2 ms·
>> The writer don’t seem to realise that radian is not an arbitrary unit but a dimensionless one which is defined so that 1rad is actually just 1. It's been a
by phkahler 4y ago
>> The writer don’t seem to realise that radian is not an arbitrary unit but a dimensionless one which is defined so that 1rad is actually just 1.
It's been a while, but I used to have an argument that rad should be a unit. This even plays well in physics where it allows torque to not have the same units as a joule.
- acidburnNSA 4y agorad is a unit already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_(unit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_(unit)
- gugagore 4y agoI don't see how radians come into the discussion of torque and energy, both of which are N*m in SI. That discussion has to do with the failure of SI to notate the directions of vectors. When it's torque, the N and the m are at a right angle. When it's work, they are both in the same direction.
- phkahler 4y ago>> That discussion has to do with the failure of SI to notate the directions of vectors. Well if radian is a unit then torque become Nm/r and is no longer Nm like energy. Then when multiplied by an angle in radians you get energy. It was *something like that*.