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: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 09:53:14 +0100 Lines: 174 Message-ID: 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> <1897d2730a1a0205$447653$71155$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <10nup5d$3c2s4$2@dont-email.me> <10o11j9$3pb4$1@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net KrprT+pItQ+h9xS9FN3mNQUB+zrG57ES5JEjC9sh6LVFjOpxpX Cancel-Lock: sha1:4otw4MfMwJmg1cbQ741jPTpSFpM= sha256:g3S6vAigJ08GYxumw3Gwy2w8XBs24cc/ZPrnBgCdg4k= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <10o11j9$3pb4$1@dont-email.me> Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:669394 sci.electronics.design:741193 Am Sonntag000001, 01.03.2026 um 10:40 schrieb Bill Sloman: > On 1/03/2026 8:08 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:04 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>> On 28/02/2026 8:14 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>>>> On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Too bad for most theories of mechanics; too >>>>>> bad for your moronic physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Time is a universal _absolute_ parameter. >>>> >>>> What you actually mean is 'universal'. >>>> >>>> You have, for some odd reasons, the idea that the entire universe >>>> must be universally synchronized. >>>>> >>>>> About space-contraction as length-contraction and >>>>> time-dilation together, has that clocks "slow" or >>>>> "meet" about differences between "space-contraction-linear" >>>>> and "space-contraction-rotational", breaking out the >>>>> "space-contraction" as "-linear" and "-rotational" >>>>> instead of "length-contraction" and "time-dilation". >>>> >>>> Even stranger is, that clocks and time are used interchangeable. >>> >>> A clock is something that documents the passage of time in the space >>> where the clock is located. Nobody is going to confuse the ruler used >>> to measure distance with the distance measured. >>> >>>> But a clock is a man-made device, while time is a natural phenomenon >>>> and not supposed to depend on clocks (because nature is not man-made). >>> >>> Why would anybody think that? >> >> Einstein wrote something like 'time is what clocks say'. >> >> And I had rejected this idea, because it would in effect exchange the >> natural phenomenon with the reading of a measuring device. >> >> I regard physical quantities as attributes of some system or object, >> while measuring devices are man-made objects, which belong to the >> realm of the observer. > > But clocks can make much more accurate and finer-grained observations > than any merely human observer ever could. > > Time is what clocks observe - for us - and in that sense Einstein is > absolutely correct. We've still got to read the clock before it's > measurements mean anything. > Sure, but clocks are necessarily local! Any clock and any observer needs to be somewhere. And most observers we know about live on planet Earth. So, let's assume that the surface of planet Earth is actually a 'time bubble' (actually I used the term 'time domain'). This realm is the space, in which we as human beings usually live. What is happenign outside of this realm is more or less unknown. But we have hints already, that time behaves in strange ways, if the universe is observed from very remote locations (like e.g. by the Pioneer probe). (This btw was my personal explanation for the so called 'Pioneer anomaly'.) TH