· Portal  Help Search Members Calendar 
Welcome Guest ( Log In  Register )  Resend Validation Email 
Welcome to Dozensonline. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access memberonly sections, and use many memberonly features such as customizing your profile, and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. (You will be asked to confirm your email address before we sign you on.) Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: 
Pages: (9) « First ... 8 9 ( Go to first unread post ) 
Takashi 
Posted: Nov 14 2016, 06:02 AM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
myllion  12^{8}
byllion  12^{16}  v not: tryllion  12^{24} but: tryllion  12^{32} It will be easy to be misunderstood if 'tr' is used. So, myriad.pdf and tables.pdf are slightly revised. The pure number counting uses the following series which is only in Latin: bi(2), ter(3) The prefixes to atomic and cosmic use the following Greek series: di(2), tri(3), tetra(4), ... revised.pdf and online converter have been afected. Online converter URL is http://hosi.org:8080/cgibin/conv.cgi?m=01000 . The port number '8080' is required. 
Takashi 
Posted: Nov 15 2016, 08:46 AM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
The UUS is NOT based on CODATA.
For example, units of length, time, and mass can be strictly expressed as follows using fundamental physical constants. hm  length : 100,1700; Ω_{1} / R_{∞} nc  time : 10;^{+8} hm / c_{0} ll  looloh : 10;^{+32;} ħ / (c_{0} hm) These expressions have nothing to do with CODATA. The same applies to the other units. The reason for referring to CODATA in revised.pdf etc. is because CODATA describes the relationship between fundamental physical constants and the SI units. Updating the numerical value of CODATA is not a problem of the UUS, it is a matter of the SI unit system. 
Takashi 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 09:25 AM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
It is said that there is a difference of 40 figures between electromagnetic force and gravity. Let  M = 12.^{8} , then  cosmic : M^{+1} ,  atomic : M^{1} . The difference between them becomes M^{2} .  (1)  Elementary charge : M^{2} universal Coulomb  Atomic mass unit : M^{3} looloh The difference between them becomes M . Since this difference exists at both ends, the contribution becomes M^{2} .  (2)  Mass ratio of nucleon and electron : 12.^{3} Since this difference exists at both ends, the contribution becomes 12.^{6} = M / 12.^{2} .  (3) Since both ends of the gravity diagram are 7 x 5 instead of 1 x 1,  7 x 5 = 35. ≒ 12.^{2} / 4  (4) By multiplying (1)(2)(3) and (4) will result in  M^{5} / 4 . Sure it is almost 40 figures. Thus, in the UUS this ratio can be approximated by mental arithmetic. 
wendy.krieger 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 10:58 AM

Dozens Demigod Group: Members Posts: 2,432 Member No.: 655 Joined: 11July 12 
The exact values of the values in CODATA are given in the KU/KO thread. In essence, it's based on the electron in the ideal Bohr atom. But unlike conventional approaches, I derive the base from the constants as well.
The values are given in decimal, but the units are given in K n SIunit, actually means 137^n of the KO or KU unit that matches it. In practice, 137 is a standin for the 'fine structure hundred' (137.035999056), and different units (like m vs cm) are known to different precisions. The CODATA is then the conversion from this system into SI. When I generate the CODATA data for different systems, i pick the most exact values and derive a system from that. As to gravity, I start with constants near 1, and (1) \( F = M m / 4\pi c_0 a^2 r^2 \) where a ~ 1. (2) \( F = Z_0c_0 Q q / 4\pi r^2 \) where Z_0 ~ 1 If instead of mapping c onto 1, one maps it onto 12^8 for example, then one has L = 12^8 T, and energy = 12^16 mass. Since (1) and (2) above give mass and charge in terms of length and time, you get, where v = L/T = 12^8. cT = T cosmological time (say, one second) cL = v.T cQ = v^3 T cM = v^4 T G ~ 1 You get something very close to the atomic scale, by supposing aT = atomic time &c This comes from the observation that c/ aT = v.T = v cT aL = v.L = v2. cT aQ = v^2 L = v5. cT aM = v^3 M = v7 cT Unlike the usual exponents of a base, v is actually a negativepower, like 12^8. The size of the universe is of the order of T/v^2, and T/v is the order of a century. Unlike Dirac (the large number hypothesis), i don't attatch the age of the universe to any exact point here, instead, suppose that these are some kind of numerical incidence of cosmological consequence. The last two digits in my current dimension numbers derive from the tens as the cosmological scale, and the units as the atomic scale. So eg charge is 132, the first is cQ = v^3 Q, Q = v^2 aT. It's pretty useful. The current system puts the base at A1 (ie the fine structure constant), the electron mass at A30, and the electron charge at A20. The speed of light is A4, and the radius of the electron as A10. The gravitational radius is then about M/L, for the elctron, A10, which gives electron*electron = A20 ~ 10^40. Planck scale, for L, M, T and Q is then A19.5, the planck constant itself is A39. 
Kodegadulo 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 11:21 AM


Obsessive poster Group: Moderators Posts: 4,184 Member No.: 606 Joined: 10September 11 
You define your UUS units in terms of natural constants. So, technically speaking, the "definition" of your units never changes. But if we get revised values for those natural constants, based on more and more accurate measurements, then the actual values of your units need to change accordingly, if they are to keep with their definitions. But how are we to know exactly how "big" those values are, if we cannot measure them against some kind of stable reference standard? SI units are are not defined in terms natural constants that get revised. They are relatively arbitrary standards, but at least the values for those standards are stable. CODATA is reporting revised values for natural constants, using SI units, but that doesn't matter. Any system with stable standards could be used to report the revised values. We could convert those to TGM, or Primel, or anything else. We could measure them in multiples or fractions of wavelengths of emissions from a specific isotope, and multiples or fractions of oscillation periods of a particular isotope, values we know with extreme accuracy. It doesn't matter. The natural constants you are depending on do not all have perfectly stable values yet. But that is not simply an artifact of how SI defines its units. That is just a fact of life at this point in history. However, the values we do have at this point are probably accurate enough that it won't really matter for most practical purposes. 

Takashi 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 02:38 PM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
It is already decided that the definition of the SI unit system should be replaced with the definition using the fundamental physical constants in the next revision.
That is, the SI unit system comes closer to the UUS. As a result, there will be no gap left except units for physical time and electric charge. Since their precisions are at least 10 digits, practical problems do not remain. 
Kodegadulo 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 03:06 PM

Obsessive poster Group: Moderators Posts: 4,184 Member No.: 606 Joined: 10September 11 
Right, but I would make a distinction to say that SI's units are not "based" on natural units. The notional basis of the SI units are still the quadrant of the Earth, the mean solar day, the density of water, the difference between water"s melting and boiling points, etc. They are simply planning to use natural units as a way to precisely and reproducibly "specify" the SI units. Presumably scientists anywhere in the universe can reproduce the natural constants and then multiply by the correct factors to reproduce the SI units. But your UUS units _are_ based on natural units.

Takashi 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 09:59 PM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
Right, the UUS units are based on not CODATA but natural constants.

Takashi 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 10:38 PM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
It may be better to identify the following rather than 'based on':
(http://dozenal.wikia.com/wiki/The_Harmonic_System )  Conceptual design  Strict definition  Common usage image(?) From the last point of view, I want the following facts to be known more. (http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnline/i...opic=1550&st=43 )  The quadrant meridian length of the Earth : almost strictly equal to 10. ^ 7 SI meters and roughly(=2.5% difference) equal to 12. ^ 7 times length unit  9 / 8 days : roughly(=2.8% difference) equal to 10. ^ 5 SI seconds and almost strictly equal to 12. ^ 5 times physical time unit  The density of ice < 12. ^ 2 times density unit < the density of water  When heat of unit energy is added to water of unit mass, the temperature rises twice the unit temperature. 
Kodegadulo 
Posted: Dec 2 2016, 10:42 PM

Obsessive poster Group: Moderators Posts: 4,184 Member No.: 606 Joined: 10September 11 
Yes... but we only know how big those natural constants are, to whatever degree scientists have been able to measure them so far. When they do so, they report the data in SI units. It does not mean your units are based on SI, but we only know how big your units actually are to the extent that we can relate them to accurate data.

Takashi 
Posted: Jan 18 2017, 10:01 AM

Regular Group: Members Posts: 186 Member No.: 571 Joined: 12April 10 
I think that the following three points should be commented on the article Topic156944.
1. I wrote to Errata.html quite a while ago, univunite.pdf p.23 B.4 Figure 1 and the expressions of B.3 are quoted from different manuscripts. For this reason the symbols of both do not correspond. Currently the most reliable description is revised.pdf p.13. 2. I put a translation of the excerpt of the textbook which became the original story of univunite.pdf Appendix B.4 as electromagnetism.pdf. (Since this textbook adopts the MKS rationalized unit system, the solid angle is dimensionless.) 3. As can be seen from univunite.pdf Appendix B and electromagnetism.pdf, we can construct a mathematically and physically consistent system with the dimension of 'turn' as the solid angle. This does not immediately deny the existence of a mathematically and physically consistent system with the dimension of 'turn' as the plane angle. However, I do not know how to make it possible to withstand the discussion on electromagnetism.pdf pp.810, while setting the dimension of 'turn' as a plane angle. 
wendy.krieger 
Posted: Jan 19 2017, 08:42 AM

Dozens Demigod Group: Members Posts: 2,432 Member No.: 655 Joined: 11July 12 
The idea of turns and loops, arises from Maxwell's notion that magnetism is a vortex in a fluid. The other model of magnetism is the WeberLorentz model that it is due to a moving charge. The equations look like this.
(1) \( \vec D = Q\vec s \qquad \vec H = Qv \times\vec s\) (2) \(\vec F = Q\vec E \qquad \vec F = Qv \times \vec B\) (3) \( E = zcD \quad = \quad zH = cB \) While Weber constructed magnetism as an extension of electrics, Lorentz deals with 'electrons' (ie charged particles'), where the 'current' is actually a stream of charged particles. The sum \(F = F_e+F_m\) is the lorentzforce, and the extra equality in (3) is what is required to keep photons as single entities across the boundary condition. The idea of circulation (turns) is due to Maxwell's notion that the EM field exists in a compressionless viscousless fluid (where we get Maxwell's equations from). None the same, circulation has been quite clearly demonstrated in transformers. 
wendy.krieger 
Posted: Jan 19 2017, 09:59 AM

Dozens Demigod Group: Members Posts: 2,432 Member No.: 655 Joined: 11July 12 
The issues discussed on page 810 of your PDF has little to do with turns.
The point O in the diagram on page 6, sees the two loops as magnetic dipoles, rather than current loops. That it sees m=IA and m'=IA', so positioned that m/r^2 = m'/r'^2. In any case, that I is not seen means this is not connected to the solid angle. The vector area A does not change when the surface changes. It is a geometric trick, that relies on volume not changing with coordinate, and that volume is the moment of surface. (1) \( V = \int x \cdot dS\quad \) volume = sum of coordinate dot surface normal. (2) \( \int dS = 0 \quad \) volume does not depend on coordinate, has zero sum We now suppose that the loop L is part of a solid bounded by two shells S and S+. Since S + S+ = 0, we can keep S and replace S+ with any other surface that is bounded by S. Ampere Current A current as Q/T, can be read as a linear density (1/L) of individual moving charges (QL/T). This reduces the current to a stream of several different things. In a coil, the current goes around and around many times, but the magnetic field is being produced by n different instances of Qv. If the coil is a 1000 qv's we would find that the flux is due to #16, and #1016, and #2016, and #3016 etc, rather than several instances of current. In the diagram on page 10, we see the doublecrossing is due to two instances of qv crossing the plane formed by the loop. So the point P is actually 'hearing' the current from two different points. The idea of 'ampere current' is magnetically defined by m='I'A, would be equal to the 'electric current', only if all the parts of 'I' were collected. But in a coil, we hear different instances of qv, that what would be spread over 50 metres is wrapped into 1 dm. We here it 500 times not from one lot of qv, but 500 separate instances of qv. When turns matter Dimensionally, turns have been connected when an electric current is coiled to an amperecurrent, or magneticflux is coiled into faradayflux. Since without the turn concept, it is not possible to define electrics from magnetics, the turn is used to allow separate electrical and magnetic systems to be part of a common system. The idea is to measure a charge electrostatically, and then measure the time it takes for this charge to discharge, measuring the current in magnetics. This experiment has been repeated many times (speed of light by emu/esu), and is one of the key parts involved in showing that light is an electromagnetic effect. Dimensionally, it is easy to find. For electric quantities, one supposes that I is unchanged, or replace IT with Q. For magnetic quantities, one replaces I with IU. In equations with both electric and magnetic quantities, the values of U will not be balanced, and the CGS form is found by balancing out U with U = 1/c [which is the size of 1 turn in c curls]. \[ \nabla \times \overset{U}{H} = \tau D + J \qquad \nabla \times \overset{U}{H} = \overset{U}{U}\tau D + \overset{U}{U}J \qquad \nabla \times {H} = \frac 1c\tau D + \frac 1c J\] Note here the dimensional analysis goes term over term, that is, + and  are treated as equals. It's like "metres = metres + metres". 
Kodegadulo 
Posted: Jan 19 2017, 06:30 PM


Obsessive poster Group: Moderators Posts: 4,184 Member No.: 606 Joined: 10September 11 
This is so garbled. \(d\mathbf{S}\) is a differential of a vector area. The integral of this over some surface \(S\) is not a volume and is not zero. It is simply the total area of the surface, i.e. \(\displaystyle\iint_S d\mathbf{S} = S\). Really now, this is pretty elementary calculus. 

wendy.krieger 
Posted: Jan 20 2017, 12:52 AM

Dozens Demigod Group: Members Posts: 2,432 Member No.: 655 Joined: 11July 12 
Theýe vectors, hun. Not scalars. (1) is the moment of outvector, (2) is the sum of outvectors.

Pages: (9) « First ... 8 9 