Re: energy and mass

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Re: energy and mass
De : nospam (at) *nospam* de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.electronics.design
Date : 07. Mar 2026, 23:39:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : De Ster
Message-ID : <1rriraq.ki6nhf1iplvf4N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 4/03/2026 8:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 03/03/2026 04:40 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
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 <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.
>
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
>
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.
>
Far better is actually my own approach, which goes like this:
>
I take the 'big bang' as case of a 'white hole'.
>
(That is 'the other side' of a 'black hole'.)
>
This 'white hole' spreads out and creates, what we call 'universe' in
which we as human beings live on planet Earth.
>
But 'universe' isn't universal at all and the timeline from big bang
to us isn't the only timeline possible.
>
But since we can't observe any of these other universes it is a complete
waste of time to speculate about their possible existence.
>
Our past is just one of an infinite number of possible timelines,
which all connect a big bang with something much later.
>
But you need to find a mechanism that lets you explore these other
timelines before anybody is going to take you seriously.
>
This is more like a HUGE clock with one hand only, that circles once
every ten billion years or so. This 'hand' moves slowly forewards and
creates new universes every time it moves.
>
If you want to imagine something like that, feel free, but don't expect
anybody else to be interested. You won't get any research grants to
support any work you might want to put in to make the idea sound less
half-witted.
Now new universes need new stars and those new planet.
>
They might, if they existed.
>
This causes what also regard as true: Growing Earth.
>
The earth doesn't seem to be growing.
>
(plus, of course, growing moons, stars and galaxies)
>
What we can see is mass-energy redistributing itself. There's no
evidence that more is being created.
>
The overall picture of my approach assumes a 'real universe' which is
mainly invisible, which folds back into itself, where time is local
and where matter is actually 'relative'.
>
Not that you've got a single piece of evidence that supports this
bizarre conceit.
>
The latter 'relative matter' is actually, what disturbs the most,
because it would violate one of our most important assumptions which
is called 'the great materialistic meta-paradigme'.
>
So it's the central silly idea, which doesn't make it any less silly.
If you've written a book about it, and self-published it, you are
extravagantly silly.
>
 
There are many outfits these days claiming to economically
make sustainable aviation fuel and other fuels like gasoline
from carbon from carbon dioxide in the air and hydrogen from
dihydrogen monoxide the water via electricity from usual sorts
of renewable means in a sort of carbon-neutral liquid fuel setup.
 
It's not even particularly high-tech.
 
But that's not what Thomas Heger is being silly about. Making
hydrocarbons from water, sunlight and the CO2 in the air is what plants
do, albeit not all that efficiently. There are other ways of doing it,
which don't involve plants and DNA, but none of them seem to be cheap
enough to be all that attractive.

Burning fuel, and next throwing lots of energy at the atmosphere
to get that fuel back is kind of silly to begin with,

Jan


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