[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The equation would produce the numerical value in the unit of 1/second^2 before any conversion,

Then you must be using an unconventional definiion of torque

I used conventional definition from English dictionaries.
Using your definition, how do you determine rotational acceleration caused by the torque?

[alancalverd]

τ = I α

as {τ} = ML²T^-2 and {I} = ML², α must be in rad/sec²

[Bored chemist]

Since no one have shown their capacity to answer this question

I have not shown you my capacity to walk and chew gum.
But it would be sensible to guess that I can.

Since you haven't shown your capacity, no one will know it for sure.

I have shown here that I can do quite a lot of things.
If you can't see that... that's not my problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

τ = I α

as {τ} = ML²T^-2 and {I} = ML², α must be in rad/sec²

You can use standard units. But you can also use non-standard units, as long as you are consistent with their usage and the conversion factors.
Let's say the torque is 1 N.m/rotation, and the rotational inertia is 1 kg.m^2/rotation^2. The rotational acceleration is 1 rotation/second^2.
If the torque is applied for 1 second, the rotational velocity of the object will be 1 rotation per second.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have shown here that I can do quite a lot of things.
If you can't see that... that's not my problem.

You seem to be good at chemistry. But not so much at math and physics. IMO.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

τ = I α

as {τ} = ML²T^-2 and {I} = ML², α must be in rad/sec²

You can use standard units. But you can also use non-standard units, as long as you are consistent with their usage and the conversion factors.
Let's say the torque is 1 N.m/rotation, and the rotational inertia is 1 kg.m^2/rotation^2. The rotational acceleration is 1 rotation/second^2.
If the torque is applied for 1 second, the rotational velocity of the object will be 1 rotation per second.

In standard unit, the torque above equals 1/(2π) N.m/rad
The rotational inertia is 1/(2π)^2 kg.m^2/rad^2.
The rotational acceleration is 2π rad/second^2.
If the torque is applied for 1 second, the rotational velocity of the object will be 2π rad/second.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You, Hamdani, have fallen into delusions of grandeur, thinking that you are smarter than the current body of scientific discipline.

You have fallen into a logical fallacy called argument from authority.

No.
There's nothing wrong with recognising the authority of authorities.

Recognizing doesn't mean always agree blindly without question. It has some value for making decisions, especially if we don't have the first hand information ourselves.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You, Hamdani, have fallen into delusions of grandeur, thinking that you are smarter than the current body of scientific discipline.

If you know someone smarter than you, please ask them to find the errors in my explanation. You can protect other viewers from making errors themselves in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you're not very smart, it's better to be conservative - Jordan Peterson

He's a Conservative and a liar.
I'm not sure he's all that bright.
But he's a very good con-man.
Maybe if you are stuck with a choice of citing him or chatGPT as your source... maybe just don't say anything.

However, his point is not absolutely unreasonable; you have just misapplied it.
Because you are not very smart, you should just listen to what the clever people say, and accept that the SI units work.

Can you show how the SI units work to solve the problems I posted earlier?

[alancalverd]

If I apply a "Hamdani torque" of 1 Nm/rad and nothing moves, what happened to the rad?

[Bored chemist]

I have shown here that I can do quite a lot of things.
If you can't see that... that's not my problem.

You seem to be good at chemistry. But not so much at math and physics. IMO.

My maths isn't great but don't you understand that there's a lot of maths an physics involved in chemistry.
So, if I'm good at that, I can't be bad at the others.
You say "IMO"; that tells me your opinion isn't founded in reality.

[paul cotter]

As regards #367, I certainly can help you. I recommend Alancalverd and Bored Chemist for this important task as I have determined from their posts that both have a greater understanding of physics than I have. I could also recommend Kryptid, Halc, Janus, Origin, Eternal Student and many others but I doubt if they are interested.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have shown here that I can do quite a lot of things.
If you can't see that... that's not my problem.

You seem to be good at chemistry. But not so much at math and physics. IMO.

My maths isn't great but don't you understand that there's a lot of maths an physics involved in chemistry.
So, if I'm good at that, I can't be bad at the others.
You say "IMO"; that tells me your opinion isn't founded in reality.

It tells you that my opinion is different from yours.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If I apply a "Hamdani torque" of 1 Nm/rad and nothing moves, what happened to the rad?

What's the force?
What's the radius of rotation?
What's the rotational inertia?
Your question is underdetermined.

When the object doesn't move, then the acceleration is zero. So does the rotational acceleration. The net torque must be zero.

Then you must be using an unconventional definiion of torque

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As regards #367, I certainly can help you. I recommend Alancalverd and Bored Chemist for this important task as I have determined from their posts that both have a greater understanding of physics than I have. I could also recommend Kryptid, Halc, Janus, Origin, Eternal Student and many others but I doubt if they are interested.

You are not restricted to contact members of this forum only. You can ask your professors and share their answers here.
If they don't have time to read all of my explanation here, just focus on my post #355, which contains the most basic premises of this thread.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

τ = I α

as {τ} = ML²T^-2 and {I} = ML², α must be in rad/sec²

You can use standard units. But you can also use non-standard units, as long as you are consistent with their usage and the conversion factors.
Let's say the torque is 1 N.m/rotation, and the rotational inertia is 1 kg.m^2/rotation^2. The rotational acceleration is 1 rotation/second^2.
If the torque is applied for 1 second, the rotational velocity of the object will be 1 rotation per second.

In standard unit, the torque above equals 1/(2π) N.m/rad
The rotational inertia is 1/(2π)^2 kg.m^2/rad^2.
The rotational acceleration is 2π rad/second^2.
If the torque is applied for 1 second, the rotational velocity of the object will be 2π rad/second.

The conversion factor between linear and rotational quantities are arc length distance of the rotational motioan divided by  rotational angle, whatever the units are used.
Since one radian is the angle created at the center of a circle by an arc whose length is equal to the circle's radius, the numerical value of the conversion factor equals the radius of rotation if the angle is expressed in radian.
But radian is not the only unit for measuring angle. Other units can also be used, as long as they are used consistently.

[Bored chemist]

Dimensional analysis says that the volume of a sphere "should" be r^3, but it's not.
In a similar way, the energy change due to a single turn with a torque of 1 n m "should" be 1 joule, but it's not.

A long time ago, the Lindemann?Weierstrass theorem proved that squares and circles were "incommensurate".

It seems the OP recently made the same observation about rotary and linear motion.

And he thinks I'm bad at maths and physics because I have better things to do than to answer irrelevant high-school mechanics problems for him.

[paul cotter]

Hamdani, i gave you the names of two academics who could answer your questions and dispel your confusion- what more could you possibly want? Any professors I would have known would be long dead at this stage: example, I knew professor Wesley Cocker who worked at ICI on the development of polymethyl methacrylate(Perspex) and he was fairly old 55years ago. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And he thinks I'm bad at maths and physics because I have better things to do than to answer irrelevant high-school mechanics problems for him.

I didn't say you are bad at math. Only not as good as you are at chemistry.
A good mathematician or physicist will be able to answer my questions in mere minutes, or even seconds, which can be much faster than what it takes for you to type a post in this thread.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hamdani, i gave you the names of two academics who could answer your questions and dispel your confusion- what more could you possibly want?

What's their answers?
If you haven't asked them, how can I contact them so I can ask them myself?