Re: energy and mass

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: energy and mass
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.electronics.design
Date : 26. Feb 2026, 15:41:20
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <SpKcnaO5RaENxj30nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
>
Too bad for most theories of mechanics; too
bad for your moronic physics.
>
>
Time is a universal _absolute_ parameter.
About space-contraction as length-contraction and
time-dilation together, has that clocks "slow" or
"meet" about differences between "space-contraction-linear"
and "space-contraction-rotational", breaking out the
"space-contraction" as "-linear" and "-rotational"
instead of "length-contraction" and "time-dilation".
This is a very euclidean account.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 Feb 26 * Re: energy and mass1090Ross Finlayson
23 Feb 26 +* Re: energy and mass1075J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i`* Re: energy and mass1074J. J. Lodder
24 Feb 26 i `* Re: energy and mass1073Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 i  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i  `* Re: energy and mass1071Bill Sloman
25 Feb 26 i   +* Re: energy and mass1069J. J. Lodder
25 Feb 26 i   i+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
25 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   i+* Re: energy and mass1026Bill Sloman
26 Feb 26 i   ii+- Re: energy and mass1Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass4Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass3J. J. Lodder
26 Feb 26 i   iii `* Re: energy and mass2Gerhard Hoffmann
26 Feb 26 i   iii  `- Re: energy and mass1Domingo Totolos
26 Feb 26 i   ii+* Re: energy and mass1019Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iii+* Re: energy and mass527Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii`* Re: energy and mass526Ross Finlayson
26 Feb 26 i   iiii +* Re: energy and mass3Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i`* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
26 Feb 26 i   iiii i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
28 Feb 26 i   iiii `* Re: energy and mass522Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass518Bill Sloman
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i`* Re: energy and mass517Thomas Heger
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  i `* Re: energy and mass516Bill Sloman
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i  `* Re: energy and mass515Thomas Heger
3 Mar 26 i   iiii  i   `* Re: energy and mass514Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i    `* Re: energy and mass513Thomas Heger
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i     `* Re: energy and mass512Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass10Jeroen Belleman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`* Re: energy and mass9Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i `* Re: energy and mass8Ross Finlayson
6 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i  `* Re: energy and mass7john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i   `* Re: energy and mass6Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i    `* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     +* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i`* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     i `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
7 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i     `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      +* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+- Re: energy and mass1Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i+* Re: energy and mass2Don
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      ii`- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
5 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      i`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i      `* Re: energy and mass496Thomas Heger
8 Mar 26 i   iiii  i       `* Re: energy and mass495Bill Sloman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i        `* Re: energy and mass494Thomas Heger
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         +* Re: energy and mass101Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass77john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii+* Re: energy and mass5Jeroen Belleman
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii+* Re: energy and mass3john larkin
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii+- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iiii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         iii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii`* Re: energy and mass70Thomas Heger
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii +* Re: energy and mass62john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass12john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii+* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii`* Re: energy and mass4john larkin
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii  `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii iii   `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass6J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass5john larkin
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  +- Re: energy and mass1J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass2john larkin
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i+* Re: energy and mass13Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii`* Re: energy and mass12J. J. Lodder
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii `* Re: energy and mass11Bill Sloman
12 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii  `* Re: energy and mass10J. J. Lodder
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii    `* Re: energy and mass8Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii     `* Re: energy and mass7Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii      `* Re: energy and mass6Maciej Woźniak
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii       `* Re: energy and mass5Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii        `* Re: energy and mass4Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii         `* Re: energy and mass3Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii          `* Re: energy and mass2Maciej Woźniak
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii ii           `- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i`* Re: energy and mass36Thomas Heger
13 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i `* Re: energy and mass35Bill Sloman
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i  `* Re: energy and mass34Thomas Heger
14 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i   `* Re: energy and mass33Bill Sloman
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i    `* Re: energy and mass32Thomas Heger
15 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i     `* Re: energy and mass31Bill Sloman
16 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      +- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i      `* Re: energy and mass29Thomas Heger
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       +* Re: energy and mass27Bill Sloman
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i`* Re: energy and mass26Thomas Heger
20 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i `* Re: energy and mass25Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i  `* Re: energy and mass24Thomas Heger
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   +* Re: energy and mass14john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i`* Re: energy and mass13Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i +* Re: energy and mass10john larkin
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i`* Re: energy and mass9Ross Finlayson
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i `* Re: energy and mass8john larkin
22 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i i  `* Re: energy and mass7J. J. Lodder
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   i `* Re: energy and mass2Bill Sloman
21 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       i   `* Re: energy and mass9Bill Sloman
19 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii i       `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         ii `* Re: energy and mass7Ross Finlayson
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i+* Re: energy and mass5Ross Finlayson
11 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         i`* Re: energy and mass18Paul B. Andersen
10 Mar 26 i   iiii  i         `* Re: energy and mass392Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   iiii  +* Re: energy and mass2Ross Finlayson
1 Mar 26 i   iiii  `- Re: energy and mass1Thomas Heger
28 Feb 26 i   iii`* Re: energy and mass491Thomas Heger
26 Feb 26 i   ii`- Re: energy and mass1Bill Sloman
28 Feb 26 i   i`* Re: energy and mass39Don
25 Feb 26 i   `- Re: energy and mass1Ross Finlayson
24 Feb 26 `* Re: energy and mass14Bill Sloman

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal