Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395718 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-15 07:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-26 09:50 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 111 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 07:11 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:38 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-04 05:53 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:33 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 16:15 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-04 12:53 -0500
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:20 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 19:25 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 18:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-13 23:28 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:44 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 22:22 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 07:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-17 07:23 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 02:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 09:11 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 22:03 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 19:25 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 19:39 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 22:22 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 21:35 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:58 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 22:04 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 23:06 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-19 11:25 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 08:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-20 00:19 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 10:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-20 22:37 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 16:55 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 05:26 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 00:23 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 09:20 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 03:08 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-21 13:09 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:17 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 07:40 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 23:56 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 09:07 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 00:48 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:09 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 03:13 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:45 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 12:16 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:29 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 12:44 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 11:34 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 22:15 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 14:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Shayne Crownover <vrrrnveeaeoowSy@vrrrnveeae.owSy.vrr> - 2016-11-26 22:33 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 23:54 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 17:44 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-19 19:14 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-21 11:35 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 09:39 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-17 00:22 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 09:57 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:02 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-18 04:05 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:36 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-18 05:56 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-18 18:49 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:02 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:40 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-21 00:53 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:14 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-22 02:06 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-22 02:27 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 12:08 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-23 06:13 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-24 05:54 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-24 07:01 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-24 20:01 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 11:10 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:41 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 07:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-27 04:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-11-18 00:15 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:50 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-25 22:53 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:10 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:14 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 12:26 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 22:07 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 17:35 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 22:03 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 22:33 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-07 22:58 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-04 14:41 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 17:36 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 10:42 -0700
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-11-04 22:00 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:46 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:54 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:59 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:50 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 13:51 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:45 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:47 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 15:11 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 15:30 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 15:42 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 16:35 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 16:35 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-11-23 23:37 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-11-25 00:28 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 10:40 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:50 -0800
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-25 22:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5838b2f2$0$49325$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #397714 |
On 2016-11-04 18:53:46 +0100, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> said: > On 11/4/16 11/4/16 10:15 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> On 11/04/2016 03:33 PM, Albert2 wrote: >>> There are true numerical constants of nature, >>> like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. >> >> Or the somewhat mysterious constant of the fine structure. > > It's not really that mysterious, as it is the coupling constant of the > electromagnetic force. That is, it directly expresses the strength of > that interaction. (The name is purely historical.) > > It is true that any constant with physical meaning must be > dimensionless (aka unitless). That's because units are ARBITRARY > historical choices made by humans, and human history cannot possibly > affect physical phenomena. > > Tom Roberts Without losing any physics hbar can be taken to equal one, that is 1. It is likely that hbar will be given a defined value next year, just like c. In tat case the standard kilogram will lose its status as a primary unit. Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 08:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1bcfk$dc5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399712 |
Dne 25/11/2016 v 22:53 Albert2 napsal(a): > > Without losing any physics hbar can be taken to equal one, that is 1. > It is likely that hbar will be given a defined value next year, > just like c. > In tat case the standard kilogram will lose its status as a primary unit. > More precisely, the standard kilogram etalon will loose its status, while the kilogram as the unit of mass within the SI system of primary quantities will not. There are implicitly included 3 different things here. 1/ Using various arbitrary and natural unit systems. 2/ Choosing primary quantities within given unit system. 3/ Definition of primary quantity unit etalons within given unit system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units#Systems_of_natural_units Natural unit systems are not used out of science. Even within science, they are used only if equation simplification gain is bigger than switching unit system cost, what usually does not happen out of physics. E.g. chemistry and material sciences have huge SI or CGS or imperial unit based experimental data, while using natural unit equations does not give them advantage. Defining hbar by a precise measurement affects importance of the standard kilogram etalon ( desired ), but not the importance of the kilogram primary unit of SI unit system, nor of the SI system itself. It just defines the kilogram unit more precisely, similarly as was the metre ( PtIr rod > Fr wavelength > 1s + vacuum light speed ). -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 08:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1bclk$dc5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399747 |
Dne 26/11/2016 v 08:10 Poutnik napsal(a): > > It just defines the kilogram unit more precisely, > similarly as was the metre > ( PtIr rod > Fr wavelength > 1s + vacuum light speed ). > Errata> 86Kr(krypton) wavelength https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1bv19$949$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399747 |
Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes: >Dne 25/11/2016 v 22:53 Albert2 napsal(a): >> >> Without losing any physics hbar can be taken to equal one, that is 1. >> It is likely that hbar will be given a defined value next year, >> just like c. >> In tat case the standard kilogram will lose its status as a primary unit. >> >More precisely, >the standard kilogram etalon will loose its status, >while the kilogram as the unit of mass >within the SI system of primary quantities will not. >There are implicitly included 3 different things here. >1/ Using various arbitrary and natural unit systems. >2/ Choosing primary quantities within given unit system. >3/ Definition of primary quantity unit etalons within given unit system. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units#Systems_of_natural_units >Natural unit systems are not used out of science. >Even within science, >they are used only if equation simplification gain >is bigger than switching unit system cost, >what usually does not happen out of physics. >E.g. chemistry and material sciences >have huge SI or CGS or imperial unit based experimental data, >while using natural unit equations does not give them advantage. >Defining hbar by a precise measurement >affects importance of the standard kilogram etalon ( desired ), >but not the importance of the kilogram primary unit of SI unit system, >nor of the SI system itself. >It just defines the kilogram unit more precisely, >similarly as was the metre >( PtIr rod > Fr wavelength > 1s + vacuum light speed ). I always wondered why they simply didn't define Avagadro's Number as being exactly some value, so then by definition, 12 grams is Avagadro's Number of C-12 atoms (exactly) and a kilogram is 1000/12 times Avagadro's Number of C-12 atoms (exactly).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 22:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1ctft$hib$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399763 |
Dne 26/11/2016 v 13:26 Michael Moroney napsal(a): > > I always wondered why they simply didn't define Avagadro's Number as being > exactly some value, so then by definition, 12 grams is Avagadro's Number > of C-12 atoms (exactly) and a kilogram is 1000/12 times Avagadro's Number > of C-12 atoms (exactly). > It would ensure its constancy. But, in contrary to the metre definition, such an etalon would not be IMHO practicle to reproduce, in order to create secondary etalons. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 17:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvidcl$r06$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #397691 |
Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com... > I would try to generalize: if it has > a number in it - it's not natural for > sure. |You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, |like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. Really? You know, we're not including any part of the binding nuclear energy into proton mass. For us the mass of a nucleus is the sum of the masses of its nucleons and the binding energy. But can you swear the nature shares this aproach?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 21:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581cf187$0$49761$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #397702 |
On 2016-11-04 17:35:20 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > > > Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com... > >> I would try to generalize: if it has >> a number in it - it's not natural for >> sure. > > |You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, > |like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. > > Really? > You know, we're not including any part of the binding nuclear > energy into proton mass. For us the mass of a nucleus is the > sum of the masses of its nucleons and the binding energy. > > But can you swear the nature shares this aproach? No need to swear to anything. The proton mass and the electron mass can both measured, and their ratio is well defined. It is a dimensionless number that needs to be explained by theory. (which we don't have as yet) Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvit3v$rtv$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #397727 |
Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:581cf187$0$49761$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com... On 2016-11-04 17:35:20 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > > > Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com... > >> I would try to generalize: if it has >> a number in it - it's not natural for >> sure. > > |You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, > |like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. > > Really? > You know, we're not including any part of the binding nuclear > energy into proton mass. For us the mass of a nucleus is the > sum of the masses of its nucleons and the binding energy. > > But can you swear the nature shares this aproach? |No need to swear to anything. |The proton mass and the electron mass can both measured, and their |ratio is well defined. Did you read what you're answerring?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 22:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5820f375$0$16565$b1db1813$8a713e5c@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #397731 |
On 2016-11-04 22:03:46 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > > > Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:581cf187$0$49761$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com... > > On 2016-11-04 17:35:20 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > >> >> >> Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com... >> >>> I would try to generalize: if it has >>> a number in it - it's not natural for >>> sure. >> >> |You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, >> |like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. >> >> Really? >> You know, we're not including any part of the binding nuclear >> energy into proton mass. For us the mass of a nucleus is the >> sum of the masses of its nucleons and the binding energy. >> >> But can you swear the nature shares this aproach? > > |No need to swear to anything. > |The proton mass and the electron mass can both measured, and their > |ratio is well defined. > > Did you read what you're answerring? I tell it like it is. Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 22:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <486d491a-2f92-4064-b101-080ddb29b400@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397937 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 listopada 2016 22:34:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Albert2 napisał: > On 2016-11-04 22:03:46 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:581cf187$0$49761$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com... > > > > On 2016-11-04 17:35:20 +0100, Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> said: > > > >> > >> > >> Użytkownik "Albert2" napisał w wiadomości grup > >> dyskusyjnych:581c9c6e$0$1748$b1db1813$eb72b5d4@news.astraweb.com... > >> > >>> I would try to generalize: if it has > >>> a number in it - it's not natural for > >>> sure. > >> > >> |You are wrong. There are true numerical constants of nature, > >> |like the electron/proton mass ratio for example. > >> > >> Really? > >> You know, we're not including any part of the binding nuclear > >> energy into proton mass. For us the mass of a nucleus is the > >> sum of the masses of its nucleons and the binding energy. > >> > >> But can you swear the nature shares this aproach? > > > > |No need to swear to anything. > > |The proton mass and the electron mass can both measured, and their > > |ratio is well defined. > > > > Did you read what you're answerring? > > I tell it like it is. > > Albert2 So, it is you did read or it is you didn't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 14:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvi6mm$8h4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #397686 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >W dniu piątek, 4 listopada 2016 13:39:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Albert2 napisał: >> Planck's constant is not a constant of nature. >It's even written in its name. >I would try to generalize: if it has >a number in it - it's not natural for >sure. If it has non-null dimensions, its actual value will depend on the units used. For example, the speed of light, c, 299,792,458 meters per second is 186,282 miles per second. It's still the same speed so is a constant, but the different units involved (miles vs. meters in this example) gives different numeric values. The same will be true for h. On the other hand, unitless constants such as the fine structure constant or pi will always have the same value regardless of the measurement units used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 17:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvidfa$r1m$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #397692 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:nvi6mm$8h4$1@pcls7.std.com... |true for h. On the other hand, unitless constants such as the fine |structure constant or pi will always have the same value regardless |of the measurement units used. According to your beloved Shit you can't get pi by measuring something. Don't you know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35a7296c-3883-4a9b-b16c-1f4118e46ea7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397703 |
On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:nvi6mm$8h4$1@pcls7.std.com... > > |true for h. On the other hand, unitless constants such as the fine > |structure constant or pi will always have the same value regardless > |of the measurement units used. > > According to your beloved Shit you can't get pi by measuring something. > Don't you know? The stupid, ignorant, arrogant Weirdo Woz forgets that pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference (a measured quantity) divided by its diameter (another measured quantity). BOOM! There goes another of his toes :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvisu5$rpr$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #397713 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:35a7296c-3883-4a9b-b16c-1f4118e46ea7@googlegroups.com... On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 10:36:59 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:nvi6mm$8h4$1@pcls7.std.com... > > |true for h. On the other hand, unitless constants such as the fine > |structure constant or pi will always have the same value regardless > |of the measurement units used. > > According to your beloved Shit you can't get pi by measuring something. > Don't you know? |The stupid, ignorant, arrogant Weirdo Woz forgets that pi is the ratio |of a circle's circumference (a measured quantity) divided by its diameter |(another measured quantity). BOOM! There goes another of his toes :-) The stupid, ignorant, arrogant weirdo Gary forgets his idiot guru has refuted euclidean prejudices. Or maybe he never knew?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <581cf3e5$0$49846$b1db1813$788ffb35@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #397692 |
On 2016-11-04 15:41:26 +0100, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) said: > mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: > >> W dniu piątek, 4 listopada 2016 13:39:31 UTC+1 użytkownik Albert2 napisał: > >>> Planck's constant is not a constant of nature. > >> It's even written in its name. > >> I would try to generalize: if it has >> a number in it - it's not natural for >> sure. > > If it has non-null dimensions, its actual value will depend on the > units used. For example, the speed of light, c, 299,792,458 meters > per second is 186,282 miles per second. It's still the same speed > so is a constant, but the different units involved (miles vs. meters > in this example) gives different numeric values. The same will be > true for h. On the other hand, unitless constants such as the fine > structure constant or pi will always have the same value regardless > of the measurement units used. c is just another conversion constant between units. It is an historical accident. The MKSA system was formulated before we knew (thanks to Einstein) that space and time are really the same thing. Albert2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 12:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5472faa7-dad8-43c2-b10e-c30a46541d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
Planck constant is a invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58bcd5f1-3ae7-488f-b9ef-8e1c58d33919@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
In Planck's derivation of the energy element and the constant h, Planck is equating the kinetic energies of the blackbody surface electrons (e) that possess a mass with the energies of massless electromagnetic photons (hv).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 13:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54a5bf40-d720-4abd-86d2-8955ad0bc471@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
Planck structurally unifies light with induction and quantizes Maxwell's electromagnetic field using the blackbody radiation effect to derive an energy element that represents the energy of a light particle emitted by the blackbody but quantizing Maxwell's electromagnetic field does not change the fact Lenard's particle structure of light conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field. As a light ray propagates, the optic particles form spaces between optic particles that distances between optic particles increases which eliminates the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field required in the formation of a light wave. Furthermore, Maxwell's theory is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous, nor is induction a particle or ionization effect yet Planck's blackbody is emitting electrons and light that is composed of optic particles. To structurally unify light with induction requires a light source that does not emit electrons yet the production of light is always accompanied by the emission of electrons. In addition, Lenard proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Fresnel and Young diffraction mechanisms that are based on light waves that energy is dependent on the wave amplitude. I predict the aperture diffraction effect of light is formed by optic particles that activate the aperture edge atoms forming an aperture edge effect. The optic particles that enter the aperture are redirected by the aperture edge effect to only the intensity areas of the diffraction pattern without involving an optical ether, or wave interference (fig 20).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12e9c276-6715-48df-8412-10ed5b4bb293@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
Also, before you state about Young's experiment, where is the optical ether, composed of matter that forms Young's light waves?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 13:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbc2cc5a-be1e-4c35-a6f6-791963b1c0fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395718 |
Your arguments are empty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web