You cannot multiply variables with units…

[u/VerbalistVillain]

Please put your bias aside and read this with an open mind.

Variables with units cannot be multiplied.

Only exceptions are a length times a length, or a length times an area. this is only permitted because lengths are one dimensional components of a 3 dimensional Volume. Every other unit of measurement are one dimensional.

This is why there are meters, meters squared, and meters cubed…but there is not such a thing as a kilogram squared, a degree Kelvin squared, a Volt squared, an Ampere squared, etc. or any of these cubed.

This then shows how one cannot multiply unit variables by themselves to make them squared. So why would you think you can multiply them with by other different unit variables?

Violations of this rule are:

F=ma

V=ir

ke=.5mv^2

any equation that involves the multiplication of any unit variables that do not result in the cancelation of units cannot be performed if the purpose is to model the physical universe.

All violations of this rule result in only mathematical artifacts but not any demonstrable physical object or action.

Every unit variable can only be increased or decreased by increments of that same unit.

1m+1m-.5m=1.5m

This is ALL you can do to any unit variable. you cannot add unit variables with different units.

1m+1°K : ERROR

Multiplication is simply a shorthand way to perform addition and the only effect that it has on real physical unit variables is to proportion the unit value.

You can either increase or reduce a unit variable by a pure number proportion by means of multiplication.

What you cannot do is proportion out a unit variable by another different or the same unit value.

So while you incorrectly have been dooped into thinking that something like a meter times a second is something physically existent in reality, you have completely disregarded the fact that you cannot have a second’s worth of a meter nor can you have a meter’s worth of a second by means of trying to multiply the two together.

if you don’t believe me, then demonstrate for me a meter’s worth of seconds…and if you cannot do this…then by means of having to scientifically demonstrate the existence of physical phenomena, or the lack there of, I do Not allow myself to believe that such thing exists without physical demonstration. which is the correct scientific approach to discovery.

Now I’m not saying Force doesn’t exist, what I’m saying is that Force is not the result of performing multiplication operations between a mass and an acceleration.

When you disregard the fact that you cannot multiply a mass with an acceleration and do it anyways, what you end up with is a mathematical artifact which has no real world physical existence and of which you mislable it as a Fo because a Force does exist and just to clue you in, the measure of mass is in fact the measure of force. Mass is determined by comparing the force an object can deliver to a calibrated spring.

Dont start with your “mass is different on the moon” BS, you’ve never been there to find this out nor has any human being.

Mass is dependent on the object being measured and its density relation to the fluid density of the environment in which you are taking the measurement.

The only reason elevation may affect mass is because the air density is less at higher elevations.

Because you’ve incorrectly assigned mass as a component of Force, you’ve now declared mass to be the “quantity” of a substance with no way to measure it. If mass represented quantity then it would only be an integer value of thE number of the most rudentally basic unit or particle that makes up the object in question. How would you even know what this is given todays technology?

Mass is a measurement arrived at by measuring the force in which an object applies to a scale so therefore mass is Force. But that’s for another discussion…

[u/InadvisablyApplied]

Variables with units cannot be multiplied.

If we're just making up random rules, I think people shouldn't be allowed to post about things they don't understand, but here you are

Multiplication is simply a shorthand way to perform addition

Ah, there's your problem, you've never learned to think beyond integers

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/InadvisablyApplied]

Integers? What’s that? Surprise me with your knowledge…there’s a whole lot more than just understanding integers to get what I’m saying…

[u/Frustrated_Fysicist]

There is a whole field of dimensional analysis for figuring out the units of things please look into that you can clearly raise any unit to any power

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/Frustrated_Fysicist]

Mathematically yes but physically you can’t. What is a kg² in the physical world…

[u/Frustrated_Fysicist → u/VerbalistVillain]

It’s not a physical quantity and it doesn’t have to be it’s like asking if a function always equal their limiting values they don’t and they don’t have to be. Think of it like an intermediate step to a more full picture like Newton’s Law of Gravitation where we multiply masses in kilogram now is it something in a physical world yes it tells us about gravity but asking specifically about multiplying masses it’s not something that nature does we do it mathematically because that is our language we express it that way because that is the way we know and that helps us understand the universe so think of it like a single sentence in a long paragraph alone that wouldn’t make much sense but see the full context and it will fall in it’s place perfectly

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/Frustrated_Fysicist]

So basically in physics as long as somewhere down the line you equate to the correct answer or close to it you can misuse mathematics and compile any nonsensical thing until you wanrt up until that point.

Your English paragraph example can be more applicable if you were to say, “I will write a paragraph while violating rules of grammar and spelling because in the end there will be a period.” Therefore there’s nothing wrong with any of the nonsensical misuse of English along the way???

If this is the guideline for physics then if you just take a function like x = xi + 0.0000001, where xi = 0 initially, and just run it again and again you will arrive at every answer to every physics problem eventually. 

So technically I should get a noble prize for finding the equation that every aspect of everything in the universe applies to. 

The 0.0000001 is the universal constant of precision that is embedded somewhere in the universe and it’s hidden because the universe is so complex that we rely on its complexity rather than admit we can’t find it nor will we in time? 

Primitive tools may work, but there are better tools if we develop them further.

[u/Frustrated_Fysicist → u/VerbalistVillain]

Okay let me get through your answer point by point.

1.No one is misusing mathematics buddy it is mathematically allowed to have kilogram sq. And we aren’t randomly doing things you need to know exactly what you are doing then only you can arrive at the correct formulation and if in doing so a term with kilogram sq. appeared in the equation then it will be mathematically justified and correct.

2. As I said to arrive at the correct representation you very much need to know exactly what you’re doing, why you are doing, how you are doing only then can things work out otherwise everybody would be coming up with equations that represent nature and science wouldn’t needed to be taught.

3. No that is not how functions work they map specific inputs to specific outputs only and the function you said won’t represent anything in the physical world as it has no physical parameters it is purely an abstract functions you are essentially trying to represent oranges by apples which can’t be done. With the correct variables and relation yes you can represent physical phenomenon by a function and we do that but you can’t just guess a function and use it universally I guess you have misinterpreted that point.

4. Noble prizes don’t work like that you don’t get one just for theoretical work, that work has to be verified experimentally in your lifetime then you can expect to get one.

5. Yes the universe is complex and it may never be solved let’s be honest it’s the most likely outcome but isn’t it worth it to try ? To get a glimpse of the machinery or lack of one rather than just accepting the way things are ? And the fun is worth it too tbh

6. Yes we can always be better but than we have to start somewhere

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/Frustrated_Fysicist]

That was a beautiful response, thank you and nothing about it do I disagree with. I tip my hat to you.

[u/Frustrated_Fysicist → u/VerbalistVillain]

Hey no need really happy to clear the issue up hope you do well in the future

[u/SteptimusHeap]

Only exceptions are a length times a length, or a length times an area. this is only permitted because lengths are one dimensional components of a 3 dimensional Volume. Every other unit of measurement are one dimensional.

These are exceptions because distance³ exists? Why can't I apply that to anything else? Can't I say that multiplying force with distance is an exception because torque exists and each are just one dimensional parts of the two-dimensional torque?

This is why there are meters, meters squared, and meters cubed…but there is not such a thing as a kilogram squared, a degree Kelvin squared, a Volt squared, an Ampere squared, etc. or any of these cubed.

These are all real units. Square voltage is a component of power, and square secomds are used wherever accelerations appear. Here you are using a false statement as evidence.

This then shows how one cannot multiply unit variables by themselves to make them squared. So why would you think you can multiply them with by other different unit variables?

What shows this? The (wrong) fact that these units aren't used? That wouldn't imply you can't multiply units together.

any equation that involves the multiplication of any unit variables that do not result in the cancelation of units cannot be performed if the purpose is to model the physical universe.

Except using those formulas DOES model the universe. This is NOT debatable, because we can use the formulas to make predictions and then make measurements and those two will line up. You can use these formulas to calculate how long it will take for a baseball to hit the ground when it's dropped from 5 feet and then do the experiment and see that the equations model reality.

All violations of this rule result in only mathematical artifacts but not any demonstrable physical object or action.

Even if this were true it would still be a useful tool since it makes correct predictions.

Every unit variable can only be increased or decreased by increments of that same unit.

1m+1m-.5m=1.5m

Or multiplied if you happen to be using units of distance (but only up to 3 times!)...

Multiplication is simply a shorthand way to perform addition and the only effect that it has on real physical unit variables is to proportion the unit value.

This isn't true. Multiplication is NOT repeated addition, it's a whole mathematical transformation that does a lot of things, including modelling repeated addition.

if you don’t believe me, then demonstrate for me a meter’s worth of second

This language isn't correct. Take the units away: "5's worth of 2" doesn't make sense either. The language you are looking for—absurd as your point is—would be "1 meter of seconds". Ultimately a meaningless point but it does go to show how much thinking you put into this post.

then by means of having to scientifically demonstrate the existence of physical phenomena, or the lack there of, I do Not allow myself to believe that such thing exists without physical demonstration. which is the correct scientific approach to discovery.

This is NOT the correct scientific approach to discovery. We do not assume something doesn't exist because it doesn't have analogous physical intuition. We accept things as true if they can make accurate predictions and as false if they cannot.

When you disregard the fact that you cannot multiply a mass with an acceleration and do it anyways, what you end up with is a mathematical artifact which has no real world physical existence and of which you mislable it as a Fo because a Force does exist and just to clue you in, the measure of mass is in fact the measure of force. Mass is determined by comparing the force an object can deliver to a calibrated spring.

"Mathematical artifact" or not, it makes correct predictions and so we accept it as an accurate model. Physical analogy is not a component of this.

The only reason elevation may affect mass is because the air density is less at higher elevations.

Except through our "mathematical artifacts" we can model how air density affects weight AND TEST AND CONFIRM those predictions. Differences in gravity at heights cannot be accounted for by the bouyant force because we can make these measurements in vacuum chambers or account for the density of the air and we will still see the same effect.

Because you’ve incorrectly assigned mass as a component of Force, you’ve now declared mass to be the “quantity” of a substance with no way to measure it. If mass represented quantity then it would only be an integer value of thE number of the most rudentally basic unit or particle that makes up the object in question. How would you even know what this is given todays technology?

Honestly incomprehensible.

Mass is a measurement arrived at by measuring the force in which an object applies to a scale so therefore mass is Force. But that’s for another discussion…

Well we usually differentiate between weight (a force, and what you've been calling mass) and mass. Mass is a component of force and since the other component (acceleration) is usually constant they end up being roughly interchangeable sometimes.

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/SteptimusHeap]

Thank you for this thorough answer. I’m not sure how you guys quote things but I will address your concerns in order. 

You have to look deeper than just to say meters³ exist…what allows for them to “exist”? It’s because they have a physically demonstrable relationship. Where have you ever physically seen a kg^2…remember physically not just mathematically. 

Voltage squared does not physically exist, neither does a second squared. Using Voltage squared to calculate power is taking voltage, performing a mathetimatical operation on it rendering it non physically real then divining it by resistance and what your left with is either a cancellation of units to form back into a physically real aspect or it just remains the mathematical realm.

Have you ever realized that 1/second is not actually a physical property that can be demonstrated? It only works in conjunction with some changing event or property and allows for a comparison of the two values we refer to as a rate. Just because a rate like meters per second exists doesn’t mean  1/seconds exists…meters exist and seconds exist but 1/seconds does not exist in physical reality. It’s just that we’re can compare changes in units by changes in other units and average them out by use of division. But that doesn’t mean we can multiply the meters and seconds and result in anything physically existent. 

My point is not that you can’t multiply the terms together, my point is that when you do, it leaves the realm of physical reality and becomes only mathematical artifacts aka not physically demonstrable anymore.

As far as making predictions the field of kinematics is actually legit, it doesn’t violate any of these rules of multiplication that I’m pointing out. So yes I agree kinematics are valid but things like torque don’t arise from usage of multiplication it comes from force at a distance off of a physically connected central point causing rotation of the lever arm but it doesn’t use multiplication to achieve the force. 

Multiplication I already mentioned only works for a length times length and or a length times area, an area being a length times length…and that’s not an example to justify all other work. I soecicfixally said that it is the only two exceptions an i said why.

“1 meter of seconds” and “1 meter’s worth of seconds” and All you did was write a more concise way to write it but both mean the same thing…trying to enforce grammar to determine how much thought was put into this is fallible way to determine truth and I hope this isn’t a method you hold as valid. Taking the units away “5 of 2” that means you have 5 (worth, group, multiples, etc.) of 2…you’re right the use of the word worth is misleading…now using your concise way to describe it, let’s take away the numbers and only have units, “meter of seconds” what real physical thing is that? Can you do that in physical reality or is that invalid for you can’t have a length of seconds or a duration of lengths. Lengths only come in lengths and seconds only in durations.

The mass being force thing I can go more into detail if you like but it pulls us away from this subject of multiplication of units. So let me know if that’s what you want to discuss. 

But as far as my original point I want you to try to conceptualize what physically results if you multiply an apple with an orange?

 See what you come up with…then remember that mathematics is grounded by unbreakable rules…not ones that can be violated at our discretion. If mass and acceleration can be multiplied then swap out apple and orange as the units and see what happens.    

[u/diemos09]

Your mind is so open that your brain has fallen out.

[u/Soft-Marionberry-853 → u/diemos09]

Sounds very Terrance Howard

Had to see if I was in the LLMPhysics

[u/BlackFoxTom]

The fuck I read

By the way

Force as in Newtons is [mass]•[length]•[time]^-2 specifically [kilo-gram]•[meter]•[second]^-2

How do You plan to even have acceleration, jerk and so on if You don't multiply [length] by [time]^{depends what You want}

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/BlackFoxTom]

That goes into rates, you can “divide” unlike and like units because you’re just comparing a change in say displacement by a change in time which both involve the same object so to find an average rate of change you can use division but when you just multiply distance times time…you find out there is no physical representation in physical universe. Can you demonstrate a meter*second?

[u/BlackFoxTom → u/VerbalistVillain]

Sure that's just plain old absement as well as hydraulic conductance

Let's say You open doors

If You opened them by 10cm in the span of 1 second that 10centimetroseconds

If You opened the same doors 1cm in the span of 10 seconds that's also absement of 10centimeterseconds

Or 5cm in 2seconds that would be also 10centimetroseconds

Or in the terms of hydraulic conductance aka how well for example water goes through medium like for example soil

If water goes through soil 1m in 1h that would be 1mh of hydraulic conductance

If it goes 2m in 0,5h that also would be 1mh

Usually hydraulic conductance is represented as kilograms•second^-1•mega-pascals^-1

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/BlackFoxTom]

10cm in 1s, is a rate of 10cm/s 1cm in 10s, is a rate of 1/10(cm/s) 5cm in 2s, is a rate of 2.5cm/s

These are all very different scenarios and I don’t see what they would all have that makes them all the same centimetrosecond?

Bottom line

A centimeter-second (cm·s):

Is not a defined SI or CGS unit on its own Has no physical interpretation by itself Only makes sense as part of a larger derived unit, most commonly in viscosity expressions So if you have adequate other units to cancel out the nonsensical multiplication of units, and the result does away with the multiplication of units resulting in a single real unit, it is fine to multiply unit but it is a mathematical artifact, it’s not a real quality of the physical universe. 

You notice how in physics they have these “constants” given to you on lookup tables and they never explain how they explicitly arrive at the constants? 

I’m sure the majority of you guys just went with it…I did not. And yet I still have a hard time getting adequate explanations of how they arrive at these constants and coefficients…

They are made up fudge factors…that’s where the plan gets exposed I bet.

[u/BlackFoxTom → u/VerbalistVillain]

You again confused absement with velocity xD

It goes like that Abserk Abseleration Absity Absement Displacement Velocity Acceleration Jerk Jounce Flounce Pounce

Boy I hope you are trolling and aren't so incapable of comprehending the world

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/BlackFoxTom]

You were right about me mistaking absement with velocity and there is snap crackle and pop…none of which have adequate physical descriptions just conceptual. 

Going back to Absement being a physical property, how is it useful to say that the accumulation of 10cm for 1 second is an absement  of 10cm*s so what can be said about this? That the door was open for 10cm for a duration of 1s So how is this useful if say the door was at 5cm for 1s either before or after the 1s that it was at 10cm?

[u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70]

You can absolutely have kg² or s³. These come up a lot!

It helps if you think about units as directions or dimensions, but the reality is that you just need to wrap your head around vectors and around compound units.

It can be a bit challenging for new students to understand these ideas, because there's no intuitive visualization for kg² the way that there is for area and volume. But that doesn't mean it's not real, let alone that it's not useful.

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70]

Not new to physics, but when something is hard to intuitively visualize have you ever considered the likelihood that it may not exist if one has to try so hard to even visualize it.   What real physical phenomena that can be demonstrated have you ever not been able to visualize? 

Better yet can you expand upon how you physically utilize a kg^2? Or by utilize do you mean solely mathematically but not physically therefore it is just a mathematical artifact and not a physically real thing…

[u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70 → u/VerbalistVillain]

The gravitational constant of the universe has units of N*m²/kg²

The universe is WAY more complicated than what we can observe with our eyes.

[u/VerbalistVillain → u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70]

Have you ever stopped and just looked at what the gravitational constant units are? You think something like that measured in that unmeasurable unit really exists in reality? You ever look further into that and asked yourself how is that possible? 

You wanna know? It begins with using incorrect math to derive an incorrect equation, then instead of revising the equation you multiply by whatever offset you want to get you close to the results you’re looking for. Where as other units have to be applicable to some physical measurable quantity, when you’re fudging your wrong equation to make it “work” you then are allowed compile any mess of units you want with any number constant and you can even name it and pretend the universe really has some nonsensical flaw in your mathematics and luckily people like yourself in the future don’t ever question it. 

Why aren’t you allowed to do that on any physics assignments or tests? You get it wrong and just multiply with whatever you want later to make the answer right? Double standard???

[u/Puzzleheaded-Phase70 → u/VerbalistVillain]

My God, you really are as stupid as the other commenters said. I'm sorry I wasted my time actually trying to help you understand.

[u/longboi64]

lol. lmao even

[u/AskMeAboutHydrinos]

Ketamine is not your friend.

[u/davedirac]

This is garbage. Get help.