XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: bill.sloman@ieee.org
On 6/03/2026 7:37 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Dienstag000003, 03.03.2026 um 13:40 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>> On 3/03/2026 8:06 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 11:03 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>>>> On 1/03/2026 8:26 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:17 schrieb Bill Sloman:
>>>>>> On 28/02/2026 8:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>>>>>>> On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely physical constant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As of the latest revision of the SI, Boltzmann's constant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just another conversion factor between units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no longer any physical content to it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boltzmann constant is in the little leaflet in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every book on thermodynamics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Often it's the only "physical constant" given.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The SI units are much separated from the relevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical domains these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, "defining" the second as about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cesium atom its hyperfine transition, and "defining"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the meter as that according to the "defined" speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of light, results all that's defined not derived,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the System Internationale units that we all know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and love simply don't say much about the objective
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reality of the quantities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing that you have the wit to understand?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The are a lot of steps between the optical spectrum of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> cloud of cesium
>>>>>>>>>>>> atoms and the frequency of an oscillator running slowly
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough for you
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to count transitions, but there is no question
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> objective reality of every last one of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eh, the basis for the SI is the defined value
>>>>>>>>>>> for a -microwave- frequency of the Cesium atom.
>>>>>>>>>>> From an engineering point of view a Cesium clock
>>>>>>>>>>> is nothing but a stabilised quartz clock.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That "nothing but" ignores the fact that the output of the
>>>>>>>>>> cesium clock
>>>>>>>>>> has a much more stable frequency than the outputs of regular
>>>>>>>>>> quartz
>>>>>>>>>> clocks. That's why people pay more money for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, it is a stibilised quartz clock.
>>>>>>>>> I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
>>>>>>>>> so I adapted the description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Optical frequency standards do exist,
>>>>>>>>>>> such as Strontium lattice 'clocks' for example,
>>>>>>>>>>> but so far they are frequecy standards only,
>>>>>>>>>>> not yet clocks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_lattice_clock
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said, they are called 'clocks'
>>>>>>>>> but for the time being they are only frequency standards.
>>>>>>>>> (precisely because they cannot be used yet to stabilise a
>>>>>>>>> quartz clock)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The process of turning a frequency standard into a clock is
>>>>>>>>>> fairly
>>>>>>>>>> complicated but the devices are already sold as clocks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From an engineering point of view that is just being able to
>>>>>>>>> count.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time is a universal parameter of most theories of mechanics,
>>>>>>>> and the useful ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But time must be a LOCAL parameter ONLY!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is total bunk to assume, that an 'external' clock would exist,
>>>>>>> which synchronizes everything in the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clocks don't exist to synchronise anything. They can be part of a
>>>>>> local system which synchronises some local action to an event
>>>>>> which has been observed from that location. Granting the bulk of
>>>>>> the universe is expanding away from any given point at a speed
>>>>>> which is increase with time and distance time dilation alone makes
>>>>>> the idea of perfect synchronicity untenable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If nothing synchronizes remote systems, then how could we
>>>>> rightfully assume, that remote systems share the same time?
>>>>
>>>> It's a very convenient assumption.The big bang theory has the
>>>> universe starting to expand from a very small point some 13.8
>>>> billion years ago, and what we can see of the observable universe is
>>>> consistent with that.
>>>
>>> Sure, it's convenient.
>>>
>>> But is it actually true???
>>
>> We don't seem to need a different explanation at this point.
>> If eventually make some observations that are inconsistent with the
>> theory, we'll start looking for a better one, but the big gbang theory
>> seems to be true enough for all current practical purposes
>
> Nature does not care about what we need.
>
> Nature is as nature is, whether we like it or not.
>
>
>>> Big bang theory suffers from a 'little' problem:
>>>
>>> how would you actually create a universe from nothing?
>>
>> Nobody said anything about creating it from nothing. The point about
>> the theory is that it starts off with a large lump of undifferentiated
>> mass- energy that doesn't have any structure that links it back to a
>> preceding structure. The early stages of its development seem to have
>> been pretty well randomised, and if the mechanism that created initial
>> the lump of mass energy was merely the collapse of a previously
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
