>>13385406> feel free to start emailing physics and maths departments telling them how wrong everyone has been for hundreds of years. Ironic. Why don't you try that after you tell them that angular frequency is reported as 1/s and not as some specified angle/time. lmao.
i'm not even saying conventional physics is wrong you dumb fuck. learn to read. I'm saying that you can only suppress the radians unit (which is done) when the observable itself doesn't depend on the way you represent the angle (rad, rev, degree, etc.). So torque and angular momentum can have their radians unit suppressed because they don't depend on how you represent the angle. Angular velocity, however, does depend on the way you represent angle, so you must report the angle in the dimensions to specify what you're doing. If you wrote that an angular frequency was 1/s on any of my exams, I'd take off a shit ton of marks for you not understanding dimensional analysis. If you emailed any physics professor, they'd agree with me that angular frequency must be reported with an angular unit. Now if you asked them whether torque had a radian in it, I guarantee you that you'll get two types of answers: stalling for time, or an admittance of arbitrariness where it's often reported as J/rad in units, and they'll admit they haven't really thought about it.
Physics professor (which I am) doesn't really amount to much desu, since most physicists don't think about this kind of elementary shit. For example, when we talk about the amplitude of a simple harmonic oscillator, it's actually ambiguously defined. Pseuds like you likely never think about it though. If you don't believe me, review Morin.
