physical? Yep, that's a dimension. Physicists will love it!>But not utility though because fuck economists.>And not any psychometric because fuck psychologists.The last two points are particularly enlightening: the reason why dimensional analysts are this way is because they're all spiteful mentally ill poorfags.
>>16929418>qualia>>/his/
>>16926996source?
>>16926997c = 1 (dimensionless)c^2 = 1 (dimensionless)what's the problem, officer?
>>16927287[math]\begin{align}\cos(\omega t) \rightarrow \cos(\frac{\text{rad}}{s}s \rightarrow 1 - \text{rad}^2 + \text{rad}^4 ...\end{align}[/math]never forget what physicists have done with alleged radians.
>>16926996I'm getting a retard smell from this. There should be no problem with the dimensions in any physics equation and his "explanation" sounds retarded.
>>16929538You are correct on all counts. Dimensional analysis doesn't give a fuck about details like orientation. It's *only* about the units involved.
