XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: ttt_heg@web.de
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 existing universe
> we'd end up with essential;ly the same theory.
My own approach was, that time is local and space is 'relative'.
To get such a behavior I have searched for something, which would allow
such behavior.
This is actually possible, if you think about a certain type of complex
numbers and a connection between them, which is also known as certain
type of geometric algebra.
So, we need a system, which allows an imaginary time 'axis' at every
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
