XPost: sci.electronics.design
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
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.
> >
> > 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.
Popper has repeatedy and loudly complained
about the so-called 'irrationality' of scientists,
because they (being competent scientist)
ignored his prescriptions,
Jan
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
