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 130 — 23 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 Lauretta Nagle <uattea@aeuatte.au> - 2016-12-17 18:24 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 08:11 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-18 09:07 -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 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:30 -0600
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 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-28 11:32 -0600
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 17:43 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 17:50 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 20:06 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 19:11 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 21:52 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 21:01 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 22:20 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:02 -0800
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 20:01 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 19:06 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 21:50 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 21:01 +0000
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 22:18 +0100
Re: h the Planck message in a bottle Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-28 22:26 +0000
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 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 04:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11b9dc7c-5174-4724-945b-259b08011159@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399773 |
Odd bodkin >>> You have not shown that. All you have is a statement of FAITH that >>> somewhere in the concept of resonance should be the explanation for the >>> spectrum of the atom. You cannot do it yourself. Therefore all you have >>> is a desire that someone ELSE do the work you believe should be done. > >> Faith? Fact you mean. >No, faith. If you have references to published work where the concept of >resonance generates an explanation for the spectrum of the atom, produce it. And If you have evidence or published papers that show that atoms do not behave as resonating systems or that spectra cannot be explained as a wave phenomena...produce it. So far all observations only confirm my assertion that atoms are resonating systems. Not the opposite. >I'm not interested in papers that just demonstrate that resonance >happens. Exactly. You know that atoms are resonant systems. And that this proves my case. So you try to ignore the facts. >I'm interested in papers that demonstrate that resonance can >account for the spectrum of the atom. Please provide. Tell me, how do you think that a spectra is not possibly explained by waves and that atoms are not resonant systems and that resonant systems cannot emit waves. Please provide any papers that back up these assumptions. The fact is that proponents of the particle model of the atom never proved that it could not be wave only. They ignored the fact that it was, to focus instead on an imaginary set of assumptions. >> It is you who believe photons exist with no >> experimental evidence. Whereas waves and resonance have >> already been observed and quantified in many different ways. >> Interference patterns, frequencies,.. these can easily be explained >> by waves. Not by individual particles. > >> Spectra have for many years been accepted as a product of emr >> of different wavelengths/frequencies. I didn't make this up. >Why do they have the particular frequencies they do in helium? A >reference that generates the predicted numbers for those frequencies >based on a resonance model please. Produce it. Your model only generates the numbers because it observed the numbers first, and then retrofitted the model to fit the observations. The atom as a particle model predates any " explanation" of helium or any other element using any set of numbers. Show me the prediction of heliums spectra (i.e. numbers) by your atomic model that were made *before* any observations of heliums spectra were made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 08:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1hf14$1gdu$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399897 |
On 11/27/2016 6:50 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Odd bodkin >>>> You have not shown that. All you have is a statement of FAITH that >>>> somewhere in the concept of resonance should be the explanation for the >>>> spectrum of the atom. You cannot do it yourself. Therefore all you have >>>> is a desire that someone ELSE do the work you believe should be done. >> >>> Faith? Fact you mean. > >> No, faith. If you have references to published work where the concept of >> resonance generates an explanation for the spectrum of the atom, produce it. > > And If you have evidence or published papers that show that atoms do not > behave as resonating systems or that spectra cannot be explained > as a wave phenomena...produce it. The fact that they act as resonating systems IS NOT ENOUGH. You must produce the theory that shows that the resonating system can account for the spectrum of the atom. So far you have not done that. > So far all observations only confirm my assertion that atoms are > resonating systems. Not the opposite. > >> I'm not interested in papers that just demonstrate that resonance >> happens. > > Exactly. You know that atoms are resonant systems. And that this > proves my case. So you try to ignore the facts. Keep reading. Next sentence. > >> I'm interested in papers that demonstrate that resonance can >> account for the spectrum of the atom. Please provide. > > Tell me, how do you think that a spectra is not possibly explained > by waves and that atoms are not resonant systems and that > resonant systems cannot emit waves. Please provide any > papers that back up these assumptions. See? You can't produce ANY such papers. You just have faith that it can be done, until someone proves to you that it can't. You have NO theory in hand that shows that a resonance theory accounts for the spectrum of the atom. > The fact is that proponents of the particle model of the atom never proved > that it could not be wave only. They ignored the fact that it was, to > focus instead on an imaginary set of assumptions. > >>> It is you who believe photons exist with no >>> experimental evidence. Whereas waves and resonance have >>> already been observed and quantified in many different ways. >>> Interference patterns, frequencies,.. these can easily be explained >>> by waves. Not by individual particles. >> >>> Spectra have for many years been accepted as a product of emr >>> of different wavelengths/frequencies. I didn't make this up. > >> Why do they have the particular frequencies they do in helium? A >> reference that generates the predicted numbers for those frequencies >> based on a resonance model please. Produce it. > > Your model only generates the numbers because it observed the numbers first, > and then retrofitted the model to fit the observations. Historical error. > The atom as a particle > model predates any " explanation" of helium or any other element using > any set of numbers. Show me the prediction of heliums spectra (i.e. numbers) > by your atomic model that were made *before* any observations of heliums > spectra were made. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 00:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <192ab098-1f62-4285-947c-385cdef6af65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398696 |
Nov 17tjrob137 On 11/17/16 11/17/16 - 2:22 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> emr has no minimum quantity at any wavelength. >This is not true. Observations show that electromagnetic radiation is quantized >and there _IS_ a minimum energy/intensity at a given wavelength. You have no experimental evidence to back up your argument. How do you 'know' emr is quantized. By measuring it at a detector. There is no way to prove that the process at the detector is waves quantised at the detector atom or photons hitting the detector. The only information you have is that part of the detector received energy from incident emr. Your assumption it is a photon is an unproven fallacy. >> This is an erroneous >> assumption with no observations to show as evidence. >Not true. You merely show your personal ignorance of the experiments. So far you or any others can plot supply a single experiment that rules out wave only light can be quantised at detectors. >> Light is quantised >> as waves at the detector. >And also when it leaves the source. Where is your experimental evidence that proves this erroneous claim? >>This implies light remains quantized as it >>propagates. What implies light remains quantised as it propagates? You have supplied no evidence for this assumption. >Moreover, light is not quantized "as waves", the phenomena are more subtle than >that. But there are some physical situations in which light BEHAVES AS IF IT >WERE WAVES (interferometers, ...). And others where waves cannot model the >behaviour at all (lasers, black-body radiation, photodetectors, >frequency-doubling crystals, ...). Total nonsense. All those effects can be explained classically. Any excuses you use to defame a classical model are based on false assumptions. For example your Ives Stilwell argument used against classical by many including Albert himself and more recently wiki and Baez is just plain bad maths coupled with false attributions and assumptions. http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/ives-stillwell-is-consistent-with.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0t296$grf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #398668 |
Dne 17/11/2016 v 09:22 jaymoseley@hotmail.com napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote.. >> h is not minimal increment of energy. >> It does not even have the dimension of energy. > >> h.f is the minimal increment of energy for frequency related quantities >> like EM radiation or vibration of quantum oscillators. > > emr has no minimum quantity at any wavelength. This is an erroneous > assumption with no observations to show as evidence. Light is quantised > as waves at the detector. You have no evidence to prove otherwise. I have a proof you have not put your fingers on experimental evidence, speaking against you.. -- 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 | 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 | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8sedncwT1O-I96HFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #399763 |
On 11/26/16 11/26/16 - 6:26 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes: >> Dne 25/11/2016 v 22:53 Albert2 napsal(a): >>> 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. > > 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). I believe this was part of the discussion about how to replace the artifact that currently defines the kilogram. It was rejected in favor of defining h-bar because the latter approach is much more useful and reproducible in standards laboratories. In particular, it is quite difficult to actually count atoms, and the Watt balance used in relating the kilogram to h-bar is much more usable. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1hqck$7uv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400044 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/26/16 11/26/16 - 6:26 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> writes: >>> Dne 25/11/2016 v 22:53 Albert2 napsal(a): >>>> 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. >> >> 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). > > I believe this was part of the discussion about how to replace the > artifact that currently defines the kilogram. It was rejected in favor > of defining h-bar because the latter approach is much more useful and > reproducible in standards laboratories. In particular, it is quite > difficult to actually count atoms, and the Watt balance used in relating > the kilogram to h-bar is much more usable. Tom Roberts One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1hqog$7uv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400048 |
Reggie Sippel wrote: >> I believe this was part of the discussion about how to replace the >> artifact that currently defines the kilogram. It was rejected in favor >> of defining h-bar because the latter approach is much more useful and >> reproducible in standards laboratories. In particular, it is quite >> difficult to actually count atoms, and the Watt balance used in >> relating the kilogram to h-bar is much more usable. Tom Roberts > > One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. In Divergent Matter these things weights exactly the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1hv4e$oer$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400049 |
On 11/28/2016 06:50 PM, Reggie Sippel wrote: > Reggie Sippel wrote: > >>> I believe this was part of the discussion about how to replace the >>> artifact that currently defines the kilogram. It was rejected in favor >>> of defining h-bar because the latter approach is much more useful and >>> reproducible in standards laboratories. In particular, it is quite >>> difficult to actually count atoms, and the Watt balance used in >>> relating the kilogram to h-bar is much more usable. Tom Roberts >> >> One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. > > In Divergent Matter these things weights exactly the same. Then it does not fit the observation. As if 2 objects have the same mass, but different density, their weight as the net force, calibrated in mass equivalent, is unequal, after subtracting their unequal buoyancy. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 19:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1hvgn$gfh$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400061 |
Poutnik wrote: >>> One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. >> >> In Divergent Matter these things weights exactly the same. > > Then it does not fit the observation. > > As if 2 objects have the same mass, but different density, their weight > as the net force, calibrated in mass equivalent, > is unequal, after subtracting their unequal buoyancy. This thing makes no sense. Both weight and Mass are in Kilograms, or Grams if you wish. If they were different you had something else. In Divergent Matter however, they are indeed the same, as a consequence of same activity (a push).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1i5cr$f1c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400064 |
Dne 28/11/2016 v 20:11 Reggie Sippel napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>>> One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. >>> >>> In Divergent Matter these things weights exactly the same. >> >> Then it does not fit the observation. >> >> As if 2 objects have the same mass, but different density, their weight >> as the net force, calibrated in mass equivalent, >> is unequal, after subtracting their unequal buoyancy. > > This thing makes no sense. Both weight and Mass are in Kilograms, or Grams > if you wish. If they were different you had something else. > > In Divergent Matter however, they are indeed the same, as a consequence of > same activity (a push). > DM is similar nonsense as what you saty above. Weight is force, calibrated in mass units, compared to weight of the known mass at defined conditions. It is a basic school physics for 14 years old children. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1i5vu$sec$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400070 |
Poutnik wrote: >>> As if 2 objects have the same mass, but different density, their >>> weight as the net force, calibrated in mass equivalent, >>> is unequal, after subtracting their unequal buoyancy. >> >> This thing makes no sense. Both weight and Mass are in Kilograms, or >> Grams if you wish. If they were different you had something else. >> >> In Divergent Matter however, they are indeed the same, as a consequence >> of same activity (a push). >> > DM is similar nonsense as what you saty above. > Weight is force, calibrated in mass units, > compared to weight of the known mass at defined conditions. > It is a basic school physics for 14 years old children. Another Einstein. If Mass is not about resistance opposed to a force, what is it. You don't know, do you. Without a force you have no Mass. Basic kindergarten tensors. Apparently you started your kindergarten as 14 years old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1i70h$n5m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400073 |
Dne 28/11/2016 v 22:01 Reggie Sippel napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>>> As if 2 objects have the same mass, but different density, their >>>> weight as the net force, calibrated in mass equivalent, >>>> is unequal, after subtracting their unequal buoyancy. >>> >>> This thing makes no sense. Both weight and Mass are in Kilograms, or >>> Grams if you wish. If they were different you had something else. >>> >>> In Divergent Matter however, they are indeed the same, as a consequence >>> of same activity (a push). >>> >> DM is similar nonsense as what you saty above. >> Weight is force, calibrated in mass units, >> compared to weight of the known mass at defined conditions. >> It is a basic school physics for 14 years old children. > > Another Einstein. If you call 14 years old children Einsteins.... It is very basic classical physics, more than 300 years old. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 13:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <85e4401e-32a3-4070-8167-2c576206390a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #400070 |
Weight is the mass scalar in G Unit of Newtons
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 20:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1hur9$mj7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #400048 |
On 11/28/2016 06:43 PM, Reggie Sippel wrote: > > One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. > Sure, but not in vacuum. But anyway, their mass is the same, 1 kg. Do not confuse weight and mass. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 19:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1hv76$gfh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #400060 |
Poutnik wrote: > On 11/28/2016 06:43 PM, Reggie Sippel wrote: >> One kilogram Gold weights more than one kilogram iron. > > Sure, but not in vacuum. But anyway, their mass is the same, 1 kg. > Do not confuse weight and mass. Not sure we understand. Would please explain how sure, but not? Without Mass you have no Weight. How much do you weight as different from your mass??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web