Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:52:37 +0000 Subject: Re: energy and mass Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design References: <10nf85a$270rk$3@dont-email.me> <1rqze29.h77dsi1a6udn3N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1rr05ll.1jn4i8x1fomud5N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <8rWdneOlnqgd2AD0nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> <1rr17cq.1xkdpzfr87v79N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nm0mc$fshe$3@dont-email.me> <1rr31mw.4nll90d8sl1lN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nomum$1co15$1@dont-email.me> <1rr4tn1.1w93c9h1iqg7fgN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <10nupu0$3c2s4$3@dont-email.me> <10o12sp$3pb4$2@dont-email.me> <10o6ks6$20j6f$2@dont-email.me> <10o8fp1$2l87l$2@dont-email.me> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2026 02:52:23 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <10o8fp1$2l87l$2@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 232 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-6kaMUpFmlUE00kT38hgQaWH3Oz7KgWWOrRqUJIRyDfLkGXbJ6zDbNNUCcvs9ONIO3bzFLet/Q1asdL0!FbHDf5DaZZSQthurPPsBbvCNV6q4rWxinXcGT5z17wKvKG4N3AG+Fu34/sK7QdeUzCfaV6vZcyE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:669432 sci.electronics.design:741218 On 03/03/2026 09:25 PM, Bill Sloman 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 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, 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, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > Oh, $7/gallon claimed by outfits like "Aircela" isn't much more than $3/liter. Even $15/gallon given reliable production of gasoline from air, water, and electricity over time in remote locations doesn't seem too cheap. "Cheap, fast, or right: pick no."