XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: g@crcomp.net
Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/24/2026 06:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>
>
> Karl Popper doesn't actually say much, he just echoes
> scientism the good parts (observability, repeatability,
> then emphasizing falsifiability of the theory) then
> gets into "social" writing or matter of "human science",
> which are plainly oxymoronic.
>
> Kant for scientism just echoes the ancient Greeks.
>
> Don't get me wrong. When you first hear of Karl Popper
> and W. Van. O. Quine, and hear that for example "Popper
> demands falsifiability in science" and "Quine has ultimate
> proper classes and anti-foundational atoms", that seems great,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
