Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Don" Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: energy and mass Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 23:02:35 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 170 Message-ID: <20260228b@crcomp.net> References: <75fepk9bcrqb7175tilbaqhu0r2ds753gh@4ax.com> <1rr05ll.1jn4i8x1fomud5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <8rWdneOlnqgd2AD0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <1rr17cq.1xkdpzfr87v79N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nm0mc$fshe$3@dont-email.me> <1rr31mw.4nll90d8sl1lN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <20260228@crcomp.net> <10nv1o9$18fc$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 23:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="446288a6fc2bb167117e710e5b26e8ed"; logging-data="3960649"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gmtvDRb34S4bCmka8h9Rm" Cancel-Lock: sha1:AoavmFuY87QGV36n0BPPNFNQfXE= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:669305 sci.electronics.design:741141 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Don wrote: >>>>J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> > J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>> Ross Finlayson 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, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table. >>>> >> >>>> >> Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>> > >>>> > 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. >>> >>> Optical frequency standards do exist, >>> such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example, >>> but so far they are frequecy standards only, >>> not yet clocks. >> >> My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >> his survey: >> >> "One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but >> bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the >> scene; our minds work that way." >> >> Shadbolt shares similar sentiments: >> >> Could Einstein's definition of time have been one of the >> greatest hindrances to the advancement of human knowledge >> that history has ever known? >> >> About Time: Einstein Was Wrong >> >> Discussions about how to define 'time' inevitably become >> philosophical debates. As I've noted previously, 'everybody >> knows what time is until they try to define it'. For the >> framework of this article, let's limit our discussion about >> time to looking at Einstein's definition of time in special >> relativity and contrasting that with the understanding of >> time in quantum mechanics. >> >> In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a >> measure of how long an event takes, as measured by a clock. >> This is a sensible, straightforward measure. For example, >> the time it took me to read the previous paragraph, measured >> by a stopwatch, was 10 seconds. In special relativity, clocks >> are used as an objective standard for measuring the time >> intervals of physical processes. >> >> The problem is that this sensible measure of time becomes time >> itself. >> >> For example, if an atomic clock is observed to slow down (it >> registers fewer oscillations of the caesium atom at a different >> altitude), this is not understood as a change in the clock's >> operating speed. In relativity, this slowing is interpreted >> as a slowing in the rate of time itself. >> >> ... this mistaken interpretation commits an error that Sir >> Isaac Newton warned us against in his Philosophiae Naturalis >> Principia Mathematica. >> >> Newton wrote, 'Relative quantities are not the quantities >> themselves whose names they bear, but sensible measures of >> them.. and by the names time, space, place, and motion their >> sensible measures are to be understood; and the expression >> will be unusual if the measured quantities themselves are >> meant. ..those violate the accuracy of language, who interpret >> these words for the measured quantities.' >> >> Putting this concept into the modern context, even when the >> motion of light in a vacuum is used as the standard 'clock' to >> measure time, it is still just a physical entity that can be >> influenced by other physical processes, known or unknown. This >> was Einstein's biggest mistake; he employed a physical process >> (the motion of light) to serve as a stand-in for time itself. >> In Newton's words, he expressed a sensible measure of time as >> time itself. >> >> French philosopher Henri Bergson, a contemporary of Einstein, >> disputed relativity's portrayal of time by arguing that there >> is a difference between time itself and what clocks display. >> Clocks display arbitrary fractions of periodic events such as >> the motion of the Sun across the sky (as shown on a sundial), >> grains of sand moving through an hourglass, the number of >> swings of a pendulum, or the number of oscillations of a >> caesium atom (the current standard), but this is not the >> physical reality of time itself. The physical reality of time >> is the standard against which we can compare these events. >> >> >> My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >> his survey: >> >> "One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but >> bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the >> scene; our minds work that way." > > You cannot understand Physics as natural philosophy anymore. We have grown > out of such thinking about 300 years ago (Newton). > >> Shadbolt shares similar sentiments: > > They are obviously clueless: > >> [...] >> In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a >> measure of how long an event takes > > No. This statement betrays a fundamental misconception about special > relativity already. > > An event does not "take time": It is a *point* of a spacetime. A point has > dimension *zero*, it has *no extent*. Prove Priestley wrong. Use your best rhetoric to define Time in your own words. -- 73, Don, KB7RPU veritas _|_ liberabit | https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu vos |