Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: energy and mass Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:03:11 +0100 Lines: 109 Message-ID: References: <10nc85f$16me1$6@dont-email.me> <9AmdneJOUdFNMAT0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <10ne0in$1q73l$5@dont-email.me> <10neho8$1vkov$1@dont-email.me> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 105r1Vux50bVCpAK9ISDcwKyQ0bUB58lX2l24qWX3aPvBKUSFb Cancel-Lock: sha1:k+PWpx0b11q6NvOhKYl9xo4b87c= sha256:fqf9qtdSYWZnsBmmPsIUMAG3/hylUVGZz1KxTr78VX4= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE, en-US In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:669269 sci.electronics.design:741112 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. Such an 'external clock' would violate two essential principles: a)it would be 'outside' the universe, but the universe has no outside. b) such a clock would require means, which would allow that 'master clock' to adjust all local clocks. But there ain't anything, which would allow a 'master clock' to interfere with what is happening very far away. ... TH