Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Request for clarification on Unit commensurability
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Request for clarification on Unit commensurability
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:39:26 +0100
As mentioned, you're free to change the "c" from a pure numeric constant to
something else.
We don't make money from this, but I don't think the company that does (
http://www.dagego.de/) got this totally wrong.
Of course sometimes even the world's leading brands like Ford got a view of
Quantity, Measurement and Unit that totally contradicts what everyone in
this EG (regardless of their degree or profession;-) agrees to be somewhat
"twisted".
Werner
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
wrote:
>
>
Quantity<Energy> energy = (Quantity<Energy>)
>
volume.multiply(temperature);
>
>
This is dimensionally wrong at least in the SI system. I have a Ph.D. in
>
physical oceanography and a bachelor in pure physics, and I'm going to
>
fight this heresy as strongly as I fought the "*lying parameterized type*"
>
thing. This line is totally unacceptable in SI, *absolutely no excuse can
>
make it acceptable*. Do you really want to go in this fight for just an
>
example?
>
>
I do not claim that Mayer is wrong. But I'm pretty sure that the Boltzmann
>
constant is somewhere in his equations, maybe implicitly. As I can not read
>
German, and can not verify by myself.
>
>
>
Le 16/12/14 20:56, Werner Keil a écrit :
>
>
A key reason why JSR-275 was dismissed by EC Members like Google was the
>
"geeky" "5th Grade High School Teacher" (that was literally one of the PDR
>
comments;-) attitude they saw in the spec and also the JSR at the time.
>
>
If we don't want to follow the same fate, we need to provide those who
>
are interested (e.g. Eclipse SmartHome, Opower's Open Source efforts or
>
others) useful answers to questions like "How could JSR 363 help me save
>
energy and money in my home?" not "What's the Boltzmann Constant?"
>
>
I do not accept this silly argument (except if we take it as "*be more
>
pedagogic*"). The fact that someone understand the Boltzmann constant or
>
not does not change anything to the laws of physics or mathematics. The
>
desire to make money can not be stronger than the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, not
>
5. In this particular case, m3*K (your formula) is NOT equals to kg*m2/s2
>
(energy).
>
>
Martin
>
>