Recent content by Kim Gi Hyuk

Thank you, Dale, for the extended discussion. After 22 exchanges, I think our core disagreement is now clear, and I'd like to close my part of this thread with a summary of where I stand. 1. The relationships between physical quantities reflect nature, not just convention.Dimensional analysis...

Do you consider dimensional analysis itself to be unit-system-dependent? Buckingham's π theorem identifies dimensionless groups that hold across all unit systems — would you call that nonsense too?

Thank you, Dale. I think you make a valid philosophical observation — dimensionality is conventional, and unit choices are human decisions. I would gently note, however, that in your earlier comment you pointed out that Heaviside-Lorentz units make the dimensions of E, B, D, H, P, and M...

Thank you for your response, Dale. You are absolutely right that the fundamental formulas and expressions within classical electromagnetism are, in an essential sense, complete. I would not dispute that. However, the goal of my work is somewhat different. What I have tried to do is to...

Thank you for your pointed critique — I think it is largely fair. You are correct that the derivation of χ is ultimately an algebraic manipulation of Gauss's law and Ampère's law. I do not dispute that. The question I would like to focus on is not whether the manipulation is algebraically...

Thank you for the pointed critique, Dale. I think there may be a misunderstanding worth clarifying. You are absolutely right that one can always multiply an arbitrary quantity by some power of ε₀ or μ₀ and obtain something with mechanical dimensions. Algebraically, nothing stops that. But that...

Thank you for the feedback, Dale. You are right — I should have shown the derivation explicitly from the outset. Let me clarify how the expressions relate to Gauss's law and Ampère's law in SI units. Starting from Gauss's law: ∇·E = ρ/ε -> (∇·E)² = ρ²/ε² Multiplying both sides by ε...

Thank you, WernerQH — this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. The point about E and B having the same dimension in the Gaussian system is particularly striking. In SI-based frameworks, they appear dimensionally distinct, yet the underlying physics treats them as components of a...

You're right — I should have specified SI units from the start. Apologies for the ambiguity. Exactly — and that kind of identification is the core of this work. My project is to systematically map all physical quantities by dimensional structure using MLTIQNJ base dimensions (extending MLT to...

Background. I have been building a systematic dimensional map of electromagnetic quantities, organized by their MLTIQNJ exponents. The map places mechanical quantities along a central vertical axis, with electric quantities to the left and magnetic quantities to the right — connected by...

Thanks for your comments! I will try to apply the equation for center of mass motion in a rotating coordinate system.

Thanks for your concise and meaningful expanation!

Ok, (1) I confused 'contact point' and 'center of mass'. For the center of mass, I think, is as follows in the rotaional coordinate system, 4-1-1 md omega^2 = mg sin theta - F 4-2-1 md d/dt(omega) = R - mg cos theta (2) If no slip, normal force can become zero only when the rod...