Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Don" Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: energy and mass Followup-To: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics.relativity Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:41:10 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 185 Message-ID: <20260224b@crcomp.net> References: <1rqs11c.bbj2kjf9la3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nf85a$270rk$3@dont-email.me> <1rqze29.h77dsi1a6udn3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10njlce$3kt45$10@dont-email.me> <1rr17fe.ik97k41vwdmnnN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nk99u$3s5ld$3@dont-email.me> <1rr1iul.s3mmo01yd2dt7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 18:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b034286de68a5b38ecdbe78005f2b6d"; logging-data="140487"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Y0x3vpeBiTDYXrqE6Glvz" Cancel-Lock: sha1:LKIXDpr64pjLNmBh5Fp+ONygpcc= Xref: csiph.com sci.electronics.design:740960 sci.physics.relativity:669170 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, > then they get into empiricism and make un-scientific view the > one and un-logical view the other, so what would have been > a suspension of judgment instead results a less than generous reading. > > > The notions of Schoperhaauer, Compte, Boole, Russell, Whitehead, > then the whole Carnap school, or "scientism" then "logicist > positivism", those are pretty much Epicurean sophists and > Occam nominalists. > > If the "Renaissance" was reinvigorating and finding again > the ideals, and the "Enlightenment" was the reinvigorating > and finding again the analytical setting, it happens a lot > and instead of that it just vacillates between "constructivism" > and "intuitionism", is for an overall wider, fuller, dialectic. > > The "technical" parts here are "the dialectic", since for example > Parmenides after Heraclitus, not the messy, spongy "human" parts, > or faux-Hegelians like Wittgentstein or Nietzsche or Heidegger or Marx. > ("Anti-Plato's.") Hegel though is great, the Wissenschaft der Logik > of Hegel, the "Science of Logic", is really quite rather great. Some scientistic scat singing about stardust in the highest exalted way: -- 73, Don, KB7RPU veritas _|_ liberabit | https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu vos |