3 ms·
This is gold. > In other words, if you use the Hz in the way it's currently defined by the SI, as equivalent to 1 radian/s, you can point to the SI definition
by randomNumber7 2y ago
This is gold.
> In other words, if you use the Hz in the way it's currently defined by the
SI, as equivalent to 1 radian/s, you can point to the SI definitions and
prove that you follow their definitions precisely. And your physics
teacher will still fail you and your clients will think you're completely
incompetent because 1 Hz = 2 pi radians/s. And it has for centuries.
You are both simultaneously both right and both wrong.
You cannot win.
You are perfectly right. You are perfectly wrong. You look dumb and
unreasonable. The person arguing the opposite looks dumb and unreasonable.
- forgotpwd16 2y agoHuh? Seems this quote confuses correspondence and equivalence. A frequency f = 1 Hz = 1 s^-1 (aka cycle/s != rad/s) corresponds to an angular frequency ω = 2π rad/s (ω = 2π f) but they're distinct concepts and quantities. The Hz was introduced in SI with all those considered. Basically both statements "1 Hz = 1 rad/s" and "1 Hz = 2π rad/s" are wrong. The only dumb is this quote tbh.
- bradrn 2y agoThe point being made in that file is really that, if you take the SI definitions literally, 'cycles' and 'radians' end up both being dimensionless and equal to 1, which is stupid.