XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   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.   
   Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that   
   measured distance into a propagation delay.   
      
   >> 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   
      
   > 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.   
      
   > 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,   
      
   > 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.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)