Imperial measures

Its harsh because its almost impossible not to know that and claim to work in electronics.

Special relativity is not supporting evidence?

I can't help you if you won't accept fundamental science.
As has been stated to you many times already, you can’t use classical Newtonian mechanics.
Why do you think Special relatively exists if Newtonian mechanics already works to explain it? Answer is Newtonian mechanics doesn’t work, hence Special relativity :facepalm:


 
Its harsh because its almost impossible not to know that and claim to work in electronics.

Special relativity is not supporting evidence?

I can't help you if you won't accept fundamental science.

Oh, that's a classic one :facepalm:

You have taken a number of links, some of which mention time going to zero.

None of them mentions infinite speed.

You have drawn that conclusion with your very simple incorrect assumption, that this formula still works at this speed

Speed=distance/time

News flash: it doesn't hence relativity...

E=mc^2 would mean that if the speed of light was infinite we would have infinite energy, the universe wouldn't exist...

You're the one not accepting fundamental science :facepalm:
 
Unsurprisingly this latest distraction from Johnson hasn't gone down well with retailers and manufacturers.

The British Retail Consortium, which represents supermarkets including Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, said reintroducing pounds and ounces would increase grocers’ costs as they would need to update product labels.

BRC assistant director of food Andrea Martinez-Inchausti said: “Supermarkets are focusing on delivering the best value for their customers in the face of intense inflationary pressures.

“Introducing new laws to change the way we measure food and drink would both distract from this vital task, and add cost and complexity if existing products are required to be relabelled.”

The BRC pointed out that manufacturers and retailers are already free to list imperial measures alongside metric ones.

Return to imperial measurements will drive up prices, warn supermarkets -

I would've thought supermarkets would lap up the excuse to be even more confusing over pricing. I've noticed when looking at products like apples sold by the bag that some are priced per 100g, some by the kilo and some by the number of apples. If the supermarket could add price by the ounce, by the pound and by the peck to the mix they certainly would!
 
I would've thought supermarkets would lap up the excuse to be even more confusing over pricing. I've noticed when looking at products like apples sold by the bag that some are priced per 100g, some by the kilo and some by the number of apples. If the supermarket could add price by the ounce, by the pound and by the peck to the mix they certainly would!

I would've thought supermarkets would lap up the excuse to be even more confusing over pricing. I've noticed when looking at products like apples sold by the bag that some are priced per 100g, some by the kilo and some by the number of apples. If the supermarket could add price by the ounce, by the pound and by the peck to the mix they certainly would!
You have to understand that in the USA a 1/3rd of a pound burger didn't sell due to they thinking that 3 is less than 4 it must be smaller.

The thing is customers are already able by law to ask for what they want in whatever units they like just the sales person has to convert it to a metric unit for sale, and most scales have been dual since the 1960s even the mechanical ones as all you need to do is replace the bit you see with numbers in the right place.
 
It seems very unlikely that you've worked in electronics and not known this, have you ever actually designed anything?

Google is your friend

...and there's more
From 2012


The United States is now the only industrialized country in the world that does not use the metric system as its predominant system of measurement.

All the World Standard Groups involved in the electronics industry (IPC, IEC, NIST, JEDEC, EIA & JEITA) have made the transition to the metric measurement system. They formed an alliance to stop using English units and all the data they publish is in metric units.


I didn’t design anything, but supported the applications from Mentor, Cadence, Synopsys etc
 
Oh, that's a classic one :facepalm:

You have taken a number of links, some of which mention time going to zero.

None of them mentions infinite speed.

You have drawn that conclusion with your very simple incorrect assumption, that this formula still works at this speed



News flash: it doesn't hence relativity...

E=mc^2 would mean that if the speed of light was infinite we would have infinite energy, the universe wouldn't exist...

You're the one not accepting fundamental science :facepalm:
As I keep saying, it's all relative. The velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant 300,000 km/sec for all observers except itself.

As there is no such thing as absolute velocity, it can only apply to two observers A and B; A measuring B's velocity with respect to himself, and vice versa for B.

Forget for a moment the impossibility of achieving or observing it, simply extend the idea to its limits and assume the relative velocity between them is equal to c. Then each would experience his own time passing at the normal rate, ie 1 sec/sec. But A would observe B's clock to be stopped, and vice versa.

So, we have the concept of a moving object for which no time passes. That implies infinite speed. But it's meaningless, because A would be using B's clock to measure his own change of distance.

Observed speeds greater than c are perfectly possible; just not relative to the observer. Suppose a supernova ejected two high-speed particles in opposite directions, each at say 0.6c. Then an observer off to the side would see them separate at 1.2c.

Also, the Universe itself is expanding at greater than c at large distances.
 
Forget for a moment the impossibility of achieving or observing it, simply extend the idea to its limits and assume the relative velocity between them is equal to c. Then each would experience his own time passing at the normal rate, ie 1 sec/sec. But A would observe B's clock to be stopped, and vice versa.

So, we have the concept of a moving object for which no time passes. That implies infinite speed. But it's meaningless, because A would be using B's clock to measure his own change of distance.
 
As I keep saying, it's all relative. The velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant 300,000 km/sec for all observers except itself.

As there is no such thing as absolute velocity, it can only apply to two observers A and B; A measuring B's velocity with respect to himself, and vice versa for B.

Forget for a moment the impossibility of achieving or observing it, simply extend the idea to its limits and assume the relative velocity between them is equal to c. Then each would experience his own time passing at the normal rate, ie 1 sec/sec. But A would observe B's clock to be stopped, and vice versa.

So, we have the concept of a moving object for which no time passes. That implies infinite speed. But it's meaningless, because A would be using B's clock to measure his own change of distance.

Observed speeds greater than c are perfectly possible; just not relative to the observer. Suppose a supernova ejected two high-speed particles in opposite directions, each at say 0.6c. Then an observer off to the side would see them separate at 1.2c.

The observed speed though is not 1.2c though it will be somewhat less than c because you need to use relativistic addition which is not u + v. I will try and find an example later.

Also, the Universe itself is expanding at greater than c at large distances.

That's even more complicated and a lot more is in play, including the space itself is expanding not the matter...
 
Exactly!!
F47167BE-BD40-4166-9CF0-130C661EFF0E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The observed speed though is not 1.2c though it will be somewhat less than c because you need to use relativistic addition which is not u + v. I will try and find an example later.
Relativistic additions only apply to line of sight; ie the rate of change of distance as measured by the observer. In my example, the two objects A and B are moving apart on a line perpendicular to the observer C's line-of-sight. In that case, to C their mutual relative velocity is 1.2c.

If the AB distance is small compared with the distances CA and CB, then the relative velocities of C<->A and C<->B are negligible, so relativistic effects don't apply. Also, of course, A will observe B's relative velocity to be rather less than c, and the same for B observing A.

Another example is a set of window curtains operated by a cord. With a double set, when you pull the cord the two curtains move apart or close together. Obviously, as both are attached to the same looped cord, if you pull that cord at say 1 metre per second, then they will move apart at 2 m/s. This will be essentially the same for both you and any observer on one of the curtains, because relativistic effects are negligible.

Now suppose you managed to pull the cord at 0.6c. To you, the gap will open at 1.2c, which is your measure of their relative speed. To an observer on one of the curtains, though, it will be rather less than c. Because all speeds are relative, both measurements are equally valid; they just apply to different frames of reference.
That's even more complicated and a lot more is in play, including the space itself is expanding not the matter...
Well, yes, but the observable Universe is rather less than its theoretical true size, and the unobservable sections are expanding at c+.
 
The observed speed though is not 1.2c though it will be somewhat less than c because you need to use relativistic addition which is not u + v. I will try and find an example later.
Neither high speed particle is actually moving faster than c (0.6c), so this not evidence of something moving faster than c.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. That's pretty well what I was trying to say; obviously not very well. Although I think my post #87 is close:

".. Time does not exist for a light beam, so by some definitions from its point of view its speed is infinite. On the other hand, speed is the distance travelled in a given amount of time, so if there is no time there can't be speed either ...."
 
In that case, to C their mutual relative velocity is 1.2c.

Now suppose you managed to pull the cord at 0.6c. To you, the gap will open at 1.2c, which is your measure of their relative speed. To an observer on one of the curtains, though, it will be rather less than c. Because all speeds are relative, both measurements are equally valid; they just apply to different frames of reference.

From the frame of reference of the static observer, both are moving at 0.6c. The distance increasing is 1.2c but there isn't equivalent to the observed velocity anyway.
 
I've grappled with all sorts in my electronic education and life over last 40 years


We used to approximate electrical propagation at 1 nanosecond per foot (2/3 c)
But electrons move many times slower
Think of a hosepipe to New York, filled with ball bearings.

Push extra bearings in and the force will be carried quickly but they will travel slowly

Not all cables are same either.


And don't ask about tunnel diodes where electrons vanish then reappear almost instantly on the other side of the diode junction
 
I've grappled with all sorts in my electronic education and life over last 40 years


We used to approximate electrical propagation at 1 nanosecond per foot (2/3 c)
But electrons move many times slower
Think of a hosepipe to New York, filled with ball bearings.

Push extra bearings in and the force will be carried quickly but they will travel slowly

Not all cables are same either.


And don't ask about tunnel diodes where electrons vanish then reappear almost instantly on the other side of the diode junction

Yep, electrons move at around 1mm per second in a copper wire. The power comes from the electromagnetic wave (with no mass of course ;) )

I can imagine the advert for "Audioquack" Cables, our new cables moving electrons faster than the speed of light... :D
 
I remember we used to buy Potatoes by the Stone or half a stone, now we just buy a pack of Potatoes.
 
I remember we used to buy Potatoes by the Stone or half a stone, now we just buy a pack of Potatoes.
We used to have a guy around here who delivered potatoes, and when he was saying his prices he used stones. I was like "what?", and my housemate came to the door and she knew what he was on about, as her parents used the term. When I was a kid it used to be 5lb of potatoes, and I don't think I ever saw them in lower amounts and very rarely loose. Even now I'll still refer to a bag of potatoes as a 5lb bag.

What the government should really concentrate on is what you call chips inside a bread bun, and declare that it's a chip barm, and fine any chippies that do not refer to it as such.

Oh, and chips should always have the option to be sold with gravy, and raw onion if requested.
 
Probably the bags were 4 stone as I can remember in the 70s stuff came in 56lb bags which just got altered to 25kg as it was pretty much the same and probably then split down by retailers into smaller bags for individual sale by the shopkeepers.

Dont really remember much bagged stuff till the 1980s and the rise of the supermarkets which killed off a lot of the greengrocers etc overnight.
 
56lb bags
Aka ½ cwt. I can remember seeing the chalk board outside the green grocer showing that. As a young kid, I had to ask me mam what it meant. There was an old scale there too, with a big cast iron weight next to it.

The coal was delivered in cwt too. My job as a kid was to sit and count the sacks as they them to our house Those men were notorious for, and wealthy by under delivering.
 
Last edited:
Aka ½ cwt. I can remember seeing the chalk board outside the green grocer showing that. As a young kid, I had to ask me mam what it meant. There was an old scale there too, with a big cast iron weight next to it.

The coal was delivered in cwt too. My job as a kid was to sit and count the sacks as they them to our house Those men were notorious for, and wealthy by under delivering.
If they knew you were counting sacks they would just lose a few bits per bag which when you think of how much they delivered soon mounted up..
 
I am looking to buy storage containers for bird seed which is sold in Kg's the containers are sold in litre sizes god knows what that is in Kg's?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom