Date: 2003-04-28 06:33:02
> I guess I can't play in that mind-space, because I can't get away from
> what seems to me like a clear truth: angle is dimensionless. If you
> give it dimension, you'll get confusing results (like no relationship
> between angular velocity and frequency). I wonder what happens to
> physics calculations when frequency is expressed as rad/t?
angle/time =?= frequency:
sure, based on SI base units, you're correct, but it's not for nothing
that '(plan) angle' and 'solid angle' are referred to as the 2 SI
supplementary units: "These are non-dimensional units that are sometimes
included in the dimensional expression of a unit for clarity purposes."
Hence, the magnificent 7 + 2 (optional) angle types would be nice solution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk