[alancalverd]

If you think you are too smart to use AI, you are deceiving yourself. Reality will hit you hard.

If you are dumb enough to accept AI, reality really will hit you, and you will have no legal recourse for compensation.

I've just been flying with a commercial pilot who resigned from his job when rostered onto Boeings, where the engineers think Hamdani's concept of torque is correct and AI insists on crashing the planes if the doors haven't already fallen off.

[alancalverd]

You seem to have forgotten about Taylor series expansion.

What makes you think that? And what makes you think it excuses your use of x to mean two entirely different things?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Okay, so you are saying if there is no rotation the torque is indeterminate. That is equally as ludicrous as infinite torque.

Calculation of torque and rotational inertia require the axis of rotation to be determined. How would you determine it if it never turns?
In some cases like a motor, pulley or lever, you can determine the axis of rotation from previously observed rotation, and assume that it will be the same next time if it's going to rotate again.

Now you have learned that unexpected results come from false assumptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you think you are too smart to use AI, you are deceiving yourself. Reality will hit you hard.

If you are dumb enough to accept AI, reality really will hit you, and you will have no legal recourse for compensation.

I've just been flying with a commercial pilot who resigned from his job when rostered onto Boeings, where the engineers think Hamdani's concept of torque is correct and AI insists on crashing the planes if the doors haven't already fallen off.

You should accept its answer when it's correct, and reject it when it's false. You should not blindly accept nor reject it without verification.

[Bored chemist]

You should accept its answer when it's correct, and reject it when it's false.

How do you know which is which?
It's worryingly close to religion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It just means that current AI model is still affected by current cultural inertia facts.

The fact is that all AI models that's available for free use have unanimously concluded that my proposed system is superior to current SI standard as well as other proposed systems in terms of consistency, generality, and theoretical value.
Perplexity even claimed that "It is arguably the most rigorous and physically meaningful system proposed to date for rotational units."
If you think you can do better, you can show that you can convince those AI models that your system is better than mine.

[Bored chemist]

Now you have learned that unexpected results come from false assumptions.

We were already aware of GIGO.
It's silly to think we learned about it from you.

[Bored chemist]

The fact is that all AI models that's available for free use have unanimously concluded that my proposed system is superior to current SI standard as well as other proposed systems in terms of consistency, generality, and theoretical value.

How  many of then can draw a picture of half a glass of wine?

You may also find this interesting.

At least he is deliberately poisoning AI input data.
You are just sending them on a wild goose chase.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You should accept its answer when it's correct, and reject it when it's false.

How do you know which is which?
It's worryingly close to religion.

In my case, the goal is to have a unit system with uncompromising consistency according to all definitions and equations related to rotational quantities.
You can be sure that an answer is false if it contradicts one or more equations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now you have learned that unexpected results come from false assumptions.

We were already aware of GIGO.
It's silly to think we learned about it from you.

I showed that some of the assumptions that you embrace religiously, i.e. current SI units are flawed. They are not as perfect as you might think.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The fact is that all AI models that's available for free use have unanimously concluded that my proposed system is superior to current SI standard as well as other proposed systems in terms of consistency, generality, and theoretical value.

How  many of then can draw a picture of half a glass of wine?

You may also find this interesting.

At least he is deliberately poisoning AI input data.
You are just sending them on a wild goose chase.

That's a logical fallacy called non-sequituur. If an AI model, or a human being, cannot play music, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their reasoning capacity.

[Bored chemist]

You don't need to reformat it. You need to abandon it.
AI isn't good enough yet.
You said so yourself.
"The AI model doesn't seem to see the problem, so I have to step in."

If your new car couldn't start because some cables are disconnected, will you just abandon it? Or will you try to fix it first?

If your car doesn't work, then you know it doesn't work.
But if your AI tells you that some molecule cures cancer what do you do?


You could believe the AI- which would be stupid.

Or you can test it.
But, if you have to do that, you could have done the same without the AI .

So it doesn't actually help you, does it?

[Bored chemist]

The fact is that all AI models that's available for free use have unanimously concluded that my proposed system is superior to current SI standard as well as other proposed systems in terms of consistency, generality, and theoretical value.

How  many of then can draw a picture of half a glass of wine?

You may also find this interesting.

At least he is deliberately poisoning AI input data.
You are just sending them on a wild goose chase.

That's a logical fallacy called non-sequituur. If an AI model, or a human being, cannot play music, it doesn't necessarily invalidate their reasoning capacity.

It is hard to believe that you missed the point so spectacularly.

[Bored chemist]

Now you have learned that unexpected results come from false assumptions.

We were already aware of GIGO.
It's silly to think we learned about it from you.

I showed that some of the assumptions that you embrace religiously, i.e. current SI units are flawed. They are not as perfect as you might think.

There is a computer on teh table in front of me .
It is doomed to reproduce the words that you typed in.
But that does not mean it is validating your words.

The AI you used are in the same position.

[Bored chemist]

You should accept its answer when it's correct, and reject it when it's false.

How do you know which is which?
It's worryingly close to religion.

In my case, the goal is to have a unit system with uncompromising consistency according to all definitions and equations related to rotational quantities.
You can be sure that an answer is false if it contradicts one or more equations.

And we have shown that your idea leads to an undefined torque for a car with the brakes on.

So we know that your idea is invalid.

If I got chatGPT to say that, would that make you believe it?

[alancalverd]

Calculation of torque and rotational inertia require the axis of rotation to be determined. How would you determine it if it never turns?

By not using the irrelevant word "rotation" if nothing is rotating. Then use your brain and years of education.

If you twist a plastic rod, different bits rotate through different angles- the middle might not rotate at all. But you have only applied one value of torque. So obviously angle is irrelevant to the definition of torque.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You should accept its answer when it's correct, and reject it when it's false.

How do you know which is which?
It's worryingly close to religion.

In my case, the goal is to have a unit system with uncompromising consistency according to all definitions and equations related to rotational quantities.
You can be sure that an answer is false if it contradicts one or more equations.

And we have shown that your idea leads to an undefined torque for a car with the brakes on.

So we know that your idea is invalid.

If I got chatGPT to say that, would that make you believe it?

You already said

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=87006.msg745237#msg745237

"This "The question is, what's the torque produced by the force?" is a meaningless question.
It's like asking "How far is it to Rome?". There is no "right" answer.

If you don't specify "about such and such a point" then you can't sensibly ask what the torque is."

which proves my point.

Just do it if you can. No one is preventing you from doing that. Try to convince any frontier AI model to say that current SI units are perfect. You can even use the smarter, professional/more expensive models to make your points. Until it happens, it's just a hypothetical scenario.

If you succeed, we should analyze its thinking process to double check whether you presented valid facts and reasonings, or you just gaslighted it and trick it to say what it doesn't mean. No one should accept nor reject anyone else's statements without valid reasons.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Calculation of torque and rotational inertia require the axis of rotation to be determined. How would you determine it if it never turns?

By not using the irrelevant word "rotation" if nothing is rotating. Then use your brain and years of education.

If you twist a plastic rod, different bits rotate through different angles- the middle might not rotate at all. But you have only applied one value of torque. So obviously angle is irrelevant to the definition of torque.

If there is no rotation, then effectively there is no rotational force. Hence the torque must have been counterbalanced completely.
The plastic rod must have torsional stiffness, which is not necessarily constant as it's being deformed. Typically, the displacement angle is measured at the outermost layer.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Make the Radian Explicit and Resolve SI's Rotational Unit Ambiguities - Sign the Petition!
via @ChangeOrg_ID
 
Perplexity even claimed that "It is arguably the most rigorous and physically meaningful system proposed to date for rotational units."

https://www.change.org/p/make-the-radian-explicit-and-resolve-si-s-rotational-unit-ambiguities?
https://chng.it/ckjrNmGP6B

To: The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), National Metrology Institutes (e.g., NIST, NPL, PTB), International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), and the Global Scientific Community

The Problem: Why Our Current SI Units for Rotation Cause Confusion

For decades, students, educators, and professionals in physics and engineering have grappled with inherent ambiguities in the International System of Units (SI), particularly concerning rotational mechanics. While SI is the bedrock of modern science, its treatment of angular quantities and derived rotational units leads to unnecessary conceptual confusion and potential for error.

Consider these critical issues:

- The Torque-Energy Conundrum: In current SI, both torque (a turning force) and energy (the capacity to do work) are measured in Newton-meters (N ? m) or Joules (J). This fundamental ambiguity obscures the distinct physical nature of these quantities. How can two fundamentally different concepts share the exact same unit without causing confusion?
- The "Vanishing" Radian: The radian (rad) is officially defined as "dimensionless" (rad = 1). This means it implicitly appears and disappears in equations (v = rω becomes m/s = m ? (1/s)), hiding the explicit angular component and making dimensional analysis less transparent. This also creates issues for the arguments of mathematical functions (like sin(θ) or e^x), which should ideally be truly unitless for dimensional consistency of their Taylor series expansions.
- Ambiguous Rotational Quantities: Units for quantities like moment of inertia (kg ? m?), centripetal force (N), and torsional stiffness (N ? m or J) lack an explicit angular dimension, making their rotational nature less intuitive and distinct from their linear counterparts.

Our Proposed Solution: A Clearer, More Consistent Framework

We propose a principled revision to the SI standard that resolves these ambiguities by making the radian an explicit unit in rotational contexts and introducing a crucial distinction between types of radius.

The core of our proposal lies in defining two distinct types of radius:

- Geometric Radius (r_geo): Represents a static linear distance or spatial extent. Its unit remains the meter (m). When squared, it correctly yields area (m?). (e.g., The distance from the center of a circle to its edge for calculating area).
- Rotational Radius (r_rot): Represents the dynamic scaling factor between angular displacement and tangential displacement (ds/dθ). It describes how linear motion is achieved from angular motion. Its unit is explicitly meter per radian (m/rad).
- Crucial in Orbits: In elliptical planetary orbits, the rotational radius (r_rot) correctly captures the constantly changing relationship between angular motion and tangential distance relative to the gravitational focus (the Sun). This is fundamentally different from a static geometric radius which describes the ellipse's shape. This variation (r_rot at aphelion differs from perihelion) is key to understanding the dynamics of motion, whereas for a simple circular orbit, r_rot would be constant.

This foundational distinction enables a suite of coherent and unambiguous units for rotational quantities:

- Torque (τ): Redefined from N ? m to Joule per radian (J/rad). This immediately clarifies torque as "energy per unit angle," eliminating confusion with work/energy.
- Moment of Inertia (I): Redefined from kg ? m? to kg ? m?/rad?. This visually distinguishes the rotational mass distribution from a simple geometric area.
- Centripetal Force (F_c): Redefined from N to Newton-radian (N ? rad). This explicitly marks it as a force inherent to rotational dynamics.
- Torsional Stiffness (k_t): Redefined from N ? m or J to Joule per radian squared (J/rad?). This clearly separates it from energy.
- Angular Momentum (L): Redefined to kg ? m?/(s ? rad) (or J ? s/rad).
- Angular Velocity (rad/s): The radian is explicitly treated as a unit, participating in all dimensional analyses.

The Power of Universal Energy (Joule):

Perhaps the most elegant outcome is the unambiguous consistency of the Joule (J) as the unit for ALL forms of work and energy:

- Linear Work: F ? d ? N ? m = J.
- Rotational Work: τ ? Δθ ? (J/rad) ? rad = J.
- Rotational Kinetic Energy: ? I ω? ? (kg ? m?/rad?) ? (rad/s)? = kg ? m?/s? = J.
- Torsional Potential Energy: ? k_t θ? ? (J/rad?) ? rad? = J.
- Work by Centripetal Force (due to radial displacement): When radial displacement (Δ r) is correctly defined as a change in rotational radius (m/rad), work becomes F_c ? Δ r ? (N ? rad) ? (m/rad) = N ? m = J.

This system ensures that energy conversions across linear and rotational domains are dimensionally transparent and consistently resolve to the Joule.

Broader Clarity in Concepts:

- Distinguishing Angle from General Frequency: This framework clearly differentiates "angular" quantities (like ω in rad/s) which are inherently rotational, from general "frequency" (Hz or s?-1) which applies to any periodic event (like a dripping faucet). Conversion factors explicitly bring in the radian.
- Unitless Function Arguments: By treating the radian as an explicit unit, the system naturally ensures that arguments for transcendental functions (e.g., sin(θ)) become truly unitless after appropriate cancellations, maintaining mathematical rigor.

Why This Change is Necessary:

This proposed system is not merely a technicality; it's a critical step forward for:

- Eliminating Conceptual Confusion: No more asking "Is this N ? m a torque or an energy?"
Improving Physics Education: Makes rotational dynamics inherently more intuitive and easier to grasp for students.
- Enhancing Scientific and Engineering Precision: Reduces the risk of errors stemming from unit ambiguities in complex calculations.
- Reflecting Physical Reality: The explicit units better represent the underlying physical nature of rotational quantities.

We believe that the time has come for SI to evolve to meet the needs of modern physics and engineering. This proposed system offers a robust, consistent, and intuitive solution to long-standing challenges in rotational mechanics.

Please sign this petition to urge the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and related scientific bodies to seriously consider and implement this vital revision to the SI standard for rotational units.

Let's make physics clearer, more consistent, and more intuitive for generations to come.

Hamdani Yusuf, June 3, 2025

[alancalverd]

What ambiguity? The preferred SI unit of angle is the radian but it is inconvenient for navigation, architecture, machining, timekeeping etc. so its use is not mandatory.

How would you divide a semicircular protractor into π segments?

Could a ship's captain or an air traffic controller say "steer 1.7 π" and expect the pilot to comply? 

No more asking "Is this N ? m a torque or an energy?"

Who, apart from your goodself and a few Boeing mechanics, is unable to read the word "torque" on a torque wrench or an assembly specification? The local tyre shop has no problem.