XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
Bill Sloman wrote:
> On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bill Sloman wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 à 20:13, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
> >>>> every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
> >>>> more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
> >>>> that is your entire world-view.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
> >>>> identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
> >>>> constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
> >>>> a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
> >>>>
> >>>> It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
> >>>> and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
> >>>>
> >>>> Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
> >>>> universe of mathematical objects in it.
> >>>
> >>> What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
> >>> purely physical constant?
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
> >>
> >> Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
> >
> > Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
> > like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
> > because they you tell one about what units you are using.
>
> The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
> Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
> measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
> >> The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
> >
> > Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
> > what they are talking about.
> > If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
> > outside their speciality.
> > (I have known some electrical engineers...)
> >
> >> When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
> >> dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
> >> 1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
> >
> > Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
>
> Pretty much every scientist is expert in a limited domain
Of course, but not all of them know their limits.
> > For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science
> > (inventing what is now called 'naive positivism').
>
> Pontificating outside your area of expertise is always a temptation.
Pontificating is one thing.
Nasty philosophers of science, like Mach, or Popper
wanted to be prescriptive,
so telling others how science must be done to be correct.
> > His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
> > his understanding of physics in general.
> > Planck already made mincemeat of him.
> >
> > According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
> > without 'real' existence.
>
> Max Planck initially thought that his quantised energy was just such a
> theoretical convenience,
Yes, but he was soon cured of that by Ehrenfest,
who proved that Planck's trick was not only sufficient,
but also necessary to arrive at the black body law.
And of course there was also Einstein 1905.
> > Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
> > are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value. >
> > From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
> > for determining Avogadro's number experimentally.
> > It was the convergence of different results,
> > obtained independently by different methods,
> > to results roughly in the same ballpark
> > that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
> > and hence Mach wrong.
> > As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
>
> He did get around.
Certainly, he was already well known before 1905,
and he became a major player after that year.
Jan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
