3 ms·
It should be obvious that the "c" here was used as a magnitude not with units. Saying that's "failing dimensional analysis" is in itself grossly sloppy - since
by shukantpal 5y ago
It should be obvious that the "c" here was used as a magnitude not with units. Saying that's "failing dimensional analysis" is in itself grossly sloppy - since it totally misses the context.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago1m/cs is the correct value. Not 1/cs. The meters matters, hiding it makes it less obvious that the wire separation is what matters.
- elsjaako 5y agoIf you're going tot quibble about the units, it should be "1m/c". " 1m/c s" gives a result in s².
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- BenFrantzDale 5y agoBut dimensioned quantities are meaningless without units. are you saying c has a value of 1.803e+12? Or that it has a value of 1? There’s a big difference between using furlongs per fortnight and speed of light as your units for speed. By saying “1/c s” rather than “1 m/c” he was just plain wrong and certainly in no position to be smug about it.
- shukantpal 5y agoThat’s like being a grammar Nazi even when someone writes something otherwise totally clear. And it’s obvious in this case that the magnitude of c was in metric units. And how do you know if he was even referring to the speed of light by “c”? I could call that a dumb assumption. Because it’s obvious he was using it in a non standard way “magnitude of the speed of light in m/s”.