On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
Have you have of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger piucture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >> >> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
On 02/19/2026 03:03 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such
beams
in existence was not that far away:
-a-a-a Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. >>> They come streaming from the sun.-a 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an
electron beam. You must be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have a
life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than-a a
electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed.
If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
earth's surface.
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they
have a nice budget.-a They probably built a muon laser.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
The Batavia/Baikal neutrinophone communicated directly through the
Earth with neutrinos, in about zero time.
Muons are sort of like Cerenkov radiation or Brehmsstrahlung/braking radiation.
So, one could convert "muons" to "neutrinos" and back.
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
Have you heard of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger picture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
Have you heard of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger picture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.
Read up on Bell's inequalities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
Local variables don't hack it.
The 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen paper was wrong.
On 02/19/2026 04:39 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable
signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table. Medical imaging
works a lot better with high fields. In 1979 I got to ask the EMI
Central Research NMR imaging development team why they weren't using
super-conducting magnets, and got told that you couldn't modulate the
field.
The fact that you couldn't modulate the total number of flux lines
threading a super-conducting coil didn't mean what they thought it did
at that time.
Here there's that Faraday rotation basically puts a spin on
Maxwell equations that otherwise are crossing lines.
I.e., there's an idea that all waves are spirals and all spirals
are waves, with usual useful notions of wave mechanics as incomplete.
On 02/19/2026 02:56 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable
signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics, [1]
The usual idea of cavity resonators is common to microwaves and lasers.
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up >>>>> enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation.
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the electrical >>>>> activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have >>>>> enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd be at >>>>> frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to
electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically
conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues involved is >>>>> going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the
skull,
and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's
rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic
density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies
like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned
pseudo-science
like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population
are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976
to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging
people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to
exist.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct
current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power
supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the
LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to do).
LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".
They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.
You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.
The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is
"resonance theory's".
"Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example
involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,
"resonant bonds".
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was another example.
There are some steel trestle bridges that happen to
result that driving over them involves more than vertigo.
Heh, "remotely useful".
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
On 02/19/2026 02:56 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics, [1]
Jan
The usual idea of cavity resonators is common to microwaves and lasers.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up >>>>> enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation. >>>>>
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the electrical >>>>> activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have >>>>> enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd be at >>>>> frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to
electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically
conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues involved is >>>>> going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the
skull,
and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's >>>>> rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic >>>>> density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies
like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned
pseudo-science
like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population
are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976
to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging
people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to
exist.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct
current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power
supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the
LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to do). >>
LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".
Powerful ones do.
They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.
You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.
Never seen one. Domestic microwave ovens are well shielded.
The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is
"resonance theory's".
Only in the sense that some nuclei have a magnetic moment. If you bash
them at the right frequency in the right magnetic field you can get the magnetic pole rotating at that frequency. There no fancy resonance
theory involved.
"Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example
involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,
"resonant bonds".
I've got a Ph.D., in chemistry and while we got lectures on nuclear
magnetic resonance, there was no fancy resonance theory involved in that either.
"Resonant bonds" are just a bizarre way of describing de-localised electronic bonds. Benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a flat
hexagonal ring, with one hydrogen atom hanging off each carbon atom . Traditional descriptions say that there are three double bonds and three single bonds around the ring - but that would make the three double
bonds shorter than the three single bonds, and all six bonds are of
equal length. Lecturers who were stuck in the traditional mind set liked
to claim that the molecule resonated between two states where the double bonds and the single bonds swapped places rapidly. It was nonsense, but
it kept them happy.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was another example.
It's a famous example of an under-damped mechanical resonance - nothing
more.
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the
text you snipped pointed out.
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 2/19/26 20:27, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>
KHz/gauss.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
I believe that, due to magnetic field perturbations in urban
areas, the resonance gets scrambled too quickly to be easily
detectable. In rural areas it should be easier.
On 2/19/26 20:27, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>
KHz/gauss.
I believe that, due to magnetic field perturbations in urban
areas, the resonance gets scrambled too quickly to be easily
detectable. In rural areas it should be easier.
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up >>>>>> enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation. >>>>>>
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the electrical >>>>>> activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have >>>>>> enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd be at >>>>>> frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to
electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically
conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues
involved is
going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the
skull,
and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's >>>>>> rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic >>>>>> density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies
like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned
pseudo-science
like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population
are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976
to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging
people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to
exist.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct
current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power
supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the
LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to
do).
LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".
Powerful ones do.
They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.
You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.
Never seen one. Domestic microwave ovens are well shielded.
The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is
"resonance theory's".
Only in the sense that some nuclei have a magnetic moment. If you bash
them at the right frequency in the right magnetic field you can get the magnetic pole rotating at that frequency. There no fancy resonance
theory involved.
"Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example
involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,
"resonant bonds".
I've got a Ph.D., in chemistry and while we got lectures on nuclear
magnetic resonance, there was no fancy resonance theory involved in that either.
"Resonant bonds" are just a bizarre way of describing de-localised
electronic bonds. Benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a flat
hexagonal ring, with one hydrogen atom hanging off each carbon atom . Traditional descriptions say that there are three double bonds and three single bonds around the ring - but that would make the three double
bonds shorter than the three single bonds, and all six bonds are of
equal length. Lecturers who were stuck in the traditional mind set liked
to claim that the molecule resonated between two states where the double bonds and the single bonds swapped places rapidly. It was nonsense, but
it kept them happy.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was another example.
It's a famous example of an under-damped mechanical resonance - nothing
more.
There are some steel trestle bridges that happen to
result that driving over them involves more than vertigo.
You can build in dampers to prevent the resonance from storing a lot of energy or distorting the structure beyond it's elastic limits.
These days mechanical engineers rely on computer simulations to let them anticipate this sort of problem.
Heh, "remotely useful".
Your idea of what might be "remotely useful" reflects more wishful
thinking than any clear grasp of what is actually going on.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:56 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>>
with some simple electronics, [1]
Jan
The usual idea of cavity resonators is common to microwaves and lasers.
But not needed to demonstrate nuclear magnetic resonance,
Jan
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>
KHz/gauss.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1959-04/>
(paywalled, unfortunately)
Jan
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons').
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams >>>> in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had
emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an electron beam.
You musht be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have a
life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than a electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed.
If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
earth's surface.
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams >>>>>> in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. >>> They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an
electron beam.
Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single
file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.
Muons can do it too.
You must be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have a
life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than a
electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed.
If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
earth's surface.
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they
have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
This is all just what they want you to think. Are you a paid shill for
Deep State, or just a useful idjit?
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons').
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams >>>> in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had
emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL
was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there.
They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they
have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>
KHz/gauss.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1959-04/>
(paywalled, unfortunately)
Jan
On 02/19/2026 10:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
About as useless as "t'Hooft's Ladder".
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up
enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation.
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the electrical
activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have
enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd be at
frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to
electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically
conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues involved is >>>> going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the skull, >>>> and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's
rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic
density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies
like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned pseudo-science >>> like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population
are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976
to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging
people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to exist.
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic
resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the
text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>>>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers
for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and other techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant
magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains
warmed up
enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation. >>>>>>>
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the
electrical
activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would have >>>>>>> enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd >>>>>>> be at
frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to >>>>>>> electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically >>>>>>> conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues
involved is
going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the >>>>>>> skull,
and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's >>>>>>> rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic >>>>>>> density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies >>>>>> like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned
pseudo-science
like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population
are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from 1976 >>>> to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging
people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to
exist.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct
current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their power >>>> supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the >>>> LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to
do).
LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".
Powerful ones do.
They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.
You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.
Never seen one. Domestic microwave ovens are well shielded.
The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is
"resonance theory's".
Only in the sense that some nuclei have a magnetic moment. If you bash
them at the right frequency in the right magnetic field you can get the
magnetic pole rotating at that frequency. There no fancy resonance
theory involved.
"Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example
involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,
"resonant bonds".
I've got a Ph.D., in chemistry and while we got lectures on nuclear
magnetic resonance, there was no fancy resonance theory involved in that
either.
"Resonant bonds" are just a bizarre way of describing de-localised
electronic bonds. Benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a flat
hexagonal ring, with one hydrogen atom hanging off each carbon atom .
Traditional descriptions say that there are three double bonds and three
single bonds around the ring - but that would make the three double
bonds shorter than the three single bonds, and all six bonds are of
equal length. Lecturers who were stuck in the traditional mind set liked
to claim that the molecule resonated between two states where the double
bonds and the single bonds swapped places rapidly. It was nonsense, but
it kept them happy.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was another example.
It's a famous example of an under-damped mechanical resonance - nothing
more.
There are some steel trestle bridges that happen to
result that driving over them involves more than vertigo.
You can build in dampers to prevent the resonance from storing a lot of
energy or distorting the structure beyond it's elastic limits.
These days mechanical engineers rely on computer simulations to let them
anticipate this sort of problem.
Heh, "remotely useful".
Your idea of what might be "remotely useful" reflects more wishful
thinking than any clear grasp of what is actually going on.
Hm. I have a mathematics degree and sat in computer science for about 20 years. Thinking about going back to the old U. and making a
refresher in the curriculum. Also I have a long-running study
of Foundations and a quite modern theory of mathematics.
Structural or molecular chemistry, a la Brand and Speakman, say,
involves qualitative and quantitative empirical effects above
atomic chemistry.
There are lots of kinds of bonds w.r.t. the various orbits, usually, vis-a-vis the usual tinker-toy model of the atom. _Resonance_ is
a key aspect of, for example, intermolecular and surface forces.
After van der Waals there's Fritz London's dispersion forces,
for examples.
The "remotely useful" was a gentle jibe at the idea of "the remote".
The, "microwave ovens in use" signs were from a time when
the science oven and the pacemaker did not get along.
Here's some 100's hours lectures, https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson .
On 20/02/2026 4:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams
in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in >>>> the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. >>> They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an
electron beam.
Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single
file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.
That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and
there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through
the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.
An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.
Muons can do it too.
Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively charged muon) long before they get anywhere.
You must be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have a
life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than a >> electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed.
If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
earth's surface.
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they >>> have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produce the effect you claim.
This is all just what they want you to think. Are you a paid shill for Deep State, or just a useful idjit?
The idiot here is you.
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.02.2026 um 09:25 schrieb Jeremiah Jones:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons').
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams >>>> in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had
emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
The 'cold fusion idea' has another problem:
there was a strange phenomenon at 9/11, which I would call 'empty
vertical holes'.
This means: there were huge vertical holes inside several buildings,
that contained no debris.
That looked as if someone had shot down from a spaceship with kind of 'starwars weapon', that made matter disappear into hyperspace.
The first building struck wasn't one of the towers, but the customs
building (afaik WTC 6).
This low flat building emitted a puff of dust at a time, when the
twintowers were still standing.
This could be connected to these empty hole, which looked as if someone
had shot from above with a 'teleporter'.
These 'shots' seemingly missed their intended target (most likely the
twin towers), hence had to come from very far away.
But that is all just speculation and possibly something else happend.
But almost with certainty these empty holes were not created by falling debris, because falling material would have left at least 'full holes'.
Another problem was, of course, that the holes came first and only later falling debris.
TH
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 21:41:50 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >> >the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1959-04/>
(paywalled, unfortunately)
Jan
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26172037
This link will give you a automatic download of the FULL PDF file:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=89590&aid=2617
A wall is to keep 'other' people out...
i'm a quantum...i go through walls.
On 2026-02-19 21:41, J. J. Lodder wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1959-04/>
(paywalled, unfortunately)
Jan
It's also here in the book in the archive, use a free account to borrow:p
https://archive.org/details/amateurscientist0000unse_c9s8/page/338/mode/2u
the amateur scientist : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
<https://archive.org/details/amateurscientist0000unse_c9s8/page/338/mode/2up> I prefer the experiment to measure the
earth's magnetic field using MRI.
It is so rewarding to hear that ping after all your trouble.
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic
resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic
resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 4:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams
in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>>>>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL >>>>>> site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in >>>>>> the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. >>>>> They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an
electron beam.
Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single
file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.
That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is
metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and
there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through
the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.
An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.
The electrons don't have to go to the center of the earth. They are
only going to the WTC 95 miles away, just below the bulge of the earth.
And earth's crust is a fine conductor. Don't you know what a "ground
rod" is for?
Did you get your degree from Trump U, or what.
Muons can do it too.
Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they
decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively
charged muon) long before they get anywhere.
Muons beam through the earth just like electrons, but faster.
They use
Extenze lotion for maximum endurance. No 2.2 sec whambam. They can go
for weeks.
I can't believe I have to explain all this to a newbie.
You must be thinking of neutrinos. Muons have aThis is all just what they want you to think. Are you a paid shill for
life-time of 2.2usec so if you could get them close to the speed of
light (which would be difficult - it's 206.7682827 times heavier than a >>>> electron) they could go about 0.66km (on average) before they decayed. >>>> If you got them very close to the speed of light, time dilation could
let them go further - cosmic ray generated muons do get below the
earth's surface.
The sun might emit them but they don't get anywhere near the earth.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they >>>>> have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
They might have done, but it wouldn't have produced the effect you claim. >>>
Deep State, or just a useful idjit?
The idiot here is you.
Trump U,.. heheh.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic
resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
It is an interesting field of research,
because with all external fields screened out
you can investigate the spin-spin couplings. [1]
(among other things).
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic >>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
It is an interesting field of research,
because with all external fields screened out
you can investigate the spin-spin couplings. [1]
(among other things).
That [1] implies that you meant to cite an example. What happened?
You couldn't find one?
And who is going to care about spin-spin couplings?
I've seen some daft research projects but there's usually been at least
the remote chance of some sort of real world advantage in prospect.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
Have you have of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger piucture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.
It's simple that particle/wave duality the usual account
always must make for wave/resonance dichotomy, say.
It's just as simple to models waves and particles
and particles and waves and waves and resonances and
resonances and waves, as each other variously, since
for example wave mechanics is the usual notion of
"change in an open system", then for Huygens principle,
that waves beget waves, then also for the accounts of
wavelets, at the boundaries, or ondes and ondelettes.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.
That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
Physicists are particulary careful to prove that they are NOT inventing things.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic >>>>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying >>>> it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
It is an interesting field of research,
because with all external fields screened out
you can investigate the spin-spin couplings. [1]
(among other things).
That [1] implies that you meant to cite an example. What happened?
You couldn't find one?
I deleted the anecdote, and forgot the reference to it. Here it is.
And who is going to care about spin-spin couplings?
I've seen some daft research projects but there's usually been at least
the remote chance of some sort of real world advantage in prospect.
I see. You are one of those people with blinders on,
who can only see his own mightily interesting little field.
[1] I happened to know someone who worked in fundamental chemistry
doing C13 nuclear spin resonance in C13 enriched molecules,
to clarifiy chemical binding and structure.
(difficult, because the signal is inherently much weaker)
I would advise you not to tell her to her face about how irrelevant she
was.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic
resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that
exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>>>>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers
for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and other
techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant
magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec
technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in 1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the >higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in
X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes.
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked. >>>>>>>> Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains
warmed up
enough to do observable damage
some have that for example the various post-natal
development syndromes since the 90's are highly correlated
to it ambiently, about a perceived reasoning for a
"Clean, and Quiet, Air Act", where the "Clean Air Act"
was a set of regulatory legislation that can definitely
be related to improved outcomes (in health and life).
Bad statisticians are good at confusing correlation with causation. >>>>>>>>
A simple "death ray" can be fabricated for about $15.
So what.
The surface, as it may be, electromagnetic waves
in the brain, are yet only that, and matters of
resonance theory and as well the redundant sorts
of aspects of the brain as electro-chemical soup,
make that many usual accounts of electroencephalograms
are about as advanced scientifically as "Scientologists'".
The brain has a lot of electro-chemical structure, but the
electrical
activity is slow and the associated electromagnetic waves would >>>>>>>> have
enormous wavelengths.
If there are electromagnetic resonances inside the skull they'd >>>>>>>> be at
frequencies way above anything the nervous system could react to >>>>>>>> electro-chemically, and the electrical resistance of electrically >>>>>>>> conducting body fluids would damp them heavily.
Any suggestion that anything beyond warming up the tissues
involved is
going on is a silly as scientology.
Electro-encephlograms are observed at the outside surface of the >>>>>>>> skull,
and don't resolve activity at the level of individual nerves. It's >>>>>>>> rather like monitoring the activity in a city by looking at traffic >>>>>>>> density on the motorways.
Epilepsy research and simple modern apparatus mass-produced
in the cellular phone factor platform, may make for that
modern neuroscience makes a lot of wild claims.
The resonance and tuning of radio circuits, including technologies >>>>>>> like heterodyne and synchrodyne, then about old-fashioned
pseudo-science
like biorhythms, can be quite personalized.
Claims of the DOD Polygraph Institute about the detection of
veracity or lack thereof are common.
That mean old looking Regenstrief or Riegenstrieff Institute,
you'll notice buried among your phone settings many avisos
about health related impacts of technology.
The "research" related privacy laws are very self-contradictory.
That "Neurotourist" is a good little book,
often the researchers interviewed were
self-assured assholes with an un-founded God complex
and myopic confirmation bias.
There are quite a few of them around, but researchers as a population >>>>> are no worse than the rest of humanity.
The Alpha Beta Gamma Delta waves or brain waves have
various ways to interpret them, basically about the
linear/non-linear and short/long wave.
None of which seem to be remotely useful.
Resonance theory about things like molecular chemistry
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
It certainly wasn't when I was involved in ultrasound imaging from
1976
to 1979. The X-ray and the nuclear magnetic resonance medical imaging >>>>> people weren't exactly interested in "resonance theory" either.
Magnetic monopoles were hypothesised by Paul Dirac in 1931.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
People have been looking for them ever since, but they don't seem to >>>>> exist.
If radios are un-healthy, then also LED lights are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Light emitting diodes are excited by direct >>>>> current. There's usually an inverter/rectifier somewhere in their
power
supply to deliver lots of current into the low voltage drop across the >>>>> LED, but they tended to be pretty well shielded (which isn't hard to >>>>> do).
LEDs should have a warning label "do not stare into LED".
Powerful ones do.
They damage retinas. There are various LED technologies.
You know, like the old, "microwave oven in use" signs.
Never seen one. Domestic microwave ovens are well shielded.
The "resonance" in "nuclear magnetic resonance" is
"resonance theory's".
Only in the sense that some nuclei have a magnetic moment. If you bash
them at the right frequency in the right magnetic field you can get the
magnetic pole rotating at that frequency. There no fancy resonance
theory involved.
"Structural" or "molecular" chemistry is another example
involving resonance theory, like "organic" chemistry,
"resonant bonds".
I've got a Ph.D., in chemistry and while we got lectures on nuclear
magnetic resonance, there was no fancy resonance theory involved in that >>> either.
"Resonant bonds" are just a bizarre way of describing de-localised
electronic bonds. Benzene has six carbon atoms arranged in a flat
hexagonal ring, with one hydrogen atom hanging off each carbon atom .
Traditional descriptions say that there are three double bonds and three >>> single bonds around the ring - but that would make the three double
bonds shorter than the three single bonds, and all six bonds are of
equal length. Lecturers who were stuck in the traditional mind set liked >>> to claim that the molecule resonated between two states where the double >>> bonds and the single bonds swapped places rapidly. It was nonsense, but
it kept them happy.
The Tacoma Narrows bridge was another example.
It's a famous example of an under-damped mechanical resonance - nothing
more.
There are some steel trestle bridges that happen to
result that driving over them involves more than vertigo.
You can build in dampers to prevent the resonance from storing a lot of
energy or distorting the structure beyond it's elastic limits.
These days mechanical engineers rely on computer simulations to let them >>> anticipate this sort of problem.
Heh, "remotely useful".
Your idea of what might be "remotely useful" reflects more wishful
thinking than any clear grasp of what is actually going on.
Hm. I have a mathematics degree and sat in computer science for about 20
years. Thinking about going back to the old U. and making a
refresher in the curriculum. Also I have a long-running study
of Foundations and a quite modern theory of mathematics.
Being able to do the math. and being able to relate it to reality are
two different skills.
Structural or molecular chemistry, a la Brand and Speakman, say,
involves qualitative and quantitative empirical effects above
atomic chemistry.
There are lots of kinds of bonds w.r.t. the various orbits, usually,
vis-a-vis the usual tinker-toy model of the atom. _Resonance_ is
a key aspect of, for example, intermolecular and surface forces.
Twaddle.
After van der Waals there's Fritz London's dispersion forces,
for examples.
So what.
The "remotely useful" was a gentle jibe at the idea of "the remote".
The, "microwave ovens in use" signs were from a time when
the science oven and the pacemaker did not get along.
Here's some 100's hours lectures,
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson .
Youtube lectures are the pits. I long ago learned that clicking on
youtube links was a waste of time. If you aren't getting audience
feedback you don't know how boring your presentation is.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.
That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
Physicists are particulary careful to prove that they are NOT inventing
things.
Reminder to self:
Never post anything about physicists again.
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:12:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.
That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
Physicists are particularly careful to prove that they are NOT inventing >>> things.
Reminder to self:
Never post anything about physicists again.
Yes. Those discussions do turn nasty fast.
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did
know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in
terms of a generalised phase structure grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too.
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 10:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
About as useless as "t'Hooft's Ladder".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
He's a rat-bag. He won a Dutch Spinoza prize in 1995, as my wife did in >1999, so she got to meet him from time to time at the prize-winner's >get-togethers. He wasn't an attractive character.
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today"
because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the
drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been
exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did
know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in
terms of a generalised phase structure grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too.
Great. I got a lot out of Penrose's "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy (...in Physics)". Or, at least a reputed authority's account that "functional freedom" as he puts it makes for a great schism, a crisis, in physics.
Recall Millikan measuring an electron (or rather, establishing a
charge/mass ratio), then about Rayleigh-Jeans getting to spectroscopy
or, "the Old quantum mechanics", about the discretization, of what
would otherwise be continuous quantities, to discrete quantities,
or "quantization".
The, "standard linear curriculum", it's fair to say that we all
sat the "standard linear curriculum".
Then, a usual account of, the "non-linear", and, the "non-standard",
reflect upon what the "linear curriculum's" account of "linear algebra" simply doesn't include, that mathematics does include.
About definitions of continuity, of course there are the,
"classical expositions of the super-classical", or Zeno's.
Then, a lot of people say that Aristotle, who's the authority in
Western reason since antiquity, is Archimedean in the sense of
there not existing neither infinitesimals nor infinities. Yet,
it is as well so that Xenocrates is part of an account of Aristotle's
as well, the lesser acknowledged accounts of Aristotle that include
both the prior and posterior analytics, makes for "standard
infinitesimals", "iota-values", say, between zero and one an
exact infinitude of them.
Then, this bridges between the classical account of the Pythagorean,
where almost-all is rational, and the modern account of the Cantorian,
where almost-all is transcendental, about Vitali and Hausdorff,
to make for why it's not a paradox to make for three definitions
of, "continuous domains".
We're familiar with, "continuous functions", yet, their definition
holds even if defined on rationals, since it's just an account as
after topology and basically for intermediate-value-theorem / mean-value-theorem / trapezoid rule.
Then, the definition of, "continous domain" itself, is usually
left to the "complete ordered field", the Archimedean field,
in the standard linear curriculum. So, calling those field
reals, then it is yet so that "line reals" or these "iota-values",
are also mathematically, structurally, another example of a
continuous domain. Then there's a third a la "signal reals"
since the Shannon/Nyquist theorem you'll know basically makes
for the supersampling as doubling, to result a continuous
domain after analysis of the rationals.
So, "Mathematical Foundations" itself has structures, features,
of the objects of the "domain of discourse" or our language about
it, the inter-subjective account as after language, structures of mathematical continuity and infinity, that automatically equip
mathematical physics.
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Warm regards
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics
Today" because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up
the drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will
be - the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been
exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I
did know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a
smaller number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I
don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size, because it's possible to create a
one-to-one mapping of every rational number to every integer.
Jeroen Belleman
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and >>>>>>>>> you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic
resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise
experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic >>>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here,
as the
text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general.
Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in
a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did
go in for high magnetic fields.
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs, magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".
Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid
helium. Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get
away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.
I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between
faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more
practical approaches that you run into in industry.
Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam
microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into
semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my
idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
If quantum mechanics is never wrong:
if it's not a continuum mechanics
you're doing it wrong.
The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.
Have you have of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas
(or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual
quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger piucture: make
for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random
and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.
Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word
"hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes
it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck
by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a
continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"
to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to
the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.
Bohr's self-serving Solvay shaming was situationally swept into the ash
heap of history:
Truth by fiat
the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Authors
|Ulvaro Balsas Universidade Cat||lica Portuguesa (UCP)
A. LUCIANO L. VIDEIRA Universidade de |evora
... [A simplistic version] according to which all the
foundational points of QM had been adequately and
definitely addressed by Bohr at the V Congress of
Solvay - does not fit together with what effectively
happened there. As a matter of fact, three of its
most prominent participants - Einstein, Schr||dinger
and de Broglie - remained forever utterly convinced
that the outlook proposed by Bohr was wide off the
mark of presenting an adequate (and much less
definitive) representation of quantum
phenomena: Einstein never accepted the completeness
of the formulation coming out from the Copenhagen-
G||ttingen axis, and, eight years later, would fire
off an attack, known as the EPR argument, which,
notwithstanding Bohr's prompt attempts to
neutralize it, continues to be argued and commented
about ever since: Schr||dinger maintained his
unwavering belief in a realistic interpretation of
his wave-mechanics; de Broglie, after the 1927
Congress of Solvay has abandoned his pilote-wave
theory (a simplified version of his early theory of
the double solution) converted himself to Bohr's
views; however, he went back to his theory of the
double solution once David Bohm gave it quite a
positive boost with his two introductory articles
on hidden variables.
(excerpt)
<https://rbhciencia.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/253>
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did
know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in
terms of a generalised phase structure grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too.
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic >>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general.
Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying
it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in
a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did
go in for high magnetic fields.
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs, magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".
Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid
helium.
Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get
away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.
I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between
faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more
practical approaches that you run into in industry.
Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam
microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into
semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my
idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today"
because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the
drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Lee Smolin was a player in the game,
not just a spectator.
And Penrose is an idiot, where physics is concerned
as soon as he gets beyond the technicalities of GR. (just imho)
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
The problem isn't with the world, I think.
It is us humans failing to get the right ideas about it.
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been
exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did
know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
You shouldn't. It is another thing that you got completely wrong.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in
terms of a generalised phase structure grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too.
Hmmm. Of a kind, I guess.
Just packaging it as math isn't enough,
Jan
(don't want to know)
On 21/02/2026 4:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:12:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality.
That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
Physicists are particularly careful to prove that they are NOT inventing >>>> things.
Reminder to self:
Never post anything about physicists again.
Yes. Those discussions do turn nasty fast.
If you experience skepticism as "being nasty".
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:19:05 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 10:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
About as useless as "t'Hooft's Ladder".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
He's a rat-bag. He won a Dutch Spinoza prize in 1995, as my wife did in
1999, so she got to meet him from time to time at the prize-winner's
get-togethers. He wasn't an attractive character.
Anne Cutler?
On 02/20/2026 08:43 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
It used to be said that a third of chemists
were mostly involved in vinyl. Or, you know, polymers.
Classical effects in mechanics after the "gyrational"
show up in the third order, including things like
"visco-elastic creep", "Magnus heft", and "spinning a top".
Sedov always nominally includes continuum and gyrational
or gyratory effects in "mascroscopic theory of matter".
In something like Einstein's there's for example
the "cosmological constant", while though it's
"vanishing yet non-zero". For Levi-Civita it's
about "the indefiniteness of ds^2", i.e. again
about infintesimal analysis and quite thoroughly
for the non-standard the, "un-linear".
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear magnetic >>>>>> resonance in general, and your assertion is the irrelevance here, as the >>>>>> text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>>> need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general.
Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.
Then don't behave like one.
You've been long enough in SPR by now for an idea of who is who.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying >>>> it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in
a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did
go in for high magnetic fields.
Felix Bloch discovered it in the MHz regime, iirc.
(he measured relaxation times)
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs,
magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".
Yes. Progress often comes from having more advanced instrumentation.
Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid
helium.
Yes, so what. You have that available, if needed, in a research lab.
Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get
away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.
Yes. but for research the cost of liquid Helium is not really important.
I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between
faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more
practical approaches that you run into in industry.
There is no need to go overly defensive,
the problem was you being too aggressive.
As for new research technique:
it has to be tried before you can know what can be done with it.
Meanwhile the results are publishable.
Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam
microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into
semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my
idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.
Really, there is genuine science and technology
at less than a hundred megabuck a year.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >>>>>>> the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >>>>>>> remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic resonance. >>>>> The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise experiments >>>>> that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers
for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and other
techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant
magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec
technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in 1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the
higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in
X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes.
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring.
The gradient coils are very noisy.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>> exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >>>>>>>> remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic
resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise
experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a while. We >>>> made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers
for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and other >>>> techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant
magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec
technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in 1988, >>> I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the
higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in
X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes.
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring.
The gradient coils are very noisy.
My father complained about that too. I knew why the gradient coils were making their noise, so it didn't worry me.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
Getting through the whole procedure takes a lot longer than that. My
local hospital is only a ten minute walk away, but the hospital insists
on keeping me sitting around for about an hour during even the fastest procedures. They seem to need to keep the patients intimidated. Or at
least acting as if they are intimidated.
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to capture reality.
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
For something like nucleonics and nuclear theory,
there's that the periodic table of elements,
has another chart for the isotope chart, that's
just more like a wide line on the order of atomic
mass, then that their fundamental identities and
associations, of the nuclear species, might find
the usual account as after organizing for bond orbitals,
as removed from classical as the isotope table is
from the periodic table.
It's similar with other theories about what's "elementary"
and what's "derived", or what's "fundamental" and what's
"derived", as to what is incremental in one, is only
eventual in the other, and vice versa.
For example, a space of geometry, and a space of words,
has usual accounts since, for example, and not to make
a theological account yet only as a common source with
established editions, Genesis 1 starts with a space
for geometry and John 1 starts with a space for words.
Then, geometry itself is sort of the same way,
about points and lines or points and spaces
more thoroughly. For example, via induction,
one may not make a point from dividing lines or
a line from connecting points, yet, there's a
point for deduction that Leibnitz' perfection
of gaplesness "jumplessness" or what eventually
has Hilbert's "postulate of continuity", are
axioms that intend to suffice when otherwise
it would demand a deductive account where
induction is not infallible then to relate
matters of continuity to the geometric series.
It's so that we can't really speak of that
for which there are no words, ultimately
"the ineffable", then that the idea that
man can comprehend the infinite and continuous,
is for matters of reason, besides.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 05:34:06 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:12:02 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
[...]
Why are physics types so often insulting and obnoxious?
I've been to physics meetings that shocked me with their brutality. >>>>>> That mentality is terrible for brainstorming and inventing things.
Physicists are particularly careful to prove that they are NOT inventing >>>>> things.
Reminder to self:
Never post anything about physicists again.
Yes. Those discussions do turn nasty fast.
If you experience skepticism as "being nasty".
I think calling people stupid is nasty.
Most of those old hens probably aren't even physicists.
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
On 20/02/2026 8:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 4:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams
in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL
was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL >>>>>> site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in >>>>>> the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there.
They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an >>>> electron beam.
Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single
file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.
That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is
metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and
there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through
the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.
An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.
The electrons don't have to go to the center of the earth. They are
only going to the WTC 95 miles away, just below the bulge of the earth.
And earth's crust is a fine conductor. Don't you know what a "ground
rod" is for?
Sure I do, but it wouldn't carry an electron beam. The word "beam"
implies that the electrons or muons would keep on going in the same direction after they hit the dirt and rocks. They don't keep on going
very far at all - way less than 95 miles. Think inches.
I worked on electron microscopes for nine years (1982 to 1991) and I do
know a bit about electron beams. You clearly know nothing.
Did you get your degree from Trump U, or what.
University of Melbourne. It's been there since 1853, and is currently
the top-ranked university in Australia, and 19th in the world (at least
on one list, not that that means much). Trump University got shut down
as a fraud shortly after it was set up. It didn't last long enough for
me to have been able to get any kind of degree from it, and I'm not
gullible enough to have been in their target demographic. Not being
American put me even father out of reach. As insults go this isn't
plausible enough to be worth making.
Muons can do it too.
Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they
decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively
charged muon) long before they get anywhere.
Muons beam through the earth just like electrons, but faster.
Which is to say, not very far and not all that fast (though they do get farther than electrons).
They use
Extenze lotion for maximum endurance. No 2.2 sec whambam. They can go
for weeks.
One of the tales you tell your girl-friends. Try lying to them about
muon beams - it will take longer for them to find out that you are lying.
I can't believe I have to explain all this to a newbie.
I've been posting to sci.electronics.design since 1996, and my first
comment got published in the Review of Scientific Instruments in 1972.
Only a very dim newbie would make that kind of mistake.
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
We were just discussing things like "loop" and "spin" with
regards to the quantum, then, in mathematical physics one
account since the '80's makes for the account of the metric,
which you'll known that in mechanism its establishment is central
as for the metric and norm for length and distance,
there's the "zollfrei metric", as an account of for
something like geometry: that Euclid, and, Poincare,
make for two distinct perspectives on the plane,
Euclid's _smooth_ plane, and Poincare's _rough_ plane.
Now, Poincare was a man, and furthermore a geometer,
and "Euclid" is generally considered a panel, of a man.
So, much like the considerations of Dirichlet, about the
continuous vis-a-vis the differential, where Dirichlet
is another giant of a man, in mathematics and thus all
of mathematical science, Poincare's "rough plane" then
for the zollfrei (or, equivalently enough, "freizoll"),
helps then when thinking about something like "Dirac's
positronic sea", about something like "Einstein's Poincare's
zoll-frei white-hole sea", effecting for a continuous smooth
manifold of space-time and its contents, why it's as well
a continuous reticulation, nowhere smooth, manifold of space-time.
Dirac's function: the Dirac delta, is not-a-real-function,
yet it has a particular real analytical character, and it's
used everywhere throughout analysis and is deeply embedded
in all the usual formalisms of physics.
It's often enough said that physics "the real theory" is at
least these things: a gauge theory.
Here that's simply enough after tendencies and propensities
of oscillation and restitution and attenuation and dissipation
with least-action least-gradient in a sum-of-histories
sum-of-potentials: a potentialistic "the mechanics".
It's a continuum mechanics, ....
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
One of the tales you tell your girl-friends. Try lying to them about
muon beams - it will take longer for them to find out that you are lying.
My women don't want to hear about muons.
On 21/02/2026 7:47 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic >>>>>>>> resonance. The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you >>>>>>>> devise experiments that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen >>>>>>>> table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear
magnetic resonance in general, and your assertion is the
irrelevance here, as the text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and >>>>>>>>> you need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general. >>
Then don't behave like one.
You've been long enough in SPR by now for an idea of who is who.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying >>>> it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in >> a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did
go in for high magnetic fields.
Felix Bloch discovered it in the MHz regime, iirc.
(he measured relaxation times)
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs,
magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".
Yes. Progress often comes from having more advanced instrumentation.
Developing more advanced instrumentation can let you tackle previously intractable problems. People talk about a solution looking for a problem.
Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid
helium.
Yes, so what. You have that available, if needed, in a research lab.
If you've got enough money. If you need helium-3 as your refrigerant,
you apparently need political influence as well.
Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get
away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.
Yes. but for research the cost of liquid Helium is not really important.
But only if you have enough money.
I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between
faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more >> practical approaches that you run into in industry.
There is no need to go overly defensive,
the problem was you being too aggressive.
I don't see it as a problem.
As for new research technique:
it has to be tried before you can know what can be done with it.
Meanwhile the results are publishable.
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students
busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He
had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of
it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league journals.
Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam
microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into
semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my
idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.
Really, there is genuine science and technology
at less than a hundred megabuck a year.
My father got his 25 patents in the paper industry, which - while
capital intensive - isn't in the hundreds of megabucks a year category.
My last job was with Haffmans B/V in Venlo in the Netherlands who made instrumentation for breweries.
On 02/20/2026 12:47 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today"
because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the >> drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Lee Smolin was a player in the game,
not just a spectator.
And Penrose is an idiot, where physics is concerned
as soon as he gets beyond the technicalities of GR. (just imho)
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be
- the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
The problem isn't with the world, I think.
It is us humans failing to get the right ideas about it.
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been
exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did >> know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
You shouldn't. It is another thing that you got completely wrong.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in
terms of a generalised phase structure grammar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too.
Hmmm. Of a kind, I guess.
Just packaging it as math isn't enough,
Jan
(don't want to know)
Is there any particular idea for which Smolin is known?
I've read some of his books, nothing really comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin
If "loop quantum gravity" is the thing,
then there are "spin foam networks".
It's a popularizer.
In Lincoln Barnett's book on Einstein, he quotes Einstein
with regards to the role of popularizers, with regards to
physics and the public its perception thereof.
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath787/kmath787.htm
Kevin Brown there writes a lot of interesting things about physics.
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 10:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
About as useless as "t'Hooft's Ladder".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
He's a rat-bag. He won a Dutch Spinoza prize in 1995, as my wife did in
1999, so she got to meet him from time to time at the prize-winner's get-togethers. He wasn't an attractive character.
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to capture reality.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 8:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 4:04 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:25 pm, Jeremiah Jones wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams
in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL
was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL >>>>>>>> site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in >>>>>>>> the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there.
They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon
They'd have about as much chance of getting through sold earth as an >>>>>> electron beam.
Nope, electron beams can march right through solid earth, in single
file, and come out the other end. Its called conduction.
That does depend on electronic conduction. The centre of the earth is
metallic - mostly iron. The inner core is solid (and very hot) and
there's a shell of liquid iron about that, but you have to get through >>>> the earth's crust to get there, and that isn't all that conductive.
An electron beam won't make it down to the (mostly) iron core.
The electrons don't have to go to the center of the earth. They are
only going to the WTC 95 miles away, just below the bulge of the earth.
And earth's crust is a fine conductor. Don't you know what a "ground
rod" is for?
Sure I do, but it wouldn't carry an electron beam.
You "carry" an electron beam? Did you put it in a stroller on a nice
day?
implies that the electrons or muons would keep on going in the same
direction after they hit the dirt and rocks. They don't keep on going
very far at all - way less than 95 miles. Think inches.
Electrons follow the path of least resistance to the WTC.
I worked on electron microscopes for nine years (1982 to 1991) and I do
know a bit about electron beams. You clearly know nothing.
Nothing is more than you know, cuz everything you think you know is
wrong.
Did you get your degree from Trump U, or what.
University of Melbourne. It's been there since 1853, and is currently
the top-ranked university in Australia, and 19th in the world (at least
Wooohoooo!!! Honey, put on yer party dress.
Have you tried asking nicely for a refund?
on one list, not that that means much). Trump University got shut down
as a fraud shortly after it was set up. It didn't last long enough for
me to have been able to get any kind of degree from it, and I'm not
gullible enough to have been in their target demographic. Not being
American put me even father out of reach. As insults go this isn't
plausible enough to be worth making.
Yet you had to comment on it at length.
Muons can do it too.
Except that they can't and don't. Their 2.2usec lifetime mean that they >>>> decay - to two neutrinos and and electron (or a positron for positively >>>> charged muon) long before they get anywhere.
Muons beam through the earth just like electrons, but faster.
Which is to say, not very far and not all that fast (though they do get
farther than electrons).
They use
Extenze lotion for maximum endurance. No 2.2 sec whambam. They can go
for weeks.
One of the tales you tell your girl-friends. Try lying to them about
muon beams - it will take longer for them to find out that you are lying.
My women don't want to hear about muons.
Is that what you tried to talk to girls about? Are you still an incel?
I can't believe I have to explain all this to a newbie.
I've been posting to sci.electronics.design since 1996, and my first
comment got published in the Review of Scientific Instruments in 1972.
Only a very dim newbie would make that kind of mistake.
Ok... you first posted here in 1996 and then your post was published 24
years EARLIER. Did they teach you some time travel at TU? Or just the
part about how to shamelessly spin whoppers?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 5:25 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 10:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snipped most of the pretentious rubbish>
About as useless as "t'Hooft's Ladder".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft
He's a rat-bag. He won a Dutch Spinoza prize in 1995, as my wife did in
1999, so she got to meet him from time to time at the prize-winner's
get-togethers. He wasn't an attractive character.
In that case she may also have met him occasionally
at meetings of the KNAW, [1]
[1] Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen.
As of 2017 the 'science' and 'humanities' parts of it have been joined.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 7:47 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 9:35 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:Calling people stubborn asses doesn't help yours either.
On 20/02/2026 7:41 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
wBill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 12:13 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you
need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic >>>>>>>>>> resonance. The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you >>>>>>>>>> devise experiments that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen >>>>>>>>>> table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table. >>>>>>>>> (at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Yes, but we were talking about medical imaging, not nuclear
magnetic resonance in general, and your assertion is the
irrelevance here, as the text you snipped pointed out.
Which 'we' dear Bill?
If you can't work that out, you aren't worth talking to.
Understood, your majesty.
I replied to your
===
===But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>>> exhibit the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and >>>>>>>>>>> you need remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
which is just plain wrong.
In your ever-so-authoritative opinion.
FYI,
Behaving like a stubborn ass doesn't improve your credibity in general. >>>>
Then don't behave like one.
You've been long enough in SPR by now for an idea of who is who.
As a matter of fact, zero to ultra-low frequency NMR
is a flourishing research field these days,
It's cheap to do, so lots of graduate students get stuck with studying >>>>>> it. The results of their research don't seem to get published in
high-impact journals.
Why can't you just admit that your statement that 'remarkably high
fields are needed to give you a detectable signal'
is just plain wrong?
It does depend on what your are trying to detect. It's certainly true in >>>> a lot of situations of practical interest. Laboratory NMR machines did >>>> go in for high magnetic fields.
Felix Bloch discovered it in the MHz regime, iirc.
(he measured relaxation times)
As a matter of fact NMR can be done in zero or near-zero fields,
at very low frequencies.
FYI, there is a large Wikipedia article devoted to it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_field_NMR>
That does depend on " highly sensitive magnetic sensors - SQUIDs,
magnetoresistive sensors, and SERF atomic magnetometers".
Yes. Progress often comes from having more advanced instrumentation.
Developing more advanced instrumentation can let you tackle previously
intractable problems. People talk about a solution looking for a problem.
More kindly inclined people may call it 'pure science'.
Super-conducting quantum interference devices used to need liquid
helium.
Yes, so what. You have that available, if needed, in a research lab.
If you've got enough money. If you need helium-3 as your refrigerant,
you apparently need political influence as well.
Scientists will be opportunists. They will do what can be done.
Presumably high temperature super conductors could let you get
away with liquid nitrogen, which is lot cheaper.
Yes. but for research the cost of liquid Helium is not really important.
But only if you have enough money.
See above.
I was a chemist for long enough to be aware of the difference between
faddish research technique that you only found in research labs and more >>>> practical approaches that you run into in industry.
There is no need to go overly defensive,
the problem was you being too aggressive.
I don't see it as a problem.
We seem to have acquired an adequate feel for each other,
in the meantime. No need for further problems.
As for new research technique:
it has to be tried before you can know what can be done with it.
Meanwhile the results are publishable.
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students
busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of
technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He
had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of
it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league
journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
Since I spent quite a few years working on electron-beam
microfabricators which sold for about a million dollars into
semiconductor fabs that cost about $500 million dollars (back then) my >>>> idea of "industry" covers some fairly high end gear.
Really, there is genuine science and technology
at less than a hundred megabuck a year.
My father got his 25 patents in the paper industry, which - while
capital intensive - isn't in the hundreds of megabucks a year category.
My last job was with Haffmans B/V in Venlo in the Netherlands who made
instrumentation for breweries.
I see. Pentair-Haffmans these days,
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>> exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >>>>>>>>> remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic
resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise
experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies)-a Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a while. We >>>>> made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers
for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and other >>>>> techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant
magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec
technique, FTMS,-a died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in
1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the >>>> higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in >>>> X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes. >>>>
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring.
The gradient coils are very noisy.
My father complained about that too. I knew why the gradient coils were
making their noise, so it didn't worry me.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
Getting through the whole procedure takes a lot longer than that. My
local hospital is only a ten minute walk away, but the hospital insists
on keeping me sitting around for about an hour during even the fastest
procedures. They seem to need to keep the patients intimidated. Or at
least acting as if they are intimidated.
The "nuclear medicine" with "technicium 99" is quite targeted.
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
For something like nucleonics and nuclear theory,
there's that the periodic table of elements,
has another chart for the isotope chart, that's
just more like a wide line on the order of atomic
mass, then that their fundamental identities and
associations, of the nuclear species, might find
the usual account as after organizing for bond orbitals,
as removed from classical as the isotope table is
from the periodic table.
It's similar with other theories about what's "elementary"
and what's "derived", or what's "fundamental" and what's
"derived", as to what is incremental in one, is only
eventual in the other, and vice versa.
For example, a space of geometry, and a space of words,
has usual accounts since, for example, and not to make
a theological account yet only as a common source with
established editions, Genesis 1 starts with a space
for geometry and John 1 starts with a space for words.
It's so that we can't really speak of that
for which there are no words, ultimately
"the ineffable", then that the idea that
man can comprehend the infinite and continuous,
is for matters of reason, besides.
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/20/2026 12:47 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" >>>> because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you
want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the >>>> drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Lee Smolin was a player in the game,
not just a spectator.
And Penrose is an idiot, where physics is concerned
as soon as he gets beyond the technicalities of GR. (just imho)
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be >>>> - the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together
The problem isn't with the world, I think.
It is us humans failing to get the right ideas about it.
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated.
My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been >>>> exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did >>>> know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller >>>> number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get
excited about it.
You shouldn't. It is another thing that you got completely wrong.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in >>>> terms of a generalised phase structure grammarHmmm. Of a kind, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too. >>>
Just packaging it as math isn't enough,
Jan
(don't want to know)
Is there any particular idea for which Smolin is known?
Not that I know of. Best known is loop quantum gravity.
His invention of 'cosmic natural selection'
in combination with anthropic principles
is a complete disaster. (if you ask me)
It is tantamount to an admission of defeat.
Smolin is part of the general failure of string theory and quantum
gravity to produce anything worthwhile.
I've read some of his books, nothing really comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin
If "loop quantum gravity" is the thing,
then there are "spin foam networks".
It's a popularizer.
The field certainly needs popularising.
And to be fair, Smolin was one of the first to emphasize
that his field, which he identifies with 'physics,
is in a deep crisis. (it still is, btw)
In Lincoln Barnett's book on Einstein, he quotes Einstein
with regards to the role of popularizers, with regards to
physics and the public its perception thereof.
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath787/kmath787.htm
I think Einstein generally was a kind man.
He disliked severly criticising people in public.
Worst example perhaps: Velikovsky.
It is known that Einstein told V. in private
that all of his ideas of cavorting planets was bunk.
(and that it detracted from the rest of his work)
E. kept silent when V. published his 'Worlds in Collision' nevertheless.
Kevin Brown there writes a lot of interesting things about physics.
I hadn't encountered his writings.
About 'relativistic mass' and Feynman, in your ref.:
I think Feynman's treatment of relativity in his 'Lectures'
is poor indeed, the worst part of the series.
Feynman was too easy on himself there.
(he should have paid more attention to Wheeler)
Jan
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>> exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >>>>>>>>>> remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic
resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise
experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a
while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers >>>>>> for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and
other
techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant >>>>>> magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec >>>>>> technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately
killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much
cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in
1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by the >>>>> higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he saw in >>>>> X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching purposes. >>>>>
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring. >>>> The gradient coils are very noisy.
My father complained about that too. I knew why the gradient coils were
making their noise, so it didn't worry me.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
Getting through the whole procedure takes a lot longer than that. My
local hospital is only a ten minute walk away, but the hospital insists
on keeping me sitting around for about an hour during even the fastest
procedures. They seem to need to keep the patients intimidated. Or at
least acting as if they are intimidated.
The "nuclear medicine" with "technicium 99" is quite targeted.
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
On 21/02/2026 4:41 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
For something like nucleonics and nuclear theory,
there's that the periodic table of elements,
has another chart for the isotope chart, that's
just more like a wide line on the order of atomic
mass, then that their fundamental identities and
associations, of the nuclear species, might find
the usual account as after organizing for bond orbitals,
as removed from classical as the isotope table is
from the periodic table.
Chemistry is about the electrons. Changing the neutron count has pretty
much zero effect on the chemistry.
It's similar with other theories about what's "elementary"
and what's "derived", or what's "fundamental" and what's
"derived", as to what is incremental in one, is only
eventual in the other, and vice versa.
Rubbish.
For example, a space of geometry, and a space of words,
has usual accounts since, for example, and not to make
a theological account yet only as a common source with
established editions, Genesis 1 starts with a space
for geometry and John 1 starts with a space for words.
Who cares? And why would they?
<snipped more nonsense>
It's so that we can't really speak of that
for which there are no words, ultimately
"the ineffable", then that the idea that
man can comprehend the infinite and continuous,
is for matters of reason, besides.
If you need a new word, invent it. You may have trouble defining it, but
if you felt the need for the new word you should be able to explain why.
It's considerably safer than trying to attach an old word to new concept.
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty
shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
As to why there's one theory, at all, "A Theory",
has that otherwise there's always an infinite
regression, then the idea is that there's an A-Theory,
theatheory, say, that's already ad infinitum instead
of ad absurdam, as, "ab absurdam".
Then practical working theories can simple enough
live in it, and also it makes for weighing and
judging practical working theories without necessarily
being beholden to either.
This is also for a "The Logic".
It's known since antiquity that axioms are stipulations,
and also that any scheme of induction has another
refuting it.
Often it's simple as that there exists real "Truth"
at all, and, you know, "at all".
Then of course there's quite a consideration of
the inter-subjective, then to get above the merely
phenomenological, by supplementing the usual animal's
or machine's sense perceptions with a notion of sense
as object-sense, word-sense, number-sense, time-sense,
and a sense of the continuum, as noumenological,
thusly equipping the considerations of the phenomenological
and noumenological and resolving age-old debates.
Of course, such a theory is "paradox-free",
or rather, it would need be.
Otherwise, don't you have a theory?
On 21/02/2026 5:12 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snipped even more word salad>
Invoking artificial intelligence to generate your word salad for you is taking time wasting to absurd lengths. Silence is definitely golden when
you don't have anything useful to say.
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students
busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of
technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He
had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of
it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league
journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones
where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will
be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who think that particular students would do well with them.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can wreck a pontential silk purse.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students
busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of
technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of >>>> it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league
journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. >>> Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones
where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will
be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who
think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can
wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors.
Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship
likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
Jan
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers,
but I don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size,
because it's possible to create a one-to-one mapping of every rational
number to every integer.
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers,
but I don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size,
because it's possible to create a one-to-one mapping of every rational
number to every integer.
[X-Post & F'up2 sci.math]
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers,
"One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about
a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject
to know you're wrong."
--Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator
(in his MasterClass promotion video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io6QdGcoWMU>)
(SCNR)
but I don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size,
More precisely, their _cardinality_ is ra|reC (strictly: _alef_-0).
because it's possible to create a one-to-one mapping of every rational
number to every integer.
Otherwise correct (as purportedly proven by Georg Cantor at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century): |ran| = |raU| = ra|reC.
The misconception that this would not be so can arise from the assumption that raU = ran |u ran. But actually, raU ree ran |u ran since e.g. 2/2 = 1/1 and
ran/0 ree raU as raU := {p/q : p, q ree ran, q > 0}.
But then |raU| < |ran |u ran|; and while |ran| < |ran |u ran|, |ran| < |raU| does NOT follow,
and is fact false: |ran| = |raU| < |ran |u ran|.
ISTM that Bill Sloman's statement would be true when comparing the cardinalities of ran (or raU) and raY, the set of _real_ numbers, instead. ran (and
raU) is/are countable (countably infinite), while raY is uncountable (uncountably infinite, as also purportedly proven by Cantor). |ran| = |raU| =
ra|reC; |raY| = 2^ra|reC, and (ISTM uncontroversial that) ra|reC < 2^ra|reC, so then
|ran| = |raU| < |raY|.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number>
On 02/21/2026 07:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[X-Post & F'up2 sci.math]
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller >>>> number than the infinite number of rational numbers,
"One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about
a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject
to know you're wrong."
--Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator
(in his MasterClass promotion video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io6QdGcoWMU>)
(SCNR)
but I don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size,
More precisely, their _cardinality_ is ra|reC (strictly: _alef_-0).
because it's possible to create a one-to-one mapping of every rational
number to every integer.
Otherwise correct (as purportedly proven by Georg Cantor at the end of
the
19th/beginning of the 20th century): |ran| = |raU| = ra|reC.
The misconception that this would not be so can arise from the assumption
that raU = ran |u ran. But actually, raU ree ran |u ran since e.g. 2/2 = 1/1 and
ran/0 ree raU as raU := {p/q : p, q ree ran, q > 0}.
But then |raU| < |ran |u ran|; and while |ran| < |ran |u ran|, |ran| < |raU| does NOT
follow,
and is fact false: |ran| = |raU| < |ran |u ran|.
ISTM that Bill Sloman's statement would be true when comparing the
cardinalities of ran (or raU) and raY, the set of _real_ numbers, instead. >> ran (and
raU) is/are countable (countably infinite), while raY is uncountable
(uncountably infinite, as also purportedly proven by Cantor). |ran| =
|raU| =
ra|reC; |raY| = 2^ra|reC, and (ISTM uncontroversial that) ra|reC < 2^ra|reC, so then
|ran| = |raU| < |raY|.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number>
Cardinality is rather _less precise_ than other matters
of size relation like, for example, asymptotic density.
Or, "half of the integers are even".
Cardinality establishes a transitive inequality among sets,
where "cardinals" themselves as equivalence classes of sets
having any transitive bijective relation, are, besides zero,
rather too large to be sets in ordinary set theories like ZF(C).
Cardinality is rather specific to sets, and, set theory
rather _describes_ numbers than _is_ numbers,
that though "descriptive set theory" is a great account
of formalization in mathematics.
Emil duBois-Reymond discovered various arguments for
the uncountability of reals, later Cantor wrote them
in set theory.
About the Continuum Hypothesis of G. Cantor, there's
that Goedel showed it consistent one way and von Neumann
another, then P. Cohen added an axiom to make it
independent instead of inconsistent, set theory.
On 02/21/2026 08:14 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 07:16 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[X-Post & F'up2 sci.math]
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/20/26 19:31, Bill Sloman wrote:
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a
smaller
number than the infinite number of rational numbers,
"One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about
a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject
to know you're wrong."
--Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and science communicator
(in his MasterClass promotion video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io6QdGcoWMU>)
(SCNR)
but I don't get excited about it.
I don't think that is correct. Both the sets of natural and rational
numbers are aleph-0 in size,
More precisely, their _cardinality_ is ra|reC (strictly: _alef_-0).
because it's possible to create a one-to-one mapping of every rational >>>> number to every integer.
Otherwise correct (as purportedly proven by Georg Cantor at the end of
the
19th/beginning of the 20th century): |ran| = |raU| = ra|reC.
The misconception that this would not be so can arise from the
assumption
that raU = ran |u ran. But actually, raU ree ran |u ran since e.g. 2/2 = 1/1 and
ran/0 ree raU as raU := {p/q : p, q ree ran, q > 0}.
But then |raU| < |ran |u ran|; and while |ran| < |ran |u ran|, |ran| < |raU| does NOT
follow,
and is fact false: |ran| = |raU| < |ran |u ran|.
ISTM that Bill Sloman's statement would be true when comparing the
cardinalities of ran (or raU) and raY, the set of _real_ numbers, instead. >>> ran (and
raU) is/are countable (countably infinite), while raY is uncountable
(uncountably infinite, as also purportedly proven by Cantor). |ran| =
|raU| =
ra|reC; |raY| = 2^ra|reC, and (ISTM uncontroversial that) ra|reC < 2^ra|reC, so then
|ran| = |raU| < |raY|.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number>
Cardinality is rather _less precise_ than other matters
of size relation like, for example, asymptotic density.
Or, "half of the integers are even".
Cardinality establishes a transitive inequality among sets,
where "cardinals" themselves as equivalence classes of sets
having any transitive bijective relation, are, besides zero,
rather too large to be sets in ordinary set theories like ZF(C).
Cardinality is rather specific to sets, and, set theory
rather _describes_ numbers than _is_ numbers,
that though "descriptive set theory" is a great account
of formalization in mathematics.
Emil duBois-Reymond discovered various arguments for
the uncountability of reals, later Cantor wrote them
in set theory.
About the Continuum Hypothesis of G. Cantor, there's
that Goedel showed it consistent one way and von Neumann
another, then P. Cohen added an axiom to make it
independent instead of inconsistent, set theory.
As one might imagine, that's a bit messy, since then
thusly one may derive contradictions in set theory
itself, and not even talking about how to derive
contradictions in set theory about description of
other theories of one relation, like ordinals for
order theory or about class/set distinction, or
about theories of other objects like those of
geometry or number theory, as modeled in
ordinary set theory.
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >>>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>>> exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need >>>>>>>>>>> remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a
detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic >>>>>>>>> resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise
experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table.
(at audio frequencies)-a Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a
while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers >>>>>>> for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and >>>>>>> other
techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant >>>>>>> magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec >>>>>>> technique, FTMS,-a died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately >>>>>>> killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much >>>>>>> cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in >>>>>> 1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away by >>>>>> the
higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he
saw in
X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching
purposes.
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and boring. >>>>> The gradient coils are very noisy.
My father complained about that too. I knew why the gradient coils were >>>> making their noise, so it didn't worry me.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
Getting through the whole procedure takes a lot longer than that. My
local hospital is only a ten minute walk away, but the hospital insists >>>> on keeping me sitting around for about an hour during even the fastest >>>> procedures. They seem to need to keep the patients intimidated. Or at
least acting as if they are intimidated.
The "nuclear medicine" with "technicium 99" is quite targeted.
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty
shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
On 02/21/2026 05:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty >>> shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the >>> only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only >>> one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
One "true" theory should suffice.
Then for that being for matters of perfection, to which
agreeably that human beings as above machine and animal
have minds yet are finite, imperfect creatures, is for
idealistic perfection.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table
of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
On 02/21/2026 05:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:12 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snipped even more word salad>
Invoking artificial intelligence to generate your word salad for you is
taking time wasting to absurd lengths. Silence is definitely golden when
you don't have anything useful to say.
There's something to be said for computational advantage,
about informational advantage (and intellectual advantage)
as for notions of mechanical advantage, about that
"large, competent, conscientious, co-operative reasoners",
often result thinking alike.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students
busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of
technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of >>>> it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league
journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. >>> Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones
where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will
be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who
think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can
wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors.
Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship
likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >>>>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism >>>>>>>>>>>>> than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that >>>>>>>>>>>> exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you >>>>>>>>>>>> need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a >>>>>>>>>>>> detectable signal.
Nevertheless, it is easily demonstrated in the kitchen
with some simple electronics.
Sort of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance
There are lots of different ways to exploit nuclear magnetic >>>>>>>>>> resonance.
The earth's magnetic field is high enough to let you devise >>>>>>>>>> experiments
that can demonstrate the effect on a kitchen table.
Nothing 'sort of'.
You -can- easily demonstrate the effect on the kitchen table. >>>>>>>>> (at audio frequencies) Wikipedia is right here.
Jan
NMR was a fairly popular analytical chemistry business for a
while. We
made pulsed-field gradient coil drivers and temperature controllers >>>>>>>> for Varian.
But superconductive magnets and liquid helium are expensive, and >>>>>>>> other
techniques took over. It was common to visit a lab that had a giant >>>>>>>> magnet in the corner, warm and collecting dust. A similar mass spec >>>>>>>> technique, FTMS, died for the same reason... too expensive.
Agilent bought Varian to get their medical stuff but immediately >>>>>>>> killed the NMR operation. I think Bruker still does NMR.
Hospitals prefer cat scans to MRIs these days. Cat scans are much >>>>>>>> cheaper.
But not as good. When I had a ruptured intervertebral disk back in >>>>>>> 1988,
I paid extra to get an MRI scan and my clinician was blown away
by the
higher resolution it offered - it was about twice as good as he
saw in
X-ray based CAT scans. He got my okay to use it for teaching
purposes.
And it didn't raise my risk of getting cancer at all.
I had a head injury and volunteered for a long-term study, which
involved periodic MRIs. I guess I've had 15. They are slow and
boring.
The gradient coils are very noisy.
My father complained about that too. I knew why the gradient coils
were
making their noise, so it didn't worry me.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yte89c83s03fghphb7thh/Brain_1.jpg?rlkey=tb71ahj2lp3zabw88ws6reofx&raw=1
A cat scan takes about a minute.
Getting through the whole procedure takes a lot longer than that. My >>>>> local hospital is only a ten minute walk away, but the hospital
insists
on keeping me sitting around for about an hour during even the fastest >>>>> procedures. They seem to need to keep the patients intimidated. Or at >>>>> least acting as if they are intimidated.
The "nuclear medicine" with "technicium 99" is quite targeted.
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about
arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to bother.
On 22/02/2026 12:40 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 05:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:12 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snipped even more word salad>
Invoking artificial intelligence to generate your word salad for you is
taking time wasting to absurd lengths. Silence is definitely golden when >>> you don't have anything useful to say.
There's something to be said for computational advantage,
about informational advantage (and intellectual advantage)
as for notions of mechanical advantage, about that
"large, competent, conscientious, co-operative reasoners",
often result thinking alike.
Sometimes the cooperative reasoning produces useful results.
Religion has produced a lot of counter-examples.The MAGA movement is a
more recent case in point. Science is about managing cooperative
reasoning to produce useful results, but then we have IQ tests.
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. >>>>>>>>> Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what you >>>> are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you because >>>> we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about
arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Donnerstag000019, 19.02.2026 um 09:25 schrieb Jeremiah Jones:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000015, 15.02.2026 um 22:30 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, that was just an IDEA!
Well: actually 'cold fusion' would be an option.
But this would require a beam of strange particles (afair 'muons'). >>>>>>
But as a strange coincidence, one of the very few sources of such beams >>>>>> in existence was not that far away:
Brookhaven National Lab.
Now building WTC7 showed a very strange pattern of the smoke it had >>>>>> emitted, which pointed directly away from the direction, in which BNL >>>>>> was located.
Getting better all the time !
So actually those criminals at BNL
(you know, scientists, what do you expect)
destroyed the WTC by cold muon catalysed fusion.
(just after the planes hit)
Keep it up !
The idea was, that a facility was used inside a building at the BNL
site, which had the name '911' (still has!).
Only problem with this theory:
BNL is about 95 km away (roughly east) and is located near Montauk in
the Hamptons.
Could have been a little too far away for muons.
Butbutbut... muons can go right through solid earth like it's not there. >>> They come streaming from the sun. 95 miles is just a cakewalk.
The beam could spread a little, but these guys are Deep State, and they
have a nice budget. They probably built a muon laser.
The 'cold fusion idea' has another problem:
there was a strange phenomenon at 9/11, which I would call 'empty
vertical holes'.
This means: there were huge vertical holes inside several buildings,
that contained no debris.
That looked as if someone had shot down from a spaceship with kind of
'starwars weapon', that made matter disappear into hyperspace.
The first building struck wasn't one of the towers, but the customs
building (afaik WTC 6).
This low flat building emitted a puff of dust at a time, when the
twintowers were still standing.
This could be connected to these empty hole, which looked as if someone
had shot from above with a 'teleporter'.
These 'shots' seemingly missed their intended target (most likely the
twin towers), hence had to come from very far away.
But that is all just speculation and possibly something else happend.
But almost with certainty these empty holes were not created by falling
debris, because falling material would have left at least 'full holes'.
Another problem was, of course, that the holes came first and only later
falling debris.
TH
And the plot thickens.
From this I see primo facio evidence of at least THREE grand
conspiracies, plus the muons beamed from Brookhaven.
Remember this is right near where the Montauk Project experiments were carried out which 80 years later Deep State is still trying to coverup.
On 22/02/2026 12:40 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 05:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:12 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snipped even more word salad>
Invoking artificial intelligence to generate your word salad for you is
taking time wasting to absurd lengths. Silence is definitely golden when >> you don't have anything useful to say.
There's something to be said for computational advantage,
about informational advantage (and intellectual advantage)
as for notions of mechanical advantage, about that
"large, competent, conscientious, co-operative reasoners",
often result thinking alike.
Sometimes the cooperative reasoning produces useful results.
Religion has produced a lot of counter-examples.The MAGA movement is a
more recent case in point. Science is about managing cooperative
reasoning to produce useful results, but then we have IQ tests.
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably
more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you because >>>>> we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of >>>>> our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but rather >>> just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do anything >>> else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about
arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually
catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what >>>>>> you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you
because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (out of >>>>>> our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA
sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but >>>>>> that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but
rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity of the >>>> virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do
anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong on. >>>>
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about
arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to bother. >>>>
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually
catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been
innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting
vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
On 22/02/2026 12:58 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students >>>> busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of >>>> technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of >>>> it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league
journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. >>> Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones
where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will
be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who >> think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
Conspiracy theory nutters don't go in for realistic abuse.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can >> wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors. Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Those with the resources to pay for it did. There weren't many of them.
Laurence Bragg was one of them, but he did travel with his family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bragg
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
There's a memorial travel grant for my wife that offers that to one
graduate student every year at the University of Western Sydney where
she was a professor when she died.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:58 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students >>>>>> busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of >>>>>> technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of >>>>>> it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league >>>>>> journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. >>>>> Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones >>>> where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will >>>> be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who >>>> think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
Conspiracy theory nutters don't go in for realistic abuse.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can >>>> wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors.
Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Those with the resources to pay for it did. There weren't many of them.
There were not many students to begin with.
Most of them had parents who could afford to pay for their studies.
Some poor and obviously very talented boys got scholarships.
Some were adopted by a maecenas who sponsored them.
Women were usually out of luck.
For numbers: I have seen estimates that in the year 1900
there were about a thousand physicists of all kinds in the whole world,
most of them in Europe.
Laurence Bragg was one of them, but he did travel with his family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bragg
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship
likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
There's a memorial travel grant for my wife that offers that to one
graduate student every year at the University of Western Sydney where
she was a professor when she died.
A Good Thing.
But I guess that there are more Australian who want to go to Europe
than the other way round, even nowadays,
PS,
You arrived here too late to see the best anti-Einstein nutter of all.
(an Australian citizen whose name shall not be mentioned)
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what >>>>>>> you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you
because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms
(out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but >>>>>>> that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine >>>>> against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but
rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity of >>>>> the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do
anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong on. >>>>>
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence,
then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about
arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to
bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually
catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been
innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting
vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:40 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 05:08 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:12 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:03 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:56 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snipped even more word salad>
Invoking artificial intelligence to generate your word salad for you is >>>> taking time wasting to absurd lengths. Silence is definitely golden when >>>> you don't have anything useful to say.
There's something to be said for computational advantage,
about informational advantage (and intellectual advantage)
as for notions of mechanical advantage, about that
"large, competent, conscientious, co-operative reasoners",
often result thinking alike.
Sometimes the cooperative reasoning produces useful results.
Religion has produced a lot of counter-examples.The MAGA movement is a
more recent case in point. Science is about managing cooperative
reasoning to produce useful results, but then we have IQ tests.
Do you really believe in that pseudo-science?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but >>>> his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably
more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:58 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students >>>>>> busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of >>>>>> technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of >>>>>> it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league >>>>>> journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names. >>>>> Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones >>>> where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will >>>> be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who >>>> think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
Conspiracy theory nutters don't go in for realistic abuse.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can >>>> wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors.
Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Those with the resources to pay for it did. There weren't many of them.
There were not many students to begin with.
Most of them had parents who could afford to pay for their studies.
Some poor and obviously very talented boys got scholarships.
Some were adopted by a maecenas who sponsored them.
Women were usually out of luck.
For numbers: I have seen estimates that in the year 1900
there were about a thousand physicists of all kinds in the whole world,
most of them in Europe.
Laurence Bragg was one of them, but he did travel with his family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bragg
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship
likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
There's a memorial travel grant for my wife that offers that to one
graduate student every year at the University of Western Sydney where
she was a professor when she died.
A Good Thing.
But I guess that there are more Australian who want to go to Europe
than the other way round, even nowadays,
Jan
PS,
You arrived here to late to see the best anti-Einstein nutter of all.
(an Australian citizen whose name shall not be mentioned)
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly >>>>>>>>> what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, >>>>>>>>> but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA
vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do
anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to
bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been
innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so
they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all
that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start
talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to
language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory
everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful.
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
"He don't know me too well do he."
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought
to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty >> shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the >> only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only >> one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows the paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >>>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought >>>> to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to >>>> capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.
Jan
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the >>>> work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but >>>> his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably
more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the Heaviside function when he first used it.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the >>>>>> work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but >>>>>> his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably
more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing >>>> out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a
separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had
known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
Jan
On 02/22/2026 05:19 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:58 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 9:19 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
It helps if they are publishable in a high impact journal.
When I was a graduate student one of the lecturers kept his students >>>>>> busy publishing papers on the properties of the simpler conpounds of >>>>>> technicium - the lightest element that hasn't got a stable isotope. He >>>>>> had contacts in the reactor business that let him get hold of enough of
it to do that kid of work. The results got published in mior league >>>>>> journals.
Minor league professors tend to have minor league students,
who may become in their turn minor league professors.
So it goes, in this, the best of all possible worlds.
Conversely, great names tend to have connections with other great names.
Books have been written about it,
like on 'heritability' of Nobel prizes.
There is a nature versus nurture problem here.
Students vary a lot. The nuture problem is about putting the good ones >>>> where they will do well, and some great names were good at doing that >>>>
One may speculate that the better students
tend to move out to more promising places,
I've seen a bit of that.
or that great professors may bring out the best in their students.
They tend to send them on to places where their particular skills will >>>> be appreciated, and to get students and post-docs from acquaintances who >>>> think that particular students would do well with them.
Here, at SPR, some of the great lights may tell you
that it is all a conspiracy of Einstein-worshippers.
Conspiracy theory nutters don't go in for realistic abuse.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but a bad supervisor can >>>> wreck a pontential silk purse.
In the olden days, pre-WWII, students tended to travel a lot,
moving between universities, to take courses from reputed professors.
Letters of recommendation played an important part.
Those with the resources to pay for it did. There weren't many of them.
There were not many students to begin with.
Most of them had parents who could afford to pay for their studies.
Some poor and obviously very talented boys got scholarships.
Some were adopted by a maecenas who sponsored them.
Women were usually out of luck.
For numbers: I have seen estimates that in the year 1900
there were about a thousand physicists of all kinds in the whole world, most of them in Europe.
Laurence Bragg was one of them, but he did travel with his family.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bragg
Americans and Australians with the good luck of having a scholarship
likewise made European tours, of a few months in several places.
Nowadays there are the Erasmus scholarships and for that,
but that is EU only,
(those dumb Brits locked themselves out of it)
There's a memorial travel grant for my wife that offers that to one
graduate student every year at the University of Western Sydney where
she was a professor when she died.
A Good Thing.
But I guess that there are more Australian who want to go to Europe
than the other way round, even nowadays,
Jan
PS,
You arrived here to late to see the best anti-Einstein nutter of all.
(an Australian citizen whose name shall not be mentioned)
Verlinde?
Oh, I thought Verlinde was an Australian.
Don't know any "Australian anti-Einstein nutters".
Not much for Verlinde's time-violation, though.
There are some interesting ideas in it.
Einstein doesn't say much except "relativity of, ..., motion",
and "mass/energy equivalence" and "cosmological constant".
He does though make an account of the "spacial" and "spatial"
in "Out of My Later Years", his last word on the matter.
Finlay-Freundlich, or just plain Freundlich if he dropped
his matronymic after he wasn't using it to shield himself
from anti-German sentiment in Scotland, wrote a pretty good
paper on gravity in Einstein's Relativity that's accessible
to all from the Gutenberg project.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70793
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Freundlich/
Struick is a pretty decent historian.
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly >>>>>>>>> what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, >>>>>>>>> but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA
vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do
anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to
bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been
innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so
they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all
that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start
talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to
language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory
everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful.
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
"He don't know me too well do he."
On 02/22/2026 10:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly >>>>>>>>>> what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about >>>>>>>>>> the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, >>>>>>>>>> but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA
vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>> bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so >>>>>> they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were >>>>>> much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all >>>>>> that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start >>> talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to >>> language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory >>> everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful. >>>
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
"He don't know me too well do he."
When I'm interested in linguistics as natural language understanding,
I look to the ACL Anthology https://aclanthology.org,
not whether Chomsky proves to followers he can't parse it.
The multi-pass parser and Tesniere grammars and otherwise
the structural account of grammar, since for example
Panini was the father of grammar, is considered a much
greater account of linguistics for grammar's sake, and
thoroughly the textual, not for phonemes the ape and bird sounds.
Whatmough has a great account of language, and Huppe and
Kaminsky have a good little book on logic and language.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but
there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty >>>> shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in >>>> the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able >>>> to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the >>>> only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only >>>> one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows the
paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >>>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought >>>> to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to >>>> capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.
On 23/02/2026 5:30 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly >>>>>>>>>> what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about >>>>>>>>>> the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular
genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA
vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>> bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so >>>>>> they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were
much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all >>>>>> that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start >>> talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to >>> language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory >>> everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful. >>>
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You don't hang around with psycholinguists.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Whatever that might be. It sounds as if it was invented by people who
didn't like Spinoza's single substance philosophy and wanted to invent a
way of getting around it.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
"He don't know me too well do he."
And doesn't seem to see much point in getting to know him better.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools
developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the >>>>>> work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but >>>>>> his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably
more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing >>>> out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a
separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had
known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
On 02/22/2026 01:38 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools >>>>>>> developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for >>>>>>> the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting
hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably >>>>> more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle. >>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by
pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a >>> separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had >>> known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
Jan
Actually it's usually said that physics is a "gauge" theory,
(a field theory), not necessarily a "quantum field" theory.
Retro-finitists of the grainy sort who think that reality
is digital and non-deterministic don't say much, then, do they?
Except "close enough". Which fails, beyond variously
the first or second order, that mathematicians know,
and "physicists" shut up and compute.
When I put "physicists" in quotes like that it means "technicians".
Not that there's anything wrong with those, ...,
just not that they're philosophers of physics
about the truth of the matters, nor that they're
"doing science".
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but >>>>> there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your >>>>> observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably >>>>> better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a
nasty
shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about
relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be
able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it
is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the
only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows the >>> paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
On 23/02/2026 8:38 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools >>>>>>> developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for >>>>>>> the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting
hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably >>>>> more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle. >>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by
pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
I'm good at learning what I need to, and getting deep into quantum
physics never turned out to be necessary.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a >>> separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Heaviside's version wasn't quite what Maxwell had originally produced.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had >>> known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
The Heaviside step function is just the integral of the Dirac function.
If Dirac had known about it he'd probably have called the impulse
function the derivative of the step function.
On 23/02/2026 9:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:38 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics >>>>>>>>> of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools >>>>>>>> developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers
for the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting
hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably >>>>>> more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the
circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by
pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to
do a
separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure, >>>> and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to >>>> use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac
had
known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the >>>> Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
Jan
Actually it's usually said that physics is a "gauge" theory,
(a field theory), not necessarily a "quantum field" theory.
Retro-finitists of the grainy sort who think that reality
is digital and non-deterministic don't say much, then, do they?
Except "close enough". Which fails, beyond variously
the first or second order, that mathematicians know,
and "physicists" shut up and compute.
When I put "physicists" in quotes like that it means "technicians".
Not that there's anything wrong with those, ...,
just not that they're philosophers of physics
about the truth of the matters, nor that they're
"doing science".
Polyani in "Personal Knowledge" put paid to that approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
It you aren't a "technician" in the sense of doing something with your knowledge there are aspects of reality that you won't be able assess.
On 02/22/2026 10:46 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 9:10 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:38 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics >>>>>>>>>> of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools >>>>>>>>> developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers >>>>>>>>> for the
work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting
hybrid, but
his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably >>>>>>> more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the
circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by
pointing
out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to
do a
separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure, >>>>> and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to >>>>> use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac >>>>> had
known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it
the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
Jan
Actually it's usually said that physics is a "gauge" theory,
(a field theory), not necessarily a "quantum field" theory.
Retro-finitists of the grainy sort who think that reality
is digital and non-deterministic don't say much, then, do they?
Except "close enough". Which fails, beyond variously
the first or second order, that mathematicians know,
and "physicists" shut up and compute.
When I put "physicists" in quotes like that it means "technicians".
Not that there's anything wrong with those, ...,
just not that they're philosophers of physics
about the truth of the matters, nor that they're
"doing science".
Polyani in "Personal Knowledge" put paid to that approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
It you aren't a "technician" in the sense of doing something with your
knowledge there are aspects of reality that you won't be able assess.
I'm not exactly clumsy with my tools.
Then again, I know how they're made.
Do I dig a ditch faster than a deaf-mute ditch-digger?
I imagine we could talk about it.
Today's bit was "axe grinding". Let's see, one, five,
six, six: six axes to grind.
How about this, "operating system design". I think we could
agree that "operating system design" is a high level practical
matter involving standards and convention.
Ah here's one, it's the old "management consultant" joke.
So, the corporate board really wants to shoehorn value into
their holdings ignorant of the other shareholders, so they
call in a management consultant to really squeeze blood from
the stone from the old factory. The management consultant
shakes it up and gives everyone a good fright for their careers
and the numbers the next day ticked upward so it's considered
a great success. Slavering for more fees, the management consultant
one day finds a maintenance man leaning on his broom onlooking the
factory floor. The management consultant says "what are you doing
today" and the maintenance man says "this" and the management consultant bravely fires him and off he goes. It's going swell
then though, a few days later, somebody slips on a peel, then a
few days later, there's a broken window. One day, there's a new
light on the panel. The next day with a giant crash the entire factory
halts.
So you might figure the epilog is penny-wise pound-foolish,
or vice-versa, or that a stitch-in-time-saves-nine, here
though the management consultant promptly rehires the maintenance
man, or a maintenance man. The maintenance man comes in, finds
a broom, sweeps up a bit, then leans on his broom overlooking the
halted factory. Then the management consultant says "aren't you
going to do something", and the maintenance man says "yeah,
this is about it".
The other story that comes to mind is about the one fellow
who was an engineer and I'd recall his name yet there was
some fact that he was a dwarf. So anyways, some great
industrialist hears about his great experience with electrical
motors and is having a problem with an electrical motor in
his plant. So, the engineer comes in, looks around for a few
days, then at some point makes a chalk mark on a panel, and
says "behind the panel is your problem, fix it". Lo, it was so,
and the technicians got it running. The industrialist is
curious the process of the engineer, and asks for the bill.
The engineer gives him a bill for ten thousand dollars. The
industrialist doesn't really understand the process involved,
and asks for an itemized bill. The engineer shrugs and writes
one up and hands it over and walks off. When the industrialist
reads the bill, it reads: "chalk mark: $5. knowing where to
put the chalk mark: $9995".
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas.
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but >>>> there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your >>>> observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably >>>> better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a nasty >>>> shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could
observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about relationships in >>>> the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be able >>>> to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it is the >>>> only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the only >>>> one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows the >> paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical
"openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first >>>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >>>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought >>>> to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to >>>> capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.
Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their consequences.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what >>>>>>>> you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but >>>>>>>> that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine >>>>>> against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do
anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines
with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to
bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four
days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and
disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been
innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they >>>> spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that >>>> common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful.
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
On 23/02/2026 8:38 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I.e., mathematics _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of continuity and infinity.
Mathematics doesn't owe physics anything. Physics exploits tools >>>>>> developed by mathematicians, which makes physicists customers for the >>>>>> work of some mathematicians.
That is quite arguable.
Much of mathematics wouldn't exist
without (what was once) new input from physics.
Many a luminary, Von Neumann for example,
has said that mathematics will go stale
without regular fresh input from the natural sciences,
bringing new needs.
A mathematical physicist like Paul Dirac is an interesting hybrid, but >>>>>> his biography is titled "The strangest man".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac
Why discredit him by calling him 'a mathematical physicist'?
He was a theoretical physicist,
He invented the Dirac function, and bra-ket notation. He was notably >>>> more deft with math than most of his contemporaries.
Arguably. The real inventor was Oliver Heavidise.
(who loved to pester mathematicians with it)
Dirac just gave it another, more elegant name. [1]
( \delta(x) versus D H(x) or 1/2 D \signum(x) )
And that 'most of' will depend on how wide you want to draw the circle. >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%E2%80%93ket_notation
Nothing but notation. You can do without just as well.
Mathematicians object to it,
because the notation assumes without proof that adjoints exist.
(which often needs to be shown, by their standards)
He reconciled several ostensibly different quantum theories by pointing >>>> out that they were notational variations of the same basic idea.
Yes. But imho his most important contribution
was getting quantum field theory started,
"Quantum field theory" is just words to me.
That is just too bad.
I'm good at learning what I need to, and getting deep into quantum
physics never turned out to be necessary.
All of physics is quantum field theory these days,
at least in principle.
[1] Dirac was an electrotechnical engineer by training.
He must have known about Heaviside and his operational calculus.
Perhaps. He did his first degree at Bristol in 1921, and went on to do a >> separate degree in math in 1923. Heaviside was a controversial figure,
and might not have been much cited at Bristol back then.
Being controversial leads to being well-know.
And Heaviside solved a number of fundamental problems
in electromagnetism, so any electrical engineer
must know about his work.
Even Maxwell's equations are only known nowadays
in the form Heaviside gave them.
Some people even call them the Maxwell-Heaviside equations.
Heaviside's version wasn't quite what Maxwell had originally produced.
Looking at Heaviside's wikipedia page, I note that he was the first to
use the impulse function (now known as the Dirac function). If Dirac had >> known much about Heaviside's work, he probably would have called it the
Heaviside function when he first used it.
'Heaviside function' is already in use for the unit step function,
(don't know about when that name originated, guess well before Dirac)
The Heaviside step function is just the integral of the Dirac function.
If Dirac had known about it he'd probably have called the impulse
function the derivative of the step function.
On 02/22/2026 10:01 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:30 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:<snip>
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit : >>>>>>>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae, >>>>>>>>>>>> and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly >>>>>>>>>>> what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about >>>>>>>>>>> the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular
genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA >>>>>>>>> vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA, >>>>>>>>>> it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much >>>>>>>>>> longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford >>>>>>>>>> vaccine were much more involved and intended to treatBoth look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>>> bother.
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance". >>>>>>>>>
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did
eventually
catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so >>>>>>> they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were >>>>>>> much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all >>>>>>> that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to
start
talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful
approach to
language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a
theory
everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more
useful.
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You don't hang around with psycholinguists.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Whatever that might be. It sounds as if it was invented by people who
didn't like Spinoza's single substance philosophy and wanted to invent a
way of getting around it.
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
"He don't know me too well do he."
And doesn't seem to see much point in getting to know him better.
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
That said Spinoza has an account of an Integer Continuum
which is nice, includes infinity, after Duns Scotus
that "infinity is in", though not quite voicing "univocity".
Dual monism sort of points to Heraclitus, or about the
oldest of the ancient Greek philosophers of the Western
tradition.
On 02/22/2026 10:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas. >>>>>>
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but >>>>>> there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe your >>>>>> observations. So far nobody has found any language that works notably >>>>>> better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a >>>>>> nasty
shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could >>>>>> observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about
relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be >>>>>> able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it
is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the >>>>>> only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process follows
the
paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones.
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
Your attitude reminds of Russell's in a sense, Bertrand Russell's,
about the "isolation" and "significance", of theories.
Basically
it's the hypocrisy of the invincible ignorance. Hypocrisy:
hypo- / not enough, -crisy / criticality. Etymology of course
is of the elements of language and thus linguistics, for people
who are textual thinkers, and where language naturally composes.
Something like the grab-bag tool-kit of differential equations
helps show that the conflicting criteria of convergence,
for examples, makes for always checking the outcomes for sanity.
Then, for realists and "Aristotlean realism" and the like,
it sort of results that numbers are ideals. As a sort of
practicing electrical engineer, surely you know that there's
a distinction between "ideal" and "practical" electrical
components, while according to "the theory" there are ideals.
So, having ideals at all hints at least at a weak sort of platonism.
Then the idea that the idealistic tradition and analytical tradition,
or mathematical platonism and logicist positivism, are indispensable
to each other, has then naturally for an account, even for engineers,
where they are of the strong variety.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern.
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular
polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first >>>>>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic table >>>>>> of the elements is going to put together the same data, and that ought >>>>>> to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point, >>>>> when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to >>>>>> capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.
Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns
at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 8:38 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 9:25 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 5:52 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is obvious that you have not seen Dirac's original work,
where he introduces the \delta-function.
He explicitly says there that introducing the \delta-function
as the derivative of the unit step function,
(which he calls the \epsilon-function)
is an alternative and equivalent way of introducing the \delta-function.
He doesn't mention Heaviside by name,
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
I'd wonder, have you ever heard any notion that there's a
modern, "crisis", in physics? That is to say, when somebody
like Penrose points out that GR and QM effectively disagree
120 orders of magnitude, and furthermore, there's no room
for gravity in the theory since it would be a constant violation
of energy everywhere, are these considered worthy of interest?
I bought and read Lee Smolin's "the trouble with physics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics
and passed it on to a friend who did undergraduate physics but
metamorphosed into a statistician. I've also got Roger Penrose's "The >>>>> Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" >>>>> because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
Emperor's New Mind" which was earlier. For years I read "Physics Today" >>>>> because my wife was a member of the American Acoustical Society.
I'm well aware that there is talk of a crisis in physics, but if you >>>>> want to publish a book about what's going on, you do need to play up the >>>>> drama to give the reviewers something to talk about.
Lee Smolin was a player in the game,
not just a spectator.
And Penrose is an idiot, where physics is concerned
as soon as he gets beyond the technicalities of GR. (just imho)
Our world view isn't entirely consistent, and it probably never will be >>>>> - the more we learn the harder it becomes to pull everything together >>>>The problem isn't with the world, I think.
It is us humans failing to get the right ideas about it.
How about Mathematics, ..., I'm curious what you think that
Mathematical Foundations is.
For me mathematics is a tool box. I'm well aware that I'm not a
mathematician, but I can follow mathematical advice.
Agreeably, my little video essays are rather dry. That said,
some of the modern AI reasoners eat them up. For example,
in "Logos 2000: physics today" I gathered a bunch of responses
from a sort of model reasoner.
How about "continuity" and "infinity", I'm curious what these
things mean to you.
Finite and continuous functions can be differentiate and integrated. >>>>> My undergraduate mathematical education concentrated on them. I'd been >>>>> exposed to permutations and combinations at secondary school in
Tasmania, and one of my cousins is a professional statistician, so I did >>>>> know that there was a world outside calculus.
I know enough to know that the infinite number of integers is a smaller >>>>> number than the infinite number of rational numbers, but I don't get >>>>> excited about it.
You shouldn't. It is another thing that you got completely wrong.
I knew some of the linguists that tried to describe natural language in >>>>> terms of a generalised phase structure grammarHmmm. Of a kind, I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_phrase_structure_grammar
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too. >>>>>
and got to hear when they decided that it didn't work. That's math too. >>>>
Just packaging it as math isn't enough,
Is there any particular idea for which Smolin is known?
Not that I know of. Best known is loop quantum gravity.
His invention of 'cosmic natural selection'
in combination with anthropic principles
is a complete disaster. (if you ask me)
It is tantamount to an admission of defeat.
Smolin is part of the general failure of string theory and quantum
gravity to produce anything worthwhile.
I've read some of his books, nothing really comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin
If "loop quantum gravity" is the thing,
then there are "spin foam networks".
It's a popularizer.
The field certainly needs popularising.
And to be fair, Smolin was one of the first to emphasize
that his field, which he identifies with 'physics,
is in a deep crisis. (it still is, btw)
In Lincoln Barnett's book on Einstein, he quotes Einstein
with regards to the role of popularizers, with regards to
physics and the public its perception thereof.
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath787/kmath787.htm
I think Einstein generally was a kind man.
He disliked severly criticising people in public.
Worst example perhaps: Velikovsky.
It is known that Einstein told V. in private
that all of his ideas of cavorting planets was bunk.
(and that it detracted from the rest of his work)
E. kept silent when V. published his 'Worlds in Collision' nevertheless.
If "loop quantum gravity" is the thing,
then there are "spin foam networks".
It's a popularizer.
The field certainly needs popularising.
And to be fair, Smolin was one of the first to emphasize
that his field, which he identifies with 'physics,
is in a deep crisis. (it still is, btw)
In Lincoln Barnett's book on Einstein, he quotes Einstein
with regards to the role of popularizers, with regards to
physics and the public its perception thereof.
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath787/kmath787.htm
I think Einstein generally was a kind man.
He disliked severly criticising people in public.
Worst example perhaps: Velikovsky.
It is known that Einstein told V. in private
that all of his ideas of cavorting planets was bunk.
(and that it detracted from the rest of his work)
E. kept silent when V. published his 'Worlds in Collision' nevertheless.
Kevin Brown there writes a lot of interesting things about physics.
I hadn't encountered his writings.
About 'relativistic mass' and Feynman, in your ref.:
I think Feynman's treatment of relativity in his 'Lectures'
is poor indeed, the worst part of the series.
Feynman was too easy on himself there.
(he should have paid more attention to Wheeler)
The recent AI slop attempting to simulate Feynman
is garbage, since not only was he not that pretty,
also he was always rather laconic, that it reminds
me of the AI slop garbage about neo-Stoicism,
which doesn't reflect the ideals and is shamelessly
self-centered.
I.e., it's what Feynman didn't say what usually
made him less than insufferable.
Yeah, that AI slop garbage will always be rejected.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
Certainly. Good engineering, perhaps,
but it doesn't lead to understanding of science,
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae,
and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what >>>>>>>>>> you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but >>>>>>>>>> that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine >>>>>>>> against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA,
it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much
longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford
vaccine were much more involved and intended to treat
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance".
Both look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>> bother.
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they >>>>>> spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that >>>>>> common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start >>> talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to >>> language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory >>> everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful. >>>
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Good for them. The best philosophy for working physicists is
"No Nonsense for me".
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
Oh? And what does it predict for the value of \alpha?
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
What a waste of time,
Jan
On 23/02/2026 5:50 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 10:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural
languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas. >>>>>>>
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, but >>>>>>> there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe >>>>>>> your
observations. So far nobody has found any language that works
notably
better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a >>>>>>> nasty
shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular.
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could >>>>>>> observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about
relationships in
the most abstract way we can manage. It's a language,and we may be >>>>>>> able
to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it >>>>>>> is the
only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. It's the >>>>>>> only
one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process
follows the
paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones. >>>>>
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
<snip>
Your attitude reminds of Russell's in a sense, Bertrand Russell's,
about the "isolation" and "significance", of theories.
If that was intended to be flattering, it didn't work.
Basically
it's the hypocrisy of the invincible ignorance. Hypocrisy:
hypo- / not enough, -crisy / criticality. Etymology of course
is of the elements of language and thus linguistics, for people
who are textual thinkers, and where language naturally composes.
My ignorance gets defeated at regular intervals, but there's a whole
universe of stuff that I'm going to stay ignorant about, and my
potential areas of ignorance get larger every day with people publishing stuff that I'm never going to get to grips with.
Something like the grab-bag tool-kit of differential equations
helps show that the conflicting criteria of convergence,
for examples, makes for always checking the outcomes for sanity.
Then, for realists and "Aristotlean realism" and the like,
it sort of results that numbers are ideals. As a sort of
practicing electrical engineer, surely you know that there's
a distinction between "ideal" and "practical" electrical
components, while according to "the theory" there are ideals.
Every real component is more complicated than it's ideal version.
Every resistor has a parallel capacitance (which I've had to take into account in real designs) and a series inductance which rarely matters. Capacitors and inductors are worse.
So, having ideals at all hints at least at a weak sort of platonism.
Not exactly. Laziness is the first thing that comes to mind. I always
check other peoples Spice models to see if their inductors have a
parallel capacitance and a series inductance. You can almost always get
them form data sheets, but some people don't bother.
Then the idea that the idealistic tradition and analytical tradition,
or mathematical platonism and logicist positivism, are indispensable
to each other, has then naturally for an account, even for engineers,
where they are of the strong variety.
I see it more as the butter-fingered "keep it simple" tradition.
Good engineers keep things as simple as they can get away with, but they
do need to know when they are cutting corners.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is always a pleasure for me to quote that, when debating with
particle physicists the alleged "stringent simplicity" of their
model. However, much earlier than Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli had hit
the point. He called the spreading nonsense "group pestilence."
Theoretical physics has suffered for half a century from the
infection.
On 24/02/2026 1:36 am, Don wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
It is always a pleasure for me to quote that, when debating with
particle physicists the alleged "stringent simplicity" of their
model. However, much earlier than Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli had hit
the point. He called the spreading nonsense "group pestilence."
Theoretical physics has suffered for half a century from the
infection.
Wolfgang Pauli was the perfect antithesis of an experimental phsyicist.
Experiments stopped working when he walked into a room.
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
Quarks explain quite a lot of very high energy physics pretty neatly.
The fact that we've got even less chance of getting our hand one of them
than we have of getting our hands on a chunk of dark matter doesn't make
them any less useful as an explanatory device.
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae, >>>>>>>>>>>> and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know
exactly what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn >>>>>>>>>>> about the
interaction between particular vaccines and particular
genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA >>>>>>>>> vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA, >>>>>>>>>> it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much >>>>>>>>>> longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford >>>>>>>>>> vaccine were much more involved and intended to treatBoth look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>>> bother.
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance". >>>>>>>>>
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did
eventually
catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long,
so they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were >>>>>>> much
less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not
all that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to
start
talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful
approach to
language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a
theory
everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more
useful.
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Good for them. The best philosophy for working physicists is
"No Nonsense for me".
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
Oh? And what does it predict for the value of \alpha?
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
What a waste of time,
Jan
Hm. Well, as a course of "axiomless natural deduction",
then for making an "axiomless geometry", then about mostly reverse-engineering the usual accounts of coordinate analysis
for an integral analysis and an original analysis,
the deconstructive reverse engineering of something like
the fine-structure-constant, or 1/alpha, gets involved pretty
directly with Planck's methods, and showing how they are
incomplete approximations.
Then, what gets involved, is getting "mathematical constants"
and "physical constants" distinguished and sorted out, then
for "running constants" as about continuum mechanics.
For example, if one looks at the roots of x^2 +- x +- 1,
one can notice that one of those roots is phi the golden
ratio, and another is the numerical value of the molar gas
constant. So, the molar gas constant suddently is a mathematical
constant not a physical constant, and suddenly it gets divided
out of Boltzmann constant everywhere, or rather _replaced with
its entire algebraic derivation_ to fulfill that it's an account
of a derivation with its implicits, not a stroke that's all cancelled.
Then, getting into deconstructing Planck, and it sort of involves
where mass/length/time sort of make spirals and about the
dimensional analysis (the dimensioned analysis), then leads
into making mathematical constants as derivations (for
"running constants") then that eventually, that touches
on the finite-structure-constant or 1/alpha.
As for a putative "Theory of Everything" and candidate "Foundations",
the "A-Theory" or theatheory the mono-heno-theory is at least a
theory of everything logical and mathematical to begin.
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae, >>>>>>>>>>> and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out.
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs.
Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA, >>>>>>>>> it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since
mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much >>>>>>>>> longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford >>>>>>>>> vaccine were much more involved and intended to treatBoth look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>> bother.
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance". >>>>>>>>
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start >>> talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to >>> language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human
language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas
are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory >>> everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful. >>>
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Good for them. The best philosophy for working physicists is
"No Nonsense for me".
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
Oh? And what does it predict for the value of \alpha?
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
What a waste of time,
Jan
Hm. Well, as a course of "axiomless natural deduction",
then for making an "axiomless geometry", then about mostly reverse-engineering the usual accounts of coordinate analysis
for an integral analysis and an original analysis,
the deconstructive reverse engineering of something like
the fine-structure-constant, or 1/alpha, gets involved pretty
directly with Planck's methods, and showing how they are
incomplete approximations.
Then, what gets involved, is getting "mathematical constants"
and "physical constants" distinguished and sorted out, then
for "running constants" as about continuum mechanics.
On 24/02/2026 1:36 am, Don wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
It is always a pleasure for me to quote that, when debating with
particle physicists the alleged "stringent simplicity" of their
model. However, much earlier than Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli had hit
the point. He called the spreading nonsense "group pestilence."
Theoretical physics has suffered for half a century from the
infection.
Wolfgang Pauli was the perfect antithesis of an experimental phsyicist.
Experiments stopped working when he walked into a room.
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot
of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of
wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern. >>>>>>>
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular
polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first >>>>>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic >>>>>> table of the elements is going to put together the same data, and >>>>>> that ought to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point, >>>>> when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply.
Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns
at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular >>>>> polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of >>>>>>>>> wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern. >>>>>>>>>
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math. >>>>>
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first >>>>>>>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic >>>>>>>> table of the elements is going to put together the same data, and >>>>>>>> that ought to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point, >>>>>>> when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply. >>>>
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns
at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of
stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
Jan
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot
of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a
century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus
generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
You might also like Steven Nadler on Spinoza,
and why he was so controversial, then and still.
"A Book Forged In Hell".
Theologians of various kinds were not merely 'interested'.
[-]
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
Jan
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:<snip>
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit : >>>>>>>>
I felt it helped me a lot with the post-COVID sequelae, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and everything else, while it's not a usual thing.Why the anxiety about mRNA vaccines? At least you know exactly what
(Also had a nice time with the ultrasound tech.)
It seems everybody forget everybody has COVID.
That said, the post-nasal pharyngeal swab with
the Tobacco Mosaic Virus epitopes and the
Omicron the "COVID-Lite" really helped crowd it out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A shot of remdesivir when the MERS was kicking in
before COVID also seemed to help, and hopefully
the Hep B vaccine was helpful, while though I
never took the mRNA jab and intend never will,
then also I hope to avoid the Crow-vid and Cow-vid
(and, Pig-vid) and avoid food animals with mRNA jabs. >>>>>>>>>>>>
you
are getting. You can't be as confident about the effect on you >>>>>>>>>>>> because
we've all got about a million single-nucleotide polymorphisms >>>>>>>>>>>> (out of
our three billion nucleotides). Enough people have had their DNA >>>>>>>>>>>> sequenced that we can hope that we will eventually learn about the >>>>>>>>>>>> interaction between particular vaccines and particular genomes, but
that's going to be a long way off.
Not that it's so relevant to matters of great theory,
yet besides that the mRNA operation is not only like
a terrible infection yet also like a junk machine
about inflammation and also incredibly cheap and
depending on hijacking the body's RNA replication
mechanisms, there's also that wild-type Coronaviridae
are part of the body's viriome and part of messaging
and signaling in the body.
What a load of ignorant hyperbole. The whole point of the mRA vaccine
against Covid-19 was that it didn't replicate the whole virus but >>>>>>>>>> rather
just the segment that latched onto the ACE-receptor.
That segment couldn't mutate much without crippling the capacity >>>>>>>>>> of the
virus to infect us, so it was stable target, and it couldn't do >>>>>>>>>> anything
else so it wasn't going to get into the human viriome.
Also there's that mRNA is more authentically messenger RNA, >>>>>>>>>>> it should also be mu-RNA or miRNA I suppose it is, since >>>>>>>>>>> mRNA and tRNA and so on were already used. So, I'm
simply against it since it's dirt cheap and subverts
natural mechanisms, then that ideas like traditional vaccines >>>>>>>>>>> with more expensive yet live-type results are having a much >>>>>>>>>>> longer run of testing.
In other words you haven't got a clue about what was actually gong >>>>>>>>>> on.
The other vaccines in development like the original Oxford >>>>>>>>>>> vaccine were much more involved and intended to treatBoth look identical to pig ignorance. Doctor Johnson talked about >>>>>>>>>> arguing precedence between a flea and a louse. I'm not going to >>>>>>>>>> bother.
originally other diseases like those of the T-viridae.
Then TMV post-nasal delivered epitopes and Omicron
crowded it out, it being the successive waves of the
contents of SARS capsid payloads.
Since at least twenty years ago there's a laboratory
where one can simply order DNA, or RNA, assembled to sequence, >>>>>>>>>>> then there are virus research labs who make their own.
It's not rocket science, though, it is virus science.
Don't confuse "miRNA rejection" with "vaccine intolerance". >>>>>>>>>>
Somehow I didn't die. Yet, ....
I'm curious, how many times you got the jab,
and whether you were ever, "positive", for COVID.
I've had about five or six anti-Covid innoculations. I did eventually >>>>>>>> catch it after I'd had a couple, and it put me in hospital for four >>>>>>>> days. My digestive system was where it struck, which was messy and >>>>>>>> disabling.
Here about half the population didn't get the jab.
That's poor health care.
Stories of reactions are widespread.
Of course they are. Alarmist rumours spread like wildfire.
Whether it reduced transmissibility is arguable,
since it's clear that 100% of the population
got COVID.
It does reduce transmission - people who catch it after having been >>>>>>>> innoculated don't get as sick, and don't stay sick for as long, so they
spread less of the virus. Back when the population was still getting >>>>>>>> vaccinated it was noticed that those who had been vaccinated were much >>>>>>>> less likely to die of the disease if they did get infected.
These days pretty much everybody still has
a nominally non-zero COVID virus load.
What makes you think that? Long Covid does exist, but it's not all that
common.
First time I ever saw a dead body laying out
on the street, ....
That cat was already out of the bag.
Over on sci.math there was a great long thread
"What's the best vaccine for COVID-19?", then
it was appreciated that medical journals opened
up, and it was rather thoroughly studied here.
Matters of macropinocytosis and the like and
issues with platelets and fibrosis has that
the COVID-associated is a head-to-toe disease,
or as rather, toe-to-head.
Don't get me wrong, I'm up on MMR and tetanus
and polio and about hep b, yet, not shingles,
which is also endemic, I contracted the chicken
pox as a youth, and not to forget pertussis or
for that matter D68 or tuberculosis, and within
a few weeks of going to college there went
mononucleosis.
No mRNA, though.
It hadn't been invented back then.
I recall one person, over the bookstore counter,
I asked how are today and Bree said "I've been
out a couple days. I got the COVID shot and
overnight a painful baseball-sized welt grew on
my arm, accompanied with other deleterious reactions."
I was like, "Then what happened?". And she said,
"I called my doctor and asked her if this was normal.
And she said 'Yeah right. "Normal"'"
Not my experience or that of my wife.
Anyways the TMV and Omicron saved a lot of people.
The mRNA vaccines saved many more.
Yet, ....
Funny, when I got the PCR test they said I didn't have it, ...,
yet, I felt it the first time the grocery checker sneezed,
and feel lucky to have survived the heart attacks and
the respiratory syncytia and the brain fog and the
tendonitis and the dispepsia and the diverticulitis
and all the other associated issues with fibrosis and
defibrosis of a sincerely involved and thorough immune reaction.
Then later all the cancer and remission, ....
Well, discussion about COVID is off-topic, yet much like
talking about common language, and common literature,
is how it falls to the common experience.
That said then, I'm curious about the "Theory of Everything".
Don't try to walk before you can crawl.
By definition it would be singular, ..., then that it's a
real theory of everything including reason and logic and
mathematics, and physics and probability and science,
and the accounts of language and inter-subjectivity,
here there is one and it's a realist's.
When the standard model doesn't cover gravity, it's a bit early to start >>>>> talking about a theory of everything.
Chomsky upset linguistic theory with his remarkably powerful approach to >>>>> language, even though he doesn't seem to have any idea how the human >>>>> language processing system might have evolved.
Slightly incoherent theories that work within their specialised areas >>>>> are perfectly fine.
Einstein wasted a lot of his life trying to get a bit closer to a theory >>>>> everything. If he'd been less ambitious, he might have been more useful. >>>>>
Rather, a bit too late, ....
Chomsky's not all that, not much for Whorf either.
Here linguistics is more a course of philology.
You know, I didn't really think that experts trained in
a scientific field could be so ignorant of holistic
dual monism.
Good for them. The best philosophy for working physicists is
"No Nonsense for me".
Here there's already a theory of everything called "A-Theory".
Oh? And what does it predict for the value of \alpha?
I've written about it on and off for decades, and from my
video essays "Logos 2000" there "paradox-free reason",
"Foundations briefly", and "A Theory", for starters.
What a waste of time,
Jan
Hm. Well, as a course of "axiomless natural deduction",
then for making an "axiomless geometry", then about mostly
reverse-engineering the usual accounts of coordinate analysis
for an integral analysis and an original analysis,
the deconstructive reverse engineering of something like
the fine-structure-constant, or 1/alpha, gets involved pretty
directly with Planck's methods, and showing how they are
incomplete approximations.
Then, what gets involved, is getting "mathematical constants"
and "physical constants" distinguished and sorted out, then
for "running constants" as about continuum mechanics.
blahblahpipitiblah.
And the predicte value of \alpha is?
Jan
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It was part of a huge and proplonged practical joke.
(by Gamow and some others)
Pauli just loved it, and helped to keep it up,
Jan
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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
On 02/23/2026 04:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:50 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 10:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:<snip>
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural >>>>>>>> languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas. >>>>>>>>
Translation between languages is usually pretty straightforward, >>>>>>>> but there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe >>>>>>>> your observations. So far nobody has found any language that works >>>>>>>> notably better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a >>>>>>>> nasty shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular. >>>>>>>>
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could >>>>>>>> observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about
relationships in the most abstract way we can manage. It's a
language,and we may be able to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it >>>>>>>> is the only possible way of talking about abstract relationships. >>>>>>>> It's the only one we have got, which isn't quite the same thing. >>>>>>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process
follows the paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones. >>>>>>
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The capacity >>>> to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
<snip>
Your attitude reminds of Russell's in a sense, Bertrand Russell's,
about the "isolation" and "significance", of theories.
If that was intended to be flattering, it didn't work.
Basically it's the hypocrisy of the invincible ignorance. >>> Hypocrisy: hypo- / not enough, -crisy / criticality.
Etymology of course is of the elements of language and thus linguistics, >>> for people who are textual thinkers, and where language naturally composes.
My ignorance gets defeated at regular intervals, but there's a whole
universe of stuff that I'm going to stay ignorant about, and my
potential areas of ignorance get larger every day with people publishing
stuff that I'm never going to get to grips with.
Something like the grab-bag tool-kit of differential equations
helps show that the conflicting criteria of convergence,
for examples, makes for always checking the outcomes for sanity.
Then, for realists and "Aristotlean realism" and the like,
it sort of results that numbers are ideals. As a sort of
practicing electrical engineer, surely you know that there's
a distinction between "ideal" and "practical" electrical
components, while according to "the theory" there are ideals.
Every real component is-a more complicated than it's ideal version.
Every resistor has a parallel capacitance (which I've had to take into
account in real designs) and a series inductance which rarely matters.
Capacitors and inductors are worse.
So, having ideals at all hints at least at a weak sort of platonism.
Not exactly. Laziness is the first thing that comes to mind. I always
check other peoples Spice models to see if their inductors have a
parallel capacitance and a series inductance. You can almost always get
them form data sheets, but some people don't bother.
Then the idea that the idealistic tradition and analytical tradition,
or mathematical platonism and logicist positivism, are indispensable
to each other, has then naturally for an account, even for engineers,
where they are of the strong variety.
I see it more as the butter-fingered "keep it simple" tradition.
Good engineers keep things as simple as they can get away with, but they
do need to know when they are cutting corners.
Actually it's sort of pointing out that Russell
admittedly lied to you.
Then, one might claim he did it for your own good,
having lied that his claim about ordinary inductive
sets was sound, to keep some simple things simple.
Yet, the hypocrisy gets attached since he used the
same reasoning to discount Frege's accounts of
fundamental laws of logic and reasoning.
The notions of edge cases and corner cases with
regards to tiling the field besides the however
it came into the usual vocabulary "the happy case",
what are otherwise error modes and failure modes
make for that at least electronics is still engineering
besides the art of it all, where software engineering
is divided into easily digestible chunks, sort of
like cutting a piece of meat into tiny bites for
infants and the elderly.
So, practicing engineers have ideals, too.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular >>>>> polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective,
we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above,
including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of >>>>>>>>> wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern. >>>>>>>>>
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math. >>>>>
>A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story
"Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was first >>>>>>>> published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic >>>>>>>> table of the elements is going to put together the same data, and >>>>>>>> that ought to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same point, >>>>>>> when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to apply. >>>>
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns
at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of
stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 1:36 am, Don wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
It is always a pleasure for me to quote that, when debating with
particle physicists the alleged "stringent simplicity" of their
model. However, much earlier than Feynman, Wolfgang Pauli had hit
the point. He called the spreading nonsense "group pestilence."
Theoretical physics has suffered for half a century from the
infection.
Wolfgang Pauli was the perfect antithesis of an experimental phsyicist.
Perhaps. Pauli was quite capable of debunking erroneous ones,
and of suggesting useful ones.
Experiments stopped working when he walked into a room.
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
You realise that all of this was a practical joke
engineered by Georg Gamow?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot
of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a
century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus
generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
You might also like Steven Nadler on Spinoza,
and why he was so controversial, then and still.
"A Book Forged In Hell".
Theologians of various kinds were not merely 'interested'.
[-]
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
On 24/02/2026 3:54 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 04:44 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:50 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 10:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:20 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:56 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:52 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 09:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/20/2026 09:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>
"Strong mathematical platonism" is the idea
that elements of the "domain of discourse
the "universe of mathematical objects": _exist_,
and furthermore that there's an eventual theory
where we are of them, about the constant, consistent,
complete, then _concrete_, since there's only one
theory at all as universal why naturally according
to reason then that for objects to exist that
mathematical objects exist.
Why should there be only one theory? There are lots of natural >>>>>>>>> languages, and lots of different words for roughly the same ideas. >>>>>>>>>
Translation between languages is usually pretty
straightforward, but there are exceptions.
"Mathematical platonism" it's usually called,
so commonly that it's even lower-cased like
"euclidean" or "archimedean", then that
"amicus Plato" is a usual account of idealism.
Without some kind of strong mathematical platonism
then logicist positivism is at best "weak",
as basically for the invincible ignorance of
inductive inference.
Logical positivism is a waste of time.
Science is about observations, and you need language to describe >>>>>>>>> your observations. So far nobody has found any language that works >>>>>>>>> notably better than any other.
Then, a "strong mathematical platonism", for
the inter-objective as it were, makes for a
"strong logicist positivism", for the inter-subjective
as it is, then for something like a "strong
mathematical universe hypothesis", where objects
really are their numbers and names, not that we
known them, yet that they "are".
The people that thought that chemical atoms were indivisible got a >>>>>>>>> nasty shock when nuclear fission showed up.
... And that their relations are mathematical,
so that basically mathematics "is" physics,
the elements of the domain of discourse the
universe of objects, as that mathematics "owes"
physics, since physics has gotten away with itself.
The hypothesis that the relations are mathematical is circular. >>>>>>>>>
Physicists use mathematics to express the relationships they could >>>>>>>>> observe. Mathematics is largely a way of talking about
relationships in the most abstract way we can manage. It's a >>>>>>>>> language,and we may be able to invent a better one.
Thus there are necessary accounts of both
the idealistic tradition and analytic tradition.
All one theory, ..., a "mono-heno-theory" a "theatheory".
The "energy" and "entelechy" then are usual notions
of the "point-wise" and "space-wise" the quantities.
(Here "mass".)
Mathematicians, having invented a language, want to claim that it >>>>>>>>> is the only possible way of talking about abstract
relationships. It's the only one we have got, which isn't quite >>>>>>>>> the same thing.
<snip>
A theory is always an explanation of why an observed process
follows the paths we see.
Successful ones explain more observations than less successful ones. >>>>>>>
That is they encode more observations. They do tend to be
over-simplifications and encode less precisely than we'd like.
You are a naive positivist, I see.
Not unsuprising, for an engineer.
It comes with the territory. Theories can be useful tools. The
capacity
to junk bad and unhelpful theories is a necessary part of the
engineering tool-kit.
<snip>
Your attitude reminds of Russell's in a sense, Bertrand Russell's,
about the "isolation" and "significance", of theories.
If that was intended to be flattering, it didn't work.
Basically it's the hypocrisy of the invincible ignorance. >>>
Hypocrisy: hypo- / not enough, -crisy / criticality.
Etymology of course is of the elements of language and thus
linguistics, for people who are textual thinkers, and where language
naturally composes.
Except that "etymology" is a word, and thus part of the language you are discussing - or in this case - misrepresenting.
My ignorance gets defeated at regular intervals, but there's a whole
universe of stuff that I'm going to stay ignorant about, and my
potential areas of ignorance get larger every day with people publishing >>> stuff that I'm never going to get to grips with.
Something like the grab-bag tool-kit of differential equations
helps show that the conflicting criteria of convergence,
for examples, makes for always checking the outcomes for sanity.
Then, for realists and "Aristotlean realism" and the like,
it sort of results that numbers are ideals. As a sort of
practicing electrical engineer, surely you know that there's
a distinction between "ideal" and "practical" electrical
components, while according to "the theory" there are ideals.
Every real component is more complicated than it's ideal version.
Every resistor has a parallel capacitance (which I've had to take into
account in real designs) and a series inductance which rarely matters.
Capacitors and inductors are worse.
So, having ideals at all hints at least at a weak sort of platonism.
Not exactly. Laziness is the first thing that comes to mind. I always
check other peoples Spice models to see if their inductors have a
parallel capacitance and a series inductance. You can almost always get
them form data sheets, but some people don't bother.
Then the idea that the idealistic tradition and analytical tradition,
or mathematical platonism and logicist positivism, are indispensable
to each other, has then naturally for an account, even for engineers,
where they are of the strong variety.
I see it more as the butter-fingered "keep it simple" tradition.
Good engineers keep things as simple as they can get away with, but they >>> do need to know when they are cutting corners.
Actually it's sort of pointing out that Russell
admittedly lied to you.
More that he lied to himself.
Then, one might claim he did it for your own good,
having lied that his claim about ordinary inductive
sets was sound, to keep some simple things simple.
Yet, the hypocrisy gets attached since he used the
same reasoning to discount Frege's accounts of
fundamental laws of logic and reasoning.
Human beings make mistakes for all sorts of reasons.
Cambridge intellectuals are particularly prone to discount ideas that
weren't invented by other Cambridge intellectuals.
The notions of edge cases and corner cases with
regards to tiling the field besides the however
it came into the usual vocabulary "the happy case",
what are otherwise error modes and failure modes
make for that at least electronics is still engineering
besides the art of it all, where software engineering
is divided into easily digestible chunks, sort of
like cutting a piece of meat into tiny bites for
infants and the elderly.
But software engineers need system engineers to make sure that all the
tiny tiles do tesselate in a way that completely fills the area that
needs to be covered. I've sat in on software reviews where that has been hammered out. I wouldn't sell myself as a system engineer, but I've worn
the hat from time to time.
So, practicing engineers have ideals, too.
Obviously. Reducing a bright shiny simple idea to complicated practical hardware is what we do (when we are lucky). I spent more time tidying up
the first attempts at practical hardware than I did reducing new ideas
to practice.
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
My comment was also a joke.
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns >>> at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age. >>
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of
stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all
that often in geological history.
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot >> of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a >> century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus
generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
You might also like Steven Nadler on Spinoza,
and why he was so controversial, then and still.
"A Book Forged In Hell".
Theologians of various kinds were not merely 'interested'.
[-]
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
On 02/23/2026 12:08 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hm. Well, as a course of "axiomless natural deduction",
then for making an "axiomless geometry", then about mostly
reverse-engineering the usual accounts of coordinate analysis
for an integral analysis and an original analysis,
the deconstructive reverse engineering of something like
the fine-structure-constant, or 1/alpha, gets involved pretty
directly with Planck's methods, and showing how they are
incomplete approximations.
Then, what gets involved, is getting "mathematical constants"
and "physical constants" distinguished and sorted out, then
for "running constants" as about continuum mechanics.
blahblahpipitiblah.
And the predicte value of \alpha is?
Seems I've pointed out that Boltzmann constant gets "predicted"
first, and it doesn't get "predicted" it gets "derived".
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns >>>>> at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at >>>> once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age. >>>>
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of
stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started >>>> melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current
distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and
Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all
that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example,
had little to do with sea level rise.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot >>>> of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a >>>> century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus >>>> generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
You might also like Steven Nadler on Spinoza,
and why he was so controversial, then and still.
"A Book Forged In Hell".
Theologians of various kinds were not merely 'interested'.
[-]
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. >>>Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
<snip>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
what they are talking about.
If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
outside their speciality.
(I have known some electrical engineers...)
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science
(inventing what is now called 'naive positivism').
His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
his understanding of physics in general.
Planck already made mincemeat of him.
According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
without 'real' existence.
Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value. >
From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
for determining Avogadro's number experimentally.
It was the convergence of different results,
obtained independently by different methods,
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c, because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
what they are talking about.
If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
outside their speciality.
(I have known some electrical engineers...)
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
Pretty much every scientist is expert in a limited domain
For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science
(inventing what is now called 'naive positivism').
Pontificating outside your area of expertise is always a temptation.
His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
his understanding of physics in general.
Planck already made mincemeat of him.
According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
without 'real' existence.
Max Planck initially thought that his quantised energy was just such a theoretical convenience,
Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value. >
From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
for determining Avogadro's number experimentally.
It was the convergence of different results,
obtained independently by different methods,
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
He did get around.
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns >>>>> at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at >>>> once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age. >>>>
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started >>>> melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the
last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a
period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite
fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have
been an option.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current
distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and
Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example,
had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did
have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:[-]
I mostly see Spinoza as an echo of Duns Scotus,
then though the "men are natural enemies" I don't get,
sort of like that Calvinism is disagreeable.
Jonathon Israel got very interested in Spinoza and points out that a lot >>>> of Roman Catholic theologians got very interested in Spinoza and spent a >>>> century or so trying to prove him wrong. I don't think that Duns Scotus >>>> generated anything like as much interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Israel
You might also like Steven Nadler on Spinoza,
and why he was so controversial, then and still.
"A Book Forged In Hell".
Theologians of various kinds were not merely 'interested'.
[-]
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing
it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred
long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing
it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred
long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
It is a grab bag.
You can find lots of wrong and right ends in there,
depending on your prejudices about right and wrong,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit : >>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
Don wrote:
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
Unzicker has studied Physics and has obtained a university diploma in
Physics in 1985. Other than that, however, he is merely an author of popular-scientific books who, because of their content, is not taken seriously in the scientific community.
Incidentally, this particular book was self-published by Unzicker which for
a book about science is always a bad sign as it was not peer-reviewed by a(nother) scientist before publication:
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Unzicker>
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism.
Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns >>>>>>> at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at >>>>>> once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age. >>>>>>
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started >>>>>> melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the
last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a
period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite
fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have
been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current
distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and
Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example,
had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did
have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a
couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
<snip>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
what they are talking about.
If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
outside their speciality.
(I have known some electrical engineers...)
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science.
(inventing what is now called 'naive positivism')
His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
his understanding of physics in general.
Planck already made mincemeat of him.
According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
without 'real' existence.
Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value.
From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
for determining Avogadro's number experimentalltally.
It was the convergence of different results,
obtained independently by different methods,
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this,
Jan
--
"Aber haben Sie Eine gesehen?" (Mach)
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100,
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit : >>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
what they are talking about.
If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
outside their speciality.
(I have known some electrical engineers...)
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's
1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
Pretty much every scientist is expert in a limited domain
Of course, but not all of them know their limits.
For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science
(inventing what is now called 'naive positivism').
Pontificating outside your area of expertise is always a temptation.
Pontificating is one thing.
Nasty philosophers of science, like Mach, or Popper
wanted to be prescriptive,
so telling others how science must be done to be correct.
His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
his understanding of physics in general.
Planck already made mincemeat of him.
According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
without 'real' existence.
Max Planck initially thought that his quantised energy was just such a
theoretical convenience,
Yes, but he was soon cured of that by Ehrenfest,
who proved that Planck's trick was not only sufficient,
but also necessary to arrive at the black body law.
And of course there was also Einstein 1905.
Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value. >
From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
for determining Avogadro's number experimentally.
It was the convergence of different results,
obtained independently by different methods,
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
He did get around.
Certainly, he was already well known before 1905,
and he became a major player after that year.
Jan
On 02/24/2026 06:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit : >>>>>
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
The tendency is to write off the rest as nut-jobs.
Not necessarily nutjobs, just people who don't understand
what they are talking about.
If they persist in their errors they become nutjobs,
outside their speciality.
(I have known some electrical engineers...)
When it was first invented serous physicists like Ernest Mach were
dubious about the physical reality of discrete atoms, but Einstein's >>>>> 1905 paper on Brownian motion convinced most of them.
Ernst Mach was a serious physicist only in a limited domain.
Pretty much every scientist is expert in a limited domain
Of course, but not all of them know their limits.
For the rest he was a lousy philosopher of science
(inventing what is now called 'naive positivism').
Pontificating outside your area of expertise is always a temptation.
Pontificating is one thing.
Nasty philosophers of science, like Mach, or Popper
wanted to be prescriptive,
so telling others how science must be done to be correct.
His bad philosophy of science seriously flawed
his understanding of physics in general.
Planck already made mincemeat of him.
According to Mach, atoms are just a theoretical conveniences
without 'real' existence.
Max Planck initially thought that his quantised energy was just such a
theoretical convenience,
Yes, but he was soon cured of that by Ehrenfest,
who proved that Planck's trick was not only sufficient,
but also necessary to arrive at the black body law.
And of course there was also Einstein 1905.
Hence, according to Mach, Avogadro's number, and Bolzmann's constant,
are arbitrary numbers that can be given any convenient value. >
From about 1900 onwards many people invented methods
for determining Avogadro's number experimentally.
It was the convergence of different results,
obtained independently by different methods,
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
He did get around.
to results roughly in the same ballpark
that convinced the physics community that atoms are really real,
and hence Mach wrong.
As for Einstein, he played a minor, but significant part in all this.
He did get around.
Certainly, he was already well known before 1905,
and he became a major player after that year.
Jan
Karl Popper doesn't actually say much, he just echoes
scientism the good parts (observability, repeatability,
then emphasizing falsifiability of the theory) then
gets into "social" writing or matter of "human science",
which are plainly oxymoronic.
Kant for scientism just echoes the ancient Greeks.
Don't get me wrong. When you first hear of Karl Popper
and W. Van. O. Quine, and hear that for example "Popper
demands falsifiability in science" and "Quine has ultimate
proper classes and anti-foundational atoms", that seems great,
then they get into empiricism and make un-scientific view the
one and un-logical view the other, so what would have been
a suspension of judgment instead results a less than generous reading.
The notions of Schoperhaauer, Compte, Boole, Russell, Whitehead,
then the whole Carnap school, or "scientism" then "logicist
positivism", those are pretty much Epicurean sophists and
Occam nominalists.
If the "Renaissance" was reinvigorating and finding again
the ideals, and the "Enlightenment" was the reinvigorating
and finding again the analytical setting, it happens a lot
and instead of that it just vacillates between "constructivism"
and "intuitionism", is for an overall wider, fuller, dialectic.
The "technical" parts here are "the dialectic", since for example
Parmenides after Heraclitus, not the messy, spongy "human" parts,
or faux-Hegelians like Wittgentstein or Nietzsche or Heidegger or Marx. ("Anti-Plato's.") Hegel though is great, the Wissenschaft der Logik
of Hegel, the "Science of Logic", is really quite rather great.
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea >>>>>> at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the
last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a
period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite
fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have
been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea
level rise.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place,
but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current >>>> distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and >>>> Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example, >>> had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did >> have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a >> couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those
living in the area while it was going on.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough
that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snip>
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the >>>>>> stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing
it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred
long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
It is a grab bag.
You can find lots of wrong and right ends in there,
depending on your prejudices about right and wrong,
Science has the advantage that it looks for concensus, and can end up
with a pretty robust idea of right and wrong.
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit : >>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c,
because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
But I couldn't measure that all that accurately, and I need at least a
rough value for the propagation delay before I could build the hardware
on which I could have measured the propagation delay.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
You may have a preference for expressing it in nanoseconds, but
machinists prefer millimeters. I found it politic to keep them happy.
At least one engineer I knew complained that he was nothing but a
walking table of conversion factors. Life would be easier if that was
the whole job.
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
On 24/02/2026 8:31 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he >>>> wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference >>>> that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if >>>> Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
My comment was also a joke.
But was it an intentional one?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit : >>>>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c, >>>>> because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
But I couldn't measure that all that accurately, and I need at least a
rough value for the propagation delay before I could build the hardware
on which I could have measured the propagation delay.
That's part of being a competent experimenter.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
You may have a preference for expressing it in nanoseconds, but
machinists prefer millimeters. I found it politic to keep them happy.
In case of trouble you may remind those machinists
that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to a primary standard.
At least one engineer I knew complained that he was nothing but a
walking table of conversion factors. Life would be easier if that was
the whole job.
True, for Americans.
It becomes a problem when you need more than slide rule accuracy,
Jan
(still have an inherited one with a lots factors printed on the back)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snip>
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the >>>>>>>> stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing >>>> it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred
long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
It is a grab bag.
You can find lots of wrong and right ends in there,
depending on your prejudices about right and wrong,
Science has the advantage that it looks for concensus, and can end up
with a pretty robust idea of right and wrong.
But Greek philosophy -was- what they had for science.
(and for a lot of other things beside that).
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
So, go ahead and "define" energy. That's funny,
because it's "derived" from various relations of
various energies and configuration of experiment,
the "regimes of the running constants".
Otherwise you're about half-right, in deep space
in a vacuum at a frozen instant in time.
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snip>
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the >>>>>>>> stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing >>>> it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred >>>> long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
It is a grab bag.
You can find lots of wrong and right ends in there,
depending on your prejudices about right and wrong,
Science has the advantage that it looks for concensus, and can end up
with a pretty robust idea of right and wrong.
But Greek philosophy -was- what they had for science.
(and for a lot of other things beside that).
There have been quite a few centuries worth of refinements since then.
Peer reviewed international journals do a much better - if still
imperfect - job of error correction and detection than public debates
between the smartest rich guys in town.
You had to be pretty well off to take the time out to do it.
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don wrote:
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
[...]
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism.
Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.
Please enlighten me as to your perception of my heretofore unstated
argument.
USA situational poet laureate Edgar Allan Poe (EAP) disdained [...] Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued individual independent intuitive leaps of imagination, as demonstrated
by Kepler, Heaviside, and George Green demonstrated by Kepler, Heaviside,
and George Green: [...] Albert Einstein commented [...] Julian Schwinger [...] published a tribute [...]
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don wrote:
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
[...]
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism.
Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.
Please enlighten me as to your perception of my heretofore unstated
argument.
There is no "us" here. You are alone in your special kind of crackpottery.
USA situational poet laureate Edgar Allan Poe (EAP) disdained [...]
Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued
individual independent intuitive leaps of imagination, as demonstrated
by Kepler, Heaviside, and George Green demonstrated by Kepler, Heaviside,
and George Green: [...] Albert Einstein commented [...] Julian Schwinger
[...] published a tribute [...]
Fallacy: /Ipse dixit./
The non-scientist Poe's opinion about science (if even true), and even the physicists Einstein's and Schwinger's opinion about George Green (if true) are irrelevant with regard to experimental confirmation of the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism, for example, which has been done.
rCLMen and women range themselves into three classes or orders of
intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always
talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always
to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the
discussion of ideas.rCY
--History scholar Henry Thomas Buckle as quoted by Charles Stewart
in the latter's 1901 autobiography
(a shorter version is often ascribed to Socrates, and several other
people, like Eleanor Roosevelt, without there being evidence of that:
<https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/>)
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
So, go ahead and "define" energy. That's funny,
because it's "derived" from various relations of
various energies and configuration of experiment,
the "regimes of the running constants".
If you don't know how it's done, you can feel free to make fun of it.
It makes you look at bit silly.
Otherwise you're about half-right, in deep space
in a vacuum at a frozen instant in time.
Deep space is a usually a pretty good vacuum, but the gear you need to calibrate isn't much used out there.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 5:38 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
<snip>
Greek philosophy was great at getting hold of the wrong end of the >>>>>>>>>> stick.
Ah, you have the right end?
I'm not a philosopher. How could I possibly know?
Then how could you know that 'the Greek philosophers' (whoever)
usually got the wrong end?
I've read quite a bit of the history, and historians do enjoy pointing >>>>>> it out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and Greek philosophy occurred >>>>>> long enough ago to have been exposed to quite a lot of it.
It is a grab bag.
You can find lots of wrong and right ends in there,
depending on your prejudices about right and wrong,
Science has the advantage that it looks for concensus, and can end up
with a pretty robust idea of right and wrong.
But Greek philosophy -was- what they had for science.
(and for a lot of other things beside that).
There have been quite a few centuries worth of refinements since then.
Peer reviewed international journals do a much better - if still
imperfect - job of error correction and detection than public debates
between the smartest rich guys in town.
Let's agree to disagree about that.
You had to be pretty well off to take the time out to do it.
Like Diogenes for example?
Jan
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
Jan
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don wrote:
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
[...]
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.
Please enlighten me as to your perception of my heretofore unstated
argument.
There is no "us" here. You are alone in your special kind of crackpottery. >>
USA situational poet laureate Edgar Allan Poe (EAP) disdained [...]
Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued >>> individual independent intuitive leaps of imagination, as demonstrated
by Kepler, Heaviside, and George Green demonstrated by Kepler, Heaviside, >>> and George Green: [...] Albert Einstein commented [...] Julian Schwinger >>> [...] published a tribute [...]
Fallacy: /Ipse dixit./
The non-scientist Poe's opinion about science (if even true), and even the >> physicists Einstein's and Schwinger's opinion about George Green (if true) >> are irrelevant with regard to experimental confirmation of the
Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism, for example, which has been done.
[...]
Unzicker begins by bringing up your precious:
THE HIGGS MASS HYSTERIA
IF ANYTHING, THE HYPE OF THE CENTURY
On July 4, 2012, at the famous CERN seminar, scientists
applauded, cheered, celebrated. The news spread quickly
all over the world that the Higgs had been discovered
(nobody cared about the subtleties of "the Higgs" and
"a Higgs"),
allegedly the verification of an almost 50-year-old idea formulated
by a Scottish theoretician.
[ex falso quodlibet]--
On 02/23/2026 11:15 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he
wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference
that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if
Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
Sometimes it's said that Stern-Gerlach was "proof of the quantum".
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
Jan
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 11:15 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he >>>>> wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference >>>>> that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if >>>>> Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the
time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>>>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
It's actually an academic joke.
Sometimes it's said that Stern-Gerlach was "proof of the quantum".
Only of the 'half-quantum',
Jan
On 02/25/2026 09:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 11:15 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:Only of the 'half-quantum',
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Sometimes it's said that Stern-Gerlach was "proof of the quantum".
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:It's actually an academic joke.
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he >>>>>> wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference >>>>>> that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if >>>>>> Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the >>>>>> time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for a >>>>>> couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.That sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
Oh, care to explain, or, perhaps your new
posting style is just "cut and get cut".
Stern-Gerlach basically demonstrates that it must
be continuum mechanics that it must be quantum mechanics
not simply particle mechanics.
[F'up2 sci.physics as it has nothing inherently to do with either relativity or electronics design.]
Ross Finlayson amok-crossposted to sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design:
On 02/25/2026 09:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 11:15 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:Only of the 'half-quantum',
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Sometimes it's said that Stern-Gerlach was "proof of the quantum".
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:It's actually an academic joke.
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he >>>>>>> wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference >>>>>>> that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if >>>>>>> Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the >>>>>>> time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for aThat sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
Oh, care to explain, or, perhaps your new
posting style is just "cut and get cut".
Stern-Gerlach basically demonstrates that it must
be continuum mechanics that it must be quantum mechanics
not simply particle mechanics.
No, it demonstrated that quantum-mechanical systems ("particles") have a property called "(quantum-mechanical) spin", an intrinsic form of angular momentum that is quantized. In particular, the experiment showed that (silver) atoms have this property, and that the projection of their spin can only assume one of two possible values (which for both physical and mathematical reasons were chosen to be +raA/2 and -raA/2; physics justifies the
raA) which makes them behave like that in a magnetic field:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment#Description>
Everybody who has any clue about quantum mechanics knows this. You don't have a clue, and neither has J. J. Lodder.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattice 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea >>>>>>>> at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water
draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea
level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Meltwater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place,
but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current >>>>>> distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and >>>>>> Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example, >>>>> had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did >>>> have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a >>>> couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something
certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those
living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for
that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough
that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time.
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time,
and the description doesn't fit.
For the rest all is fine, and it proves that the bible is always right,
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth regular >>>>>> polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective, >>>>>>>>>> we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above, >>>>>>>>>> including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of >>>>>>>>>> wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results"
or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account
of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern. >>>>>>>>>>
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at math. >>>>>>
-a-a-a >A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story >>>>>>>>> "Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it was >>>>>>>>> first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a periodic >>>>>>>>> table of the elements is going to put together the same data, and >>>>>>>>> that ought to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same >>>>>>>> point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence.
(like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human >>>>>>>>> language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to
apply.
Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside towns >>>> at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice age. >>>
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea >>>>>>>> at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating started
melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water
draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea
level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Meltwater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place,
but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
There was a massive sea level rise at
the end of the last ice age (and every one before it) and the current >>>>>> distribution of continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and >>>>>> Greenland to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example, >>>>> had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did >>>> have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a >>>> couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something
certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those
living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for
that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough
that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time.
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time,
and the description doesn't fit.
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.The Greenland ice sheetClimate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level. >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea >>>>>>>> at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating >>>>>>>> started melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for
about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations. >>> As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water
draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea
level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Mel
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice age >>>>>> (and every one before it) and the current distribution of
continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland to >>>>>> be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all that >>>>>> often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example, >>>>> had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did >>>> have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a >>>> couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something >> certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those
living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for >> that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough
that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or
fast enough.
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time.
Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time,
and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
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
The process of turning a frequency standard into a clock is fairly complicated but the devices are already sold as clocks.
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
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.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
When you are happy with a 1.4xyzzy GHz clock frequency,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.
Am 26.02.26 um 11:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
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 stabilised quartz clock.When you are happy with a 1.4xyzzy GHz clock frequency,
I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
so I adapted the description.
an active Hydrogen maser can do that without an XTAL.
Gerhard
(having locked a h-maser to a zero-g cesium. The maser
has the better phase noise but Cs is the law. That was
somewhat eased b/c everything was at 100 MHz already.)
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:46:45 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
Jan
Thank you so much for keeping Sloman amused.
[F'up2 sci.physics.relativity again because special relativity was important in the discussed discovery: The LHC, like all particle colliders is working based on special relativity.]
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don wrote:
Pertinent passages pulled from THE HIGGS FAKE: HOW PARTICLE PHYSICS
FOOLED THE NOBEL COMMITTEE by Alexander Unzicker:
[...]
Come out with a Number
Today's scientists got widely used to cheap patches when
it comes to fixing some contradiction in an ad-hoc manner,
but the real problems fall into oblivion. Take, for
instance, the fine structure constant, a combination of
the constants c, e, +|0 and h. The number 137.035999... is,
according to Richard Feynman, "one of the great damn
mysteries of physics" and he recommended all good
theoretical physicists should "put this number up on their
wall and worry about it." [...]
None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism. >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.
Please enlighten me as to your perception of my heretofore unstated
argument.
There is no "us" here. You are alone in your special kind of crackpottery. >>>
USA situational poet laureate Edgar Allan Poe (EAP) disdained [...]
Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued >>>> Aristotelian and Platonic peerage group think. Instead, EAP highly valued >>>> individual independent intuitive leaps of imagination, as demonstrated >>>> by Kepler, Heaviside, and George Green demonstrated by Kepler, Heaviside, >>>> and George Green: [...] Albert Einstein commented [...] Julian Schwinger >>>> [...] published a tribute [...]
Fallacy: /Ipse dixit./
The non-scientist Poe's opinion about science (if even true), and even the >>> physicists Einstein's and Schwinger's opinion about George Green (if true) >>> are irrelevant with regard to experimental confirmation of the
Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism, for example, which has been done.
[...]
Unzicker begins by bringing up your precious:
You are merely arguing from your own ignorance and incompetence.
THE HIGGS MASS HYSTERIA
IF ANYTHING, THE HYPE OF THE CENTURY
On July 4, 2012, at the famous CERN seminar, scientists
applauded, cheered, celebrated. The news spread quickly
all over the world that the Higgs had been discovered
(nobody cared about the subtleties of "the Higgs" and
"a Higgs"),
Plain false. Unzicker, in this fallacy of false equivalence, is falsely equating the media hype about the discovery (including the media using the terms "God Particle") with what scientists actually did and do.
allegedly the verification of an almost 50-year-old idea formulated
by a Scottish theoretician.
Instead, the idea that mass could be explained by symmetry breaking was formulated by several theoretical physicists (NOT just "theoreticians"):
two teams, and Peter Higgs, who all worked independently:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_PRL_symmetry_breaking_papers>
In your crackpottish hystery, it has completely escaped your attention that
I called it the "Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism". This should already have been indication to you that something is deeply wrong with Unzicker's description.
[ex falso quodlibet]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.The Greenland ice sheetClimate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea >>>>>>>>>> at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no chance of >>>>>>>>>> stopping it if the ice started moving fast and friction heating >>>>>>>>>> started melting the bottom layers of the ice sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for >>>>>> about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations. >>>>> As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water
draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea >>>> level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_Mel
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice age >>>>>>>> (and every one before it) and the current distribution of
continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland to >>>>>>>> be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all that >>>>>>>> often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for example, >>>>>>> had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same time, did >>>>>> have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have been spread over a >>>>>> couple of hundred years, and people would definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something >>>> certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those
living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for >>>> that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time. >>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough >>>> that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or
fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time.
Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time,
and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta.
(much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off really happened,
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 26.02.26 um 11:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
When you are happy with a 1.4xyzzy GHz clock frequency,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 stabilised quartz clock.
I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
so I adapted the description.
an active Hydrogen maser can do that without an XTAL.
Gerhard
(having locked a h-maser to a zero-g cesium. The maser
has the better phase noise but Cs is the law. That was
somewhat eased b/c everything was at 100 MHz already.)
The Galileo satnav system uses them,
with somewhat mixed succes. Some have failed, iirc.
And, also afaik, Cesium clocks can achieve better long term stability, (10^-15, for the fountain kind)
Am Dienstag000024, 24.02.2026 um 08:12 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 10:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/20/2026 10:52 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/20/2026 10:31 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 3:47 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:45 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 10:48 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/19/2026 11:19 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 20/02/2026 2:44 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/19/2026 01:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 6:13 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 11:06 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 08:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
So, again for matters of language and the inter-subjective, >>>>>>>>>>> we point to all the canon and dogma and doctrine as above, >>>>>>>>>>> including revisiting what were deemed _closures_ of mathematical >>>>>>>>>>> "openings" (perestroikas, catastrophes) that then instead of >>>>>>>>>>> wrongly asserting (axiomatizing) the "ordinary" theory
(eg Russell's retro-thesis of an ordinary inductive set
after Russell's paradox refuting itself), and for the
"Riddle of Induction" instead for these "bridge results" >>>>>>>>>>> or "analytical bridges" of deduction, this way an account >>>>>>>>>>> of the archetectonic is both paleo-classical, and, post-modern. >>>>>>>>>>>
And correct, ....
Mathematics is just another human language.
Plato, and most mathematicians with him,
will disagree very much with you.
They might. Insanity doesn't seem to stop people being good at >>>>>>>> math.
It would be kind of insane to believe that there can be sixth
regular
polyhedron. Plato did have a point there.
-a-a-a >A science fiction author - H Beam Piper - wrote a short story >>>>>>>>>> "Omnilingual" that was published in 1957. I read it when it >>>>>>>>>> was first
published (while I was still at secondary school).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual
It makes the point that any creature that puts together a >>>>>>>>>> periodic
table of the elements is going to put together the same data, and >>>>>>>>>> that ought to be a universal Rosetta Stone.
And all of physics of course.
Fred Hoyle, in his Andromeda books, also makes use of the same >>>>>>>>> point,
when elaborating on communicating with another intelligence. >>>>>>>>> (like them knowing about the hydrogen spectrum)
This may be putting too much faith in the capacity of human >>>>>>>>>> language to
capture reality.
What has human language got to do with it?
That's what we are using here. No language - no discussion.
Certainly. But the laws of Nature don't need to be discussed to >>>>>>> apply.
Ignorance of natural laws isn't any kind of defense against their
consequences.
Chimps can also drop to death by falling from trees.
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside
towns
at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at >>>> once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice
age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure you,
that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea-levels.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons.
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is strictly
local and the result from what is happening in a certain region.
For instance lets take a really nasty city, in respect to climate.
Lets take, for instance, Dhaka in Bangladesh.
What you see is a totally overcrowded city.
More than 24 Million people are cramped into a city build for 10% of
that number.
Would you really believe, that this would not influence climate?
But how you exhale has nothing at all to do, whether or not the icesheet
of Greenland could slide into the ocean.
The real cause is actually the water, because people need water, space
to stay, to travel and to grow food.
All of this has influence upon how much water the ground could evaporate
and that in turn has influence upon the creation of clouds and that in
turn changes the climate.
Am Dienstag000024, 24.02.2026 um 20:34 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
I personally think, that the so called 'growing Earth' hypotheis is
actually true.
This means, that the Earth grows by creating matter in large amounts
inside the planet, which pushes upwards and puts the surface under horizontal stress, what creates narrow land-bridges between adjacent land-masses. Then these land-bridges break and allow sea water to flow inside the basin, that has build behind the land bridges.
On 2/26/2026 3:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
Time is a word. You have no clue what it
means, neither poor idiot JJ has.
On 02/26/2026 09:11 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
Time is a word. You have no clue what it
means, neither poor idiot JJ has.
Actually it's a simple sort of consequence,
after axiomless natural deduction making
axiomless geometry, since "the only constant
is change", then as with regards to "geometry
is motion".
Actually it's a simple sort of consequence, ...,
in a continuum mechanics.
On 2/26/2026 7:40 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 09:11 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
Time is a word. You have no clue what it
means, neither poor idiot JJ has.
Actually it's a simple sort of consequence,
Actually - no it is not.
after axiomless natural deduction making
axiomless geometry, since "the only constant
is change", then as with regards to "geometry
is motion".
Actually it's a simple sort of consequence, ...,
in a continuum mechanics.
Am 26.02.26 um 13:24 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote:
Am 26.02.26 um 11:21 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
When you are happy with a 1.4xyzzy GHz clock frequency,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 stabilised quartz clock.
I thought you were proud of being an engineer,
so I adapted the description.
an active Hydrogen maser can do that without an XTAL.
Gerhard
(having locked a h-maser to a zero-g cesium. The maser
has the better phase noise but Cs is the law. That was
somewhat eased b/c everything was at 100 MHz already.)
The Galileo satnav system uses them,
with somewhat mixed succes. Some have failed, iirc.
And, also afaik, Cesium clocks can achieve better long term stability, (10^-15, for the fountain kind)
Cs fountains cannot work in zero g, nor does it make sense
to move the Cs atoms while you want to interrogate them.
Tout au contraire!
google for < cesium clock Pharao >
( I had nothing to do with the pharao innards, just a satisfied user :-)
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:el
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.The Greenland ice sheetClimate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level. >>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea
at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is.
(by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for >>>>>> about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations. >>>>> As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water >>>> draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea >>>> level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_M
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and
melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice age >>>>>>>> (and every one before it) and the current distribution of
continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland to >>>>>>>> be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all that >>>>>>>> often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all.
Think again, or think a bit harder.
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same
time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have
been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would
definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something >>>> certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those >>>> living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for >>>> that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time. >>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough >>>> that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or >> fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between
England and the Netherlands).
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies wouldn't have done well.
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than
the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age did.
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time.
Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time,
and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta. (much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit : >>>>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c, >>>>> because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
But I couldn't measure that all that accurately, and I need at least a
rough value for the propagation delay before I could build the hardware
on which I could have measured the propagation delay.
That's part of being a competent experimenter.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
You may have a preference for expressing it in nanoseconds, but
machinists prefer millimeters. I found it politic to keep them happy.
In case of trouble you may remind those machinists
that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to a primary standard.
At least one engineer I knew complained that he was nothing but a
walking table of conversion factors. Life would be easier if that was
the whole job.
True, for Americans.
It becomes a problem when you need more than slide rule accuracy,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:el
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations. >>>>>>> As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.The Greenland ice sheetClimate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in seaside >>>>>>>>>>>>> towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean sea level. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea
at once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?
The catastrophes aren't invented.
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is. >>>>>>>>> (by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end of the >>>>>>>> last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned off for >>>>>>>> about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger Dryas. >>>>>>>
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable
in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off over a >>>>>>>> period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and quite >>>>>>>> fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual would not have >>>>>>>> been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh water >>>>>> draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown up as sea >>>>>> level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and_M
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet
would have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and >>>>>> melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
Think again, or think a bit harder.There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice age >>>>>>>>>> (and every one before it) and the current distribution of
continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland to >>>>>>>>>> be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all that >>>>>>>>>> often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all. >>>>>>>>
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same >>>>>>>> time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have >>>>>>>> been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would
definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. Something >>>>>> certainly did happen, and it would have made life difficult for those >>>>>> living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from theThe southern shores of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any evidence for >>>>>> that, but the water level went up quite fast over a fairly short time. >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough >>>>>> that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy. >>>>>
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea.
But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or >>>> fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between
England and the Netherlands).
There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was.
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies
wouldn't have done well.
Nobody still there did well.
The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland.
Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise.
(and they couldn't have been forseen, even today)
Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation
to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be.
(before starting their oil exploitation)
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain
at the time isn't really well known,
so you can invent percentages to suit.
Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than
the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age did.
Pure fantasy on your part.
If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge
you might want to have a look at: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08769-7> (open source)
which is based on real measurements rather than fantasy.
Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise
in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else)
Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year.
(comparable to what is measured nowadays)
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time. >>>>Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time, >>>>> and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta.
(much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off
really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
The sources of the Noachian story are well known,
(Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)
BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge
as if it is brilliant discovery on your part
is not conductive to informed discussion.
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 4:26 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/23/2026 08:46 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:<snip>
On 02/23/2026 03:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/22/2026 07:42 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 10:24 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 03:11 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/22/2026 01:20 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 6:18 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/21/2026 08:27 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22/02/2026 12:06 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/21/2026 04:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 4:31 pm, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2026 08:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/02/2026 3:46 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:32:18 +1100, Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:54 am, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:13:06 +0100, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
(J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 9:56 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit : >>>>>>
NIST PDG CODATA posts updated values of physical constants
every few years, that over time have gotten smaller besides
more precise: what kind of science are they doing that
that is your entire world-view.
So, it "is" an analysis of the coordinates and origin and
identity and dimensions about the mathematical and physical
constants of the running constants or "change". It "is"
a gauge theory. It "is" a continuum mechanics.
It "is" a bit more than 11'th graders' linear algebra,
and Buckingham-Pi "dimensionless" analysis.
Heh. At least first it's a true theory with the
universe of mathematical objects in it.
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant
Most people who know anything about physics have that idea.
Real physicists understand what are real physical constants,
like \alpha for example, and which constants are meaningless, like c, >>>>> because they you tell one about what units you are using.
The exact numerical value of c has mattered to me from time to time.
Good for you that c has an exact numerical value, these days.
Being human, I have to measure things in units, and transform that
measured distance into a propagation delay.
There is nothing but a propagation delay.
But I couldn't measure that all that accurately, and I need at least a
rough value for the propagation delay before I could build the hardware
on which I could have measured the propagation delay.
That's part of being a competent experimenter.
Length is by definition measured in (nano)seconds.
Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.
You may have a preference for expressing it in nanoseconds, but
machinists prefer millimeters. I found it politic to keep them happy.
In case of trouble you may remind those machinists
that a measurement isn't a measurement
unless it can be traced to a primary standard.
Machinists all know about gauge blocks (Johanssen blocks). but ours all measuring gear tacked onto the their lathes - mostly Heidenhain optical systems good to about a micron. The foreman had a Sanyo magentic system
where you didn't need to blow cutting fluid out of the sensing head.
At least one engineer I knew complained that he was nothing but a
walking table of conversion factors. Life would be easier if that was
the whole job.
True, for Americans.
It becomes a problem when you need more than slide rule accuracy,
Rubbish. At one point I knew the wavelength of the He-Neon line used in
laser interferometers to ten decimal places. I hadn't intended to learn
it, but I found myself looking it up a lot and eventually it stuck.,
On 27/02/2026 7:39 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:_M
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in >>>>>>>>>>>>> seaside towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean >>>>>>>>>>>>> sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into >>>>>>>>>>>> the sea at once, and similar events happened at the end of >>>>>>>>>>>> the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
The catastrophes aren't invented.Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first? >>>>>>>>>>
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is. >>>>>>>>> (by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end >>>>>>>> of the last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned >>>>>>>> off for about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger >>>>>>>> Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable >>>>>>> in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off >>>>>>>> over a period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and >>>>>>>> quite fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual >>>>>>>> would not have been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh
water draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown >>>>>> up as sea level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and
el
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet would >>>>>> have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and >>>>>> melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
Think again, or think a bit harder.There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice >>>>>>>>>> age (and every one before it) and the current distribution of >>>>>>>>>> continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland >>>>>>>>>> to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all. >>>>>>>>
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it.
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same >>>>>>>> time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have >>>>>>>> been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would >>>>>>>> definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports.
Something certainly did happen, and it would have made life
difficult for those living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from theThe southern shores of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any
evidence for that, but the water level went up quite fast over a >>>>>> fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough >>>>>> that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy. >>>>>
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea. >>>>
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or >>>> fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between
England and the Netherlands).
There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was.
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies
wouldn't have done well.
Nobody still there did well.
The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland.
Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise.
(and they couldn't have been forseen, even today)
Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation
to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be.
(before starting their oil exploitation)
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain
at the time isn't really well known,
so you can invent percentages to suit.
Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than
the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age
did.
Pure fantasy on your part.
If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge
you might want to have a look at: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08769-7> (open source)
which is based on real measurements rather than fantasy.
Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise
in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else)
Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year.
(comparable to what is measured nowadays)
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time. >>>>Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time, >>>>> and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta. >>> (much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off >>> really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
The sources of the Noachian story are well known,
(Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)
BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge
as if it is brilliant discovery on your part
is not conductive to informed discussion.
Since I tend to back it up with Wikipedia references, it's hard to see
how you can imagine that I'm claiming it as a brilliant personal discovery.
The problem is more that you don't to know nearly as much as you seem to imagine, and don't like being shown up for posting half-baked ignorance.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 7:39 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:_M
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seaside towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sea at once, and similar events happened at the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The catastrophes aren't invented.Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first? >>>>>>>>>>>>
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is. >>>>>>>>>>> (by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end >>>>>>>>>> of the last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned >>>>>>>>>> off for about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger >>>>>>>>>> Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten generations.
As for the end of the Younger Dryas event,
that resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable >>>>>>>>> in a single generation, for some long-lived individuals.
(like what we are seeing now)
It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off >>>>>>>>>> over a period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and >>>>>>>>>> quite fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual >>>>>>>>>> would not have been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh >>>>>>>> water draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown >>>>>>>> up as sea level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_and
el
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet would >>>>>>>> have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>>>>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and >>>>>>>> melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
Think again, or think a bit harder.There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice >>>>>>>>>>>> age (and every one before it) and the current distribution of >>>>>>>>>>>> continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland >>>>>>>>>>>> to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>>>>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all. >>>>>>>>>>
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it. >>>>>>>>
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same >>>>>>>>>> time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have >>>>>>>>>> been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would >>>>>>>>>> definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. >>>>>>>> Something certainly did happen, and it would have made life
difficult for those living in the area while it was going on.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the >>>>>>>> Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found anyThe southern shores of the Black Sea,
evidence for that, but the water level went up quite fast over a >>>>>>>> fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast enough >>>>>>>> that if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers very busy. >>>>>>>
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea. >>>>>>
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far enough or >>>>>> fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between
England and the Netherlands).
There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was.
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies >>>> wouldn't have done well.
Nobody still there did well.
The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland.
Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise.
(and they couldn't have been forseen, even today)
Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation
to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be.
(before starting their oil exploitation)
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain
at the time isn't really well known,
so you can invent percentages to suit.
Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than >>>> the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age >>>> did.
Pure fantasy on your part.
If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge
you might want to have a look at:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08769-7> (open source)
which is based on real measurements rather than fantasy.
Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise
in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else)
Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year.
(comparable to what is measured nowadays)
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time. >>>>>>Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time, >>>>>>> and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta. >>>>> (much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off >>>>> really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
The sources of the Noachian story are well known,
(Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)
BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge
as if it is brilliant discovery on your part
is not conductive to informed discussion.
Since I tend to back it up with Wikipedia references, it's hard to see
how you can imagine that I'm claiming it as a brilliant personal discovery. >>
The problem is more that you don't to know nearly as much as you seem to
imagine, and don't like being shown up for posting half-baked ignorance.
See? You are doing it again,
On 27/02/2026 8:43 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:nd
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 7:39 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions. >>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will. >>>>>>>>>>>>Climate change denial is remarkably foolish.
I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seaside towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sea at once, and similar events happened at the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>sooner.
The catastrophes aren't invented.Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first? >>>>>>>>>>>>
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is. >>>>>>>>>>> (by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end >>>>>>>>>> of the last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned >>>>>>>>>> off for about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger >>>>>>>>>> Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten
generations. As for the end of the Younger Dryas event, that >>>>>>>>> resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable in a >>>>>>>>> single generation, for some long-lived individuals. (like what >>>>>>>>> we are seeing now) It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise. >>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off >>>>>>>>>> over a period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and >>>>>>>>>> quite fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual >>>>>>>>>> would not have been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh >>>>>>>> water draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown >>>>>>>> up as sea level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_a
_M
el
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet would >>>>>>>> have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>>>>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and >>>>>>>> melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.Think again, or think a bit harder.There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice >>>>>>>>>>>> age (and every one before it) and the current distribution of >>>>>>>>>>>> continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland >>>>>>>>>>>> to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>>>>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all. >>>>>>>>>>
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it. >>>>>>>>
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same >>>>>>>>>> time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have >>>>>>>>>> been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would >>>>>>>>>> definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. >>>>>>>> Something certainly did happen, and it would have made life
difficult for those living in the area while it was going on. >>>>>>>
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the >>>>>>>> Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any
evidence for that, but the water level went up quite fast over a >>>>>>>> fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast >>>>>>>> tenough hat if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers >>>>>>>> tvery busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea. >>>>>>
submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far
enough or fast enough.
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between
England and the Netherlands).
There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was. >>>
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies >>>> wouldn't have done well.
Nobody still there did well.
The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland.
Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise.
(and they couldn't have been forseen, even today)
Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation
to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be.
(before starting their oil exploitation)
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain
at the time isn't really well known,
so you can invent percentages to suit.
Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than >>>> the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age >>>> did.
Pure fantasy on your part.
If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge
you might want to have a look at:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08769-7> (open source)
which is based on real measurements rather than fantasy.
Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise
in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else)
Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year.
(comparable to what is measured nowadays)
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time. >>>>>>Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time, >>>>>>> and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved. >>>>>
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta. >>>>> (much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off >>>>> really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
The sources of the Noachian story are well known,
(Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)
BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge
as if it is brilliant discovery on your part
is not conductive to informed discussion.
Since I tend to back it up with Wikipedia references, it's hard to see
how you can imagine that I'm claiming it as a brilliant personal discovery.
The problem is more that you don't to know nearly as much as you seem to >> imagine, and don't like being shown up for posting half-baked ignorance.
See? You are doing it again,
Doing what again? The trouble with posing as an expert in obscure
subjects is that every now and then you run into somebody who has had to become even more expert in your narrow field than you are. It doesn't
happen often, but it pays to keep in mind that they can pop out of the
oddest corners of the user-group universe.
The trouble with posing as an expert in obscure
subjects is that every now and then you run into somebody who has had to become even more expert in your narrow field than you are.
On 2/13/26 15:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created
by all those dots!
Yea. Beyond that there is an implied 'frequency' or 'wavelength'
in the theoretical energy or momentum of the photon.
I think that it is all based upon a esoteric mystical phenomenon
coming from not defining terms. Point and curve have reasonably
good meanings in mathematics, but 'particle' and 'wave' are just
different enough for people to sort of claim they have no meaning
at all, but then say 'stupid' and back track and bait and switch
'particle' and 'wave' with 'point' and 'curve'.
Then of course there is the Fourier transform. Any curve can
be represented by an set of sine wave equations, just as the
Laplace transform for exponential equations.
Probably it is best to just keep it simple. A photon is an
increment of energy or momentum transfer from the Schrodinger
equation curve. Beyond that do not get into strange mysticism.
In 1986, a rigorously controlled experiment was designed by
Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, [Europhys Lett. 1(4), p. 173,
1986] that guaranteed a single-photon beam. The explanation of the
experimental results implied the interference of the wave function
of a single-photon with itself. This was disputed in 2018 by
Parra, but good quantum textbooks like [1] take this for granted.
[1] "2.1 The photon in the interferometer" in "Quantum Processes,
Systems, and Information" (2010) - Benjamin Schumacher
Yes, /that/ Schumacher who coined "qubit"!
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 8:43 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:nd
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/02/2026 7:39 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 9:21 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:34 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 1:15 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 10:40 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:08 am, J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 23/02/2026 10:28 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Climate change denial is remarkably foolish. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I saw a proposal to paint a blue line on all buildings in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seaside towns at for example + 5 meter above present mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sea level.
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sea at once, and similar events happened at the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most recent ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sooner.
The catastrophes aren't invented.Again it could happen quite quickly, and there would be no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance of stopping it if the ice started moving fast and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friction heating started melting the bottom layers of the ice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheet.
Inventing catastrophes is easy.
Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-The- are not.
Your particular one, of a sudden, massive sea level rise is. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (by glaciologists in bad need of more funding).
For sudden, read a couple of hundred years, and look at the end >>>>>>>>>>>> of the last ice age, and the fact that the Gulf Stream got turned >>>>>>>>>>>> off for about 1300 years at the end of the last ice - the Younger >>>>>>>>>>>> Dryas.
Eh, an -experienced- catastrophe happens in less than ten >>>>>>>>>>> generations. As for the end of the Younger Dryas event, that >>>>>>>>>>> resulted in a rapid warming that may have been noticeable in a >>>>>>>>>>> single generation, for some long-lived individuals. (like what >>>>>>>>>>> we are seeing now) It didn't result in a sudden sea level rise. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
That set in quite rapidly in some places - Greenland cooled off >>>>>>>>>>>> over a period of three years.
The changes in climate would have been quite dramatic enough and >>>>>>>>>>>> quite fast enough to rate as catastrophic - business as usual >>>>>>>>>>>> would not have been an option.
Again, no sudden sea level rise.
For your preferred and self-serving definition of sudden.
What stopped the Gulf Stream seems to have been a lot of fresh >>>>>>>>>> water draining into the North Atlantic, and that would have shown >>>>>>>>>> up as sea level rise.
That is a theory.
The problem wit it is that it was not accompanied
by a pulse of sea level rise.
For those pulses of sea level rise you might wish to consult >>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Postglacial_Sea_level_Rise_Curve_a
_M
See? You are doing it again,el
twater_Pulses_(MWP).jpg>
As for scale, at the very steepest those 'pulses'But if it's parents had been growing crops on an area that got >>>>>>>> submerged, the baby might not have had the energy to crawl far >>>>>>>> enough or fast enough.
had a short term maximum rate of about 50mm/year.
Losing an appreciable proportion of the Greenland ice sheet would >>>>>>>>>> have much the same effect. It would take a while to melt in place, >>>>>>>>>> but there's evidence on the ocean floor that stuff has slid off and >>>>>>>>>> melted (dropping boulders) as it drifted south.
'a while' is the word.
Sure, the Black Sea rose when the Mediterrenean rose.Think again, or think a bit harder.There was a massive sea level rise at the end of the last ice >>>>>>>>>>>>>> age (and every one before it) and the current distribution of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continents that makes it possible for Antarctica and Greenland >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be covered with deep ice sheets isn't one that shows up all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that often in geological history.
Those living at the time will hardly have noticed, if at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I should let my imagination run wild because you do?
If you have an imagination at all, it might pay you to use it. >>>>>>>>>>
The catastrophes that really happened, the Storegga slides for >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, had little to do with sea level rise.
The flooding of the Black Sea, which happened at much the same >>>>>>>>>>>> time, did have more to do with sea level rise. It seems to have >>>>>>>>>>>> been spread over a couple of hundred years, and people would >>>>>>>>>>>> definitely have noticed.
Again, that Black Sea -catastrophe- never happened.
It was a fund raising trick too,
to get money out of credulous American creationists,
of the 'the Flood really happened' kind.
There was certainly an element of that in some of the reports. >>>>>>>>>> Something certainly did happen, and it would have made life >>>>>>>>>> difficult for those living in the area while it was going on. >>>>>>>>>
Slower and later in fact, because of the large surface area
and the narrow bottleneck formed by the Bosporus.
The people who wanted torrents of sea water pouring in from the >>>>>>>>>> Mediterranean through the Bosphorus don't seem to found any >>>>>>>>>> evidence for that, but the water level went up quite fast over a >>>>>>>>>> fairly short time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
talks about 10 to 200 years. Not a sudden catastrophe, but fast >>>>>>>>>> tenough hat if happened now it would keep a lot civil engineers >>>>>>>>>> tvery busy.
The southern shores of the Black Sea,
where the catastrophe was supposed to have happened,
are relatively steep.
Even a crawling baby could easily have kept ahead of the rising sea. >>>>>>>>
How far-fetched can you get?
Think about Doggerland (now in the middle of the North sea between >>>>>> England and the Netherlands).
There really is no need to need to tell me where Doggerland is and was. >>>>>
There were people living out there at the end of the last ice age.
Certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
It got inundated by a series of fairly dramatic events. Crawling babies >>>>>> wouldn't have done well.
Nobody still there did well.
The run-up of the tsunamis was up to 25 meter in Scotland.
Those tsunamis had nothing to do with sea level rise.
(and they couldn't have been forseen, even today)
Once known about, the Norwegians did a thorough investigation
to make sure that the three of them were all there are going to be.
(before starting their oil exploitation)
"It is estimated that up to a quarter of the
Mesolithic population of Britain lost their lives".
Quite possible, but the distribution of the population in Britain
at the time isn't really well known,
so you can invent percentages to suit.
Oxfordians wouldn't have had a problem.
The sea level rise tied up in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice >>>>>> sheets isn't going to show up as smooth and gradual rise, any more than >>>>>> the sea level rises that happened at the end of the most recent ice age >>>>>> did.
Pure fantasy on your part.
If you would want to acquire some more realistic knowledge
you might want to have a look at:
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08769-7> (open source)
which is based on real measurements rather than fantasy.
Conclusion: there are no episodes of catastrophis sea level rise
in the Early Neolithc. (in the North Sea, so nowhere else)
Measured sea level rise is steady, and of order of 10 mm/year.
(comparable to what is measured nowadays)
And there would have been high mountains in plain sight all the time. >>>>>>>>Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.
The point is that they are visible all the time,
in direct conflict with the Noachian flood story.
Who was promoting that?
No lack of shore lines that move, all over the world.Summary: It happened in the wrong place, at the wrong period in time, >>>>>>>>> and the description doesn't fit.
It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved. >>>>>>>
The obvious one is the Persian Gulf moving into Eufrates/Tigris delta. >>>>>>> (much faster, and just where it is wanted)
There is where the story that those shepherds from the hills ripped off >>>>>>> really happened,
And you know because your time machine took you there?
The sources of the Noachian story are well known,
(Ur, Gilgamesh etc.)
BTW, your habit of dishing up common knowledge
as if it is brilliant discovery on your part
is not conductive to informed discussion.
Since I tend to back it up with Wikipedia references, it's hard to see >>>> how you can imagine that I'm claiming it as a brilliant personal discovery.
The problem is more that you don't to know nearly as much as you seem to >>>> imagine, and don't like being shown up for posting half-baked ignorance. >>>
Doing what again? The trouble with posing as an expert in obscure
subjects is that every now and then you run into somebody who has had to
become even more expert in your narrow field than you are. It doesn't
happen often, but it pays to keep in mind that they can pop out of the
oddest corners of the user-group universe.
And again.
You may get away with posing as a superior know it all in sed,
(based second hand wikipedia regurgitation)
but it doesn't work here in spr.
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
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".
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the sea at >>>>> once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent ice >>>>> age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure
you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea-levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as having
a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons.
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is strictly
local and the result from what is happening in a certain region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states show
up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface temperatures in
the Pacific around the equator. They change the rainfall patterns in
Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving heat from the equator towards
the poles, and it ties into ocean currents that do the same job. We can
see the ones flowing on the surface. The deep currents that handle the return flow are now being documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there
are only a couple of thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
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).
This is a very euclidean account.
Bad enough.--
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:05 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the
sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent
ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner.
Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure
you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon
sea-levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons.
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain
region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states show
up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface temperatures in
the Pacific around the equator. They change the rainfall patterns in
Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving heat from the equator
towards the poles, and it ties into ocean currents that do the same
job. We can see the ones flowing on the surface. The deep currents
that handle the return flow are now being documented by the Argo Buoy
program, but there are only a couple of thousand of them and a great
deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere.
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used to describe the word as a whole.
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of
what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it could
be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible for
what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not responsible
and what they could not change efficiently.
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the word 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature of the
entire Earth.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world could rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had nothing against warmer 'climate'.
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>
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
but 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.
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).
This is a very euclidean account.
Bad enough
TH
On 02/28/2026 01:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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
but 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.
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).
This is a very euclidean account.
Bad enough
TH
It's a "clock hypothesis", that a "clock hypothesis" is that
the universe has one, a "clock hypothesis" is usual in many
accounts of physics the theory, for example Einstein has one.
Most people think he doesn't because they're confused by aspects
of relativity theory, and about Minkowski then the space-time,
yet he says so, Einstein, for example in "Out of My Later Years".
Anything else eventually violates causality, or the usual idea
that there's a physics at all, a "cosmological principle".
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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,
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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,
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although
it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
Could Einstein's definition of time have been one of the
greatest hindrances to the advancement of human knowledge
that history has ever known?
About Time: Einstein Was Wrong
Discussions about how to define 'time' inevitably become
philosophical debates. As I've noted previously, 'everybody
knows what time is until they try to define it'. For the
framework of this article, let's limit our discussion about
time to looking at Einstein's definition of time in special
relativity and contrasting that with the understanding of
time in quantum mechanics.
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes, as measured by a clock.
This is a sensible, straightforward measure. For example,
the time it took me to read the previous paragraph, measured
by a stopwatch, was 10 seconds. In special relativity, clocks
are used as an objective standard for measuring the time
intervals of physical processes.
The problem is that this sensible measure of time becomes time
itself.
For example, if an atomic clock is observed to slow down (it
registers fewer oscillations of the caesium atom at a different
altitude), this is not understood as a change in the clock's
operating speed. In relativity, this slowing is interpreted
as a slowing in the rate of time itself.
... this mistaken interpretation commits an error that Sir
Isaac Newton warned us against in his Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica.
Newton wrote, 'Relative quantities are not the quantities
themselves whose names they bear, but sensible measures of
them.. and by the names time, space, place, and motion their
sensible measures are to be understood; and the expression
will be unusual if the measured quantities themselves are
meant. ..those violate the accuracy of language, who interpret
these words for the measured quantities.'
Putting this concept into the modern context, even when the
motion of light in a vacuum is used as the standard 'clock' to
measure time, it is still just a physical entity that can be
influenced by other physical processes, known or unknown. This
was Einstein's biggest mistake; he employed a physical process
(the motion of light) to serve as a stand-in for time itself.
In Newton's words, he expressed a sensible measure of time as
time itself.
French philosopher Henri Bergson, a contemporary of Einstein,
disputed relativity's portrayal of time by arguing that there
is a difference between time itself and what clocks display.
Clocks display arbitrary fractions of periodic events such as
the motion of the Sun across the sky (as shown on a sundial),
grains of sand moving through an hourglass, the number of
swings of a pendulum, or the number of oscillations of a
caesium atom (the current standard), but this is not the
physical reality of time itself. The physical reality of time
is the standard against which we can compare these events.
<https://brentshadbolt.substack.com/p/about-time-einstein-was-wrong>
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although
it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
[...]
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes
Don wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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,
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although
it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
Could Einstein's definition of time have been one of the
greatest hindrances to the advancement of human knowledge
that history has ever known?
About Time: Einstein Was Wrong
Discussions about how to define 'time' inevitably become
philosophical debates. As I've noted previously, 'everybody
knows what time is until they try to define it'. For the
framework of this article, let's limit our discussion about
time to looking at Einstein's definition of time in special
relativity and contrasting that with the understanding of
time in quantum mechanics.
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes, as measured by a clock.
This is a sensible, straightforward measure. For example,
the time it took me to read the previous paragraph, measured
by a stopwatch, was 10 seconds. In special relativity, clocks
are used as an objective standard for measuring the time
intervals of physical processes.
The problem is that this sensible measure of time becomes time
itself.
For example, if an atomic clock is observed to slow down (it
registers fewer oscillations of the caesium atom at a different
altitude), this is not understood as a change in the clock's
operating speed. In relativity, this slowing is interpreted
as a slowing in the rate of time itself.
... this mistaken interpretation commits an error that Sir
Isaac Newton warned us against in his Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica.
Newton wrote, 'Relative quantities are not the quantities
themselves whose names they bear, but sensible measures of
them.. and by the names time, space, place, and motion their
sensible measures are to be understood; and the expression
will be unusual if the measured quantities themselves are
meant. ..those violate the accuracy of language, who interpret
these words for the measured quantities.'
Putting this concept into the modern context, even when the
motion of light in a vacuum is used as the standard 'clock' to
measure time, it is still just a physical entity that can be
influenced by other physical processes, known or unknown. This
was Einstein's biggest mistake; he employed a physical process
(the motion of light) to serve as a stand-in for time itself.
In Newton's words, he expressed a sensible measure of time as
time itself.
French philosopher Henri Bergson, a contemporary of Einstein,
disputed relativity's portrayal of time by arguing that there
is a difference between time itself and what clocks display.
Clocks display arbitrary fractions of periodic events such as
the motion of the Sun across the sky (as shown on a sundial),
grains of sand moving through an hourglass, the number of
swings of a pendulum, or the number of oscillations of a
caesium atom (the current standard), but this is not the
physical reality of time itself. The physical reality of time
is the standard against which we can compare these events.
<https://brentshadbolt.substack.com/p/about-time-einstein-was-wrong>
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although
it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
You cannot understand Physics as natural philosophy anymore. We have grown out of such thinking about 300 years ago (Newton).
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
They are obviously clueless:
[...]
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes
No. This statement betrays a fundamental misconception about special relativity already.
An event does not "take time": It is a *point* of a spacetime. A point has dimension *zero*, it has *no extent*.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
You cannot understand Physics as natural philosophy anymore. We have grown >> out of such thinking about 300 years ago (Newton).
Prove Priestley wrong.
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >>>> his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Prove Priestley wrong.
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design restored.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>>>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >>>>> his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
<snip>
Prove Priestley wrong.
<snip>
Your rhetorical arguments are above average, almost awesome!
Drop your ad hominem attacks and prove Priestley wrong. Use your best rhetoric to define Time in your own words.
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design restored.
[...]
Your rhetorical arguments are above average, almost awesome!
Drop your ad hominem attacks and prove Priestley wrong. Use your best rhetoric to define Time in your own words.
[world salad]
A usual idea distinguishing philosophy and science is that
science starts with a theory and philosophy ends with one.
On 02/28/2026 06:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/28/2026 01:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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
but 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.
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).
This is a very euclidean account.
Bad enough
TH
It's a "clock hypothesis", that a "clock hypothesis" is that
the universe has one, a "clock hypothesis" is usual in many
accounts of physics the theory, for example Einstein has one.
Most people think he doesn't because they're confused by aspects
of relativity theory, and about Minkowski then the space-time,
yet he says so, Einstein, for example in "Out of My Later Years".
Anything else eventually violates causality, or the usual idea
that there's a physics at all, a "cosmological principle".
This sort of "clock hypothesis" for something like Einstein's
account of "requirements and desiderata of a total field theory"
is more than what's slapped on to SR and called "clock hypothesis".
It does though get itself directly slapped onto SR.
Don wrote:
Followup-To: sci.physics.relativity,sci.electronics.design restored.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>>>>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >>>>>> his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
<snip>
Prove Priestley wrong.
<snip>
Your rhetorical arguments are above average, almost awesome!
Drop your ad hominem attacks and prove Priestley wrong. Use your best
rhetoric to define Time in your own words.
That's getting philosophical, some physicsts have that
their philosophy is that they're deaf-mute about philosophy,
and we are too.
Philosophers of physics philosophy of physics isn't that, though.
A usual idea distinguishing philosophy and science is that
science starts with a theory and philosophy ends with one.
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 Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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?
...
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 <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure
you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea-
levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many places. >>>>
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons.
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain
region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states
show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving heat
from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean currents
that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the surface. The
deep currents that handle the return flow are now being documented by
the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a couple of thousand of
them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere.
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used to
describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled across
the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly predictable
speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that those people were
scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought that they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of
what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it
could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible for
what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon
which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate over
the last century. Now that we have got the point where the cheapest way
of generating electric power is with solar cells, and wind turbines are
the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil carbon and messing up
the climate even more and still manufacture stuff in huge volumes, and
more cheaply and efficiently than we used to. We haven't actually got to
the point where we are burning less fossil carbon than we did last year,
but we are close to it, and China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can
make them cheaply).
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the word
'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature of the
entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the world
to realise that the weather around the world was connected. Satellites
in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better job than
weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground based observers
had been doing a pretty good job for about a century before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world could
rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had nothing
against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the effects of
a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and West Antarctica.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few centuries,
and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will submerge a lot
of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going to need work too.
On 02/28/2026 01:14 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 15:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 02/26/2026 06:32 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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
but 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.
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).
This is a very euclidean account.
Bad enough
TH
It's a "clock hypothesis", that a "clock hypothesis" is that
the universe has one, a "clock hypothesis" is usual in many
accounts of physics the theory, for example Einstein has one.
Most people think he doesn't because they're confused by aspects
of relativity theory, and about Minkowski then the space-time,
yet he says so, Einstein, for example in "Out of My Later Years".
Anything else eventually violates causality, or the usual idea
that there's a physics at all, a "cosmological principle".
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 Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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,
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
Could Einstein's definition of time have been one of the
greatest hindrances to the advancement of human knowledge
that history has ever known?
About Time: Einstein Was Wrong
Discussions about how to define 'time' inevitably become
philosophical debates. As I've noted previously, 'everybody
knows what time is until they try to define it'. For the
framework of this article, let's limit our discussion about
time to looking at Einstein's definition of time in special
relativity and contrasting that with the understanding of
time in quantum mechanics.
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes, as measured by a clock.
This is a sensible, straightforward measure. For example,
the time it took me to read the previous paragraph, measured
by a stopwatch, was 10 seconds. In special relativity, clocks
are used as an objective standard for measuring the time
intervals of physical processes.
The problem is that this sensible measure of time becomes time
itself.
For example, if an atomic clock is observed to slow down (it
registers fewer oscillations of the caesium atom at a different
altitude), this is not understood as a change in the clock's
operating speed. In relativity, this slowing is interpreted
as a slowing in the rate of time itself.
... this mistaken interpretation commits an error that Sir
Isaac Newton warned us against in his Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica.
Newton wrote, 'Relative quantities are not the quantities
themselves whose names they bear, but sensible measures of
them.. and by the names time, space, place, and motion their
sensible measures are to be understood; and the expression
will be unusual if the measured quantities themselves are
meant. ..those violate the accuracy of language, who interpret
these words for the measured quantities.'
Putting this concept into the modern context, even when the
motion of light in a vacuum is used as the standard 'clock' to
measure time, it is still just a physical entity that can be
influenced by other physical processes, known or unknown. This
was Einstein's biggest mistake; he employed a physical process
(the motion of light) to serve as a stand-in for time itself.
In Newton's words, he expressed a sensible measure of time as
time itself.
French philosopher Henri Bergson, a contemporary of Einstein,
disputed relativity's portrayal of time by arguing that there
is a difference between time itself and what clocks display.
Clocks display arbitrary fractions of periodic events such as
the motion of the Sun across the sky (as shown on a sundial),
grains of sand moving through an hourglass, the number of
swings of a pendulum, or the number of oscillations of a
caesium atom (the current standard), but this is not the
physical reality of time itself. The physical reality of time
is the standard against which we can compare these events.
<https://brentshadbolt.substack.com/p/about-time-einstein-was-wrong>
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize
his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
You cannot understand Physics as natural philosophy anymore. We have grown out of such thinking about 300 years ago (Newton).
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
They are obviously clueless:
[...]
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes
No. This statement betrays a fundamental misconception about special relativity already.
An event does not "take time": It is a *point* of a spacetime. A point has dimension *zero*, it has *no extent*.
Prove Priestley wrong. Use your best rhetoric to define Time in your own words.
J. J. Lodder wrote:[-]
Bill Sloman wrote:
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley.
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 <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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?
The nearest star to Earth is about three light-years away.
In between Earth and proxima Centaury we have essentially nothing.
So, what would hinder the time in Proxima Centaury to run backwards?
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:52 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >>>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure
you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea-
levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many
places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons. >>>>>
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain
region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states
show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving heat
from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean currents
that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the surface.
The deep currents that handle the return flow are now being
documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a couple of
thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere.
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used
to describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got to
realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled
across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly
predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after
the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that
those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought that
they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was
Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of
what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it
could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible for
what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon
which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate
over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the
cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and
wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil
carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture
stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used
to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less
fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and China
is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar cells in
enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply).
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the word
'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature of the
entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the
world to realise that the weather around the world was connected.
Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better
job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground
based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century
before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world could
rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had nothing
against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a warmer
climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the effects
of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and West
Antarctica.
Didn't you know, that Antarctica is REALLY cold?
How could any sane person assume, that the Ice-sheet on top of
Antarctica or Greenland would eventually melt?
The floating ice doesn't count, of course, because floating ice does not change sea levels, once it melts.
But sea-levels do actually fall slowly. That can be seen around the
globe at almost any location you like.
For instance: the Sahara desert was once the bottom of an ocean, hence global sea-levels had dropped significantly in respect to former
sea-floor areas.
We can also watch sea-levels dropping in connection with the low level islands in the Pacific, because they are mostly atolls. And an atoll is build from remains of corals and corals are animals, which live in the sea.
Since the corals are not supposed to fly above sea-levels (to build the atolls), the sea-levels have fallen in geological times.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few centuries,
and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will submerge a
lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going to need
work too.
Before the ice-sheets of Antarctican and Greenland could eventually
melt, they need to become a lot warmer than their roughly minus 60-# Celsius.
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 <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>
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?
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 Wo?niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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 emasuring devices as man-made objects, which belong to the realm
of the observer.
...
TH--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 1/03/2026 8:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:52 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >>>>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure >>>>>> you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea- >>>>>> levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many
places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons. >>>>>>
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain
region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states
show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving
heat from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean
currents that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the
surface. The deep currents that handle the return flow are now
being documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a
couple of thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere.
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used
to describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got
to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled
across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly
predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after
the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that
those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought
that they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was
Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of
what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it
could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible
for what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of
tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon
which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate
over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the
cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and
wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil
carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture
stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used
to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less
fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and
China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar
cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply).
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the
word 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature
of the entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the
world to realise that the weather around the world was connected.
Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better
job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground
based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century
before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world
could rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had
nothing against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a
warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the
effects of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and
West Antarctica.
Didn't you know, that Antarctica is REALLY cold?
How could any sane person assume, that the Ice-sheet on top of
Antarctica or Greenland would eventually melt?
Nobody does. The assumption is that it would slide off into the ocean
and float until it get closer to the equator.
It's has been doing that for the last few million years. When ice ages
give way to interglacials, it slides off a lot faster. Anthropogenic
global warming hasn't been going on for the sliding-off rate to rise all
that much yet, but it will.
The floating ice doesn't count, of course, because floating ice does
not change sea levels, once it melts.
But ice that was previous sitting on solid earth before it slid down
into the ocean does raise the sea level when it starts floating.
But sea-levels do actually fall slowly. That can be seen around the
globe at almost any location you like.
For instance: the Sahara desert was once the bottom of an ocean, hence
global sea-levels had dropped significantly in respect to former
sea-floor areas.
You need to read up on continental drift.
We can also watch sea-levels dropping in connection with the low level
islands in the Pacific, because they are mostly atolls. And an atoll
is build from remains of corals and corals are animals, which live in
the sea.
Since the corals are not supposed to fly above sea-levels (to build
the atolls), the sea-levels have fallen in geological times.
They fall quite a bit during ice ages, and go up again during
interglacials. The Pacific Rim isn't all that geologically stable, and
places like Iceland and Hawaiian Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands
pop up as volcanoes from time to time. The oldest Hawaiian Island is 28 million years old.
If you want to draw conclusions from Pacific Island histories you do
have to be specif about their geological histories.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few
centuries, and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will
submerge a lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going
to need work too.
Before the ice-sheets of Antarctican and Greenland could eventually
melt, they need to become a lot warmer than their roughly minus 60-#
Celsius.
And if the history of ice age to interglacial transitions is anything to
go by, they get warmer by sliding off into the ocean and drifting closer
to the equator. Ice bergs do it all the time and it doesn't take a lot
of global warming to persuade the ice bergs to slide off faster.
James Hansen spelled it out in 2016. It's a minority view, because
nobody know much about the processes happening under the surface of ice sheets, and the fossil carbon extraction industry really doesn't want
anybody to look hard. They do have a lot of political clout.
On 03/01/2026 02:35 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:52 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >>>>>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure >>>>>>> you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea- >>>>>>> levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many
places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons. >>>>>>>
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain >>>>>>> region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states
show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving
heat from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean
currents that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the
surface. The deep currents that handle the return flow are now
being documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a
couple of thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere. >>>>>
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used
to describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got
to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled
across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly
predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after
the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that
those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought
that they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was
Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of >>>>> what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it
could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible
for what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of >>>>> tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon
which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate
over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the
cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and
wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil
carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture
stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used
to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less
fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and
China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar
cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply).
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the
word 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature
of the entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the
world to realise that the weather around the world was connected.
Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better
job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground
based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century
before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world
could rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had
nothing against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a
warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the
effects of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and
West Antarctica.
Didn't you know, that Antarctica is REALLY cold?
How could any sane person assume, that the Ice-sheet on top of
Antarctica or Greenland would eventually melt?
Nobody does. The assumption is that it would slide off into the ocean
and float until it get closer to the equator.
It's has been doing that for the last few million years. When ice ages
give way to interglacials, it slides off a lot faster. Anthropogenic
global warming hasn't been going on for the sliding-off rate to rise all
that much yet, but it will.
The floating ice doesn't count, of course, because floating ice does
not change sea levels, once it melts.
But ice that was previous sitting on solid earth before it slid down
into the ocean does raise the sea level when it starts floating.
But sea-levels do actually fall slowly. That can be seen around the
globe at almost any location you like.
For instance: the Sahara desert was once the bottom of an ocean, hence
global sea-levels had dropped significantly in respect to former
sea-floor areas.
You need to read up on continental drift.
We can also watch sea-levels dropping in connection with the low level
islands in the Pacific, because they are mostly atolls. And an atoll
is build from remains of corals and corals are animals, which live in
the sea.
Since the corals are not supposed to fly above sea-levels (to build
the atolls), the sea-levels have fallen in geological times.
They fall quite a bit during ice ages, and go up again during
interglacials. The Pacific Rim isn't all that geologically stable, and
places like Iceland and Hawaiian Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands
pop up as volcanoes from time to time. The oldest Hawaiian Island is 28
million years old.
If you want to draw conclusions from Pacific Island histories you do
have to be specif about their geological histories.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few
centuries, and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will
submerge a lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going
to need work too.
Before the ice-sheets of Antarctican and Greenland could eventually
melt, they need to become a lot warmer than their roughly minus 60#
Celsius.
And if the history of ice age to interglacial transitions is anything to
go by, they get warmer by sliding off into the ocean and drifting closer
to the equator. Ice bergs do it all the time and it doesn't take a lot
of global warming to persuade the ice bergs to slide off faster.
James Hansen spelled it out in 2016. It's a minority view, because
nobody know much about the processes happening under the surface of ice
sheets, and the fossil carbon extraction industry really doesn't want
anybody to look hard. They do have a lot of political clout.
The other day I saw a butterfly. There used to be tons of butterflies >everywhere, something like the Monarch needs milkweed and is not very >tolerant of otherwise habitat destruction, overpredation, and waves of >invasive species, or neglect, if we were stewards of the environment.
It's February in the Rocky Mountains, so it being spring-like is
also not conducive to usual accounts of ecological development.
Here "Four Seasons" is considered ideal.
Anybody check the Earth's average distance to the Sun or
the "definition" of "1 Astronomical Unit" lately?
Anybody check the Earth's average distance to the Sun or
the "definition" of "1 Astronomical Unit" lately?
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 08:43:53 -0800, Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2026 02:35 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:52 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >>>>>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure >>>>>>> you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea- >>>>>>> levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as >>>>>> having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many >>>>>>> places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons. >>>>>>>
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain >>>>>>> region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states >>>>>> show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving
heat from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean
currents that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the >>>>>> surface. The deep currents that handle the return flow are now
being documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a
couple of thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere. >>>>>
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used >>>>> to describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got
to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled >>>> across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly
predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after
the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that
those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought
that they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was
Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of >>>>> what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the >>>>> first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it >>>>> could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible
for what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of >>>>> tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon >>>> which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate
over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the
cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and
wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil
carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture
stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used >>>> to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less
fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and
China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar
cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply). >>>>> The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the
word 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature >>>>> of the entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the
world to realise that the weather around the world was connected.
Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better >>>> job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground
based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century >>>> before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world
could rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had
nothing against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a
warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the
effects of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and >>>> West Antarctica.
Didn't you know, that Antarctica is REALLY cold?
How could any sane person assume, that the Ice-sheet on top of
Antarctica or Greenland would eventually melt?
Nobody does. The assumption is that it would slide off into the ocean
and float until it get closer to the equator.
It's has been doing that for the last few million years. When ice ages
give way to interglacials, it slides off a lot faster. Anthropogenic
global warming hasn't been going on for the sliding-off rate to rise all >> that much yet, but it will.
The floating ice doesn't count, of course, because floating ice does
not change sea levels, once it melts.
But ice that was previous sitting on solid earth before it slid down
into the ocean does raise the sea level when it starts floating.
But sea-levels do actually fall slowly. That can be seen around the
globe at almost any location you like.
For instance: the Sahara desert was once the bottom of an ocean, hence >>> global sea-levels had dropped significantly in respect to former
sea-floor areas.
You need to read up on continental drift.
We can also watch sea-levels dropping in connection with the low level >>> islands in the Pacific, because they are mostly atolls. And an atoll
is build from remains of corals and corals are animals, which live in
the sea.
Since the corals are not supposed to fly above sea-levels (to build
the atolls), the sea-levels have fallen in geological times.
They fall quite a bit during ice ages, and go up again during
interglacials. The Pacific Rim isn't all that geologically stable, and
places like Iceland and Hawaiian Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands
pop up as volcanoes from time to time. The oldest Hawaiian Island is 28
million years old.
If you want to draw conclusions from Pacific Island histories you do
have to be specif about their geological histories.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few
centuries, and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will >>>> submerge a lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going >>>> to need work too.
Before the ice-sheets of Antarctican and Greenland could eventually
melt, they need to become a lot warmer than their roughly minus 60-#
Celsius.
And if the history of ice age to interglacial transitions is anything to >> go by, they get warmer by sliding off into the ocean and drifting closer >> to the equator. Ice bergs do it all the time and it doesn't take a lot
of global warming to persuade the ice bergs to slide off faster.
James Hansen spelled it out in 2016. It's a minority view, because
nobody know much about the processes happening under the surface of ice
sheets, and the fossil carbon extraction industry really doesn't want
anybody to look hard. They do have a lot of political clout.
The other day I saw a butterfly. There used to be tons of butterflies >everywhere, something like the Monarch needs milkweed and is not very >tolerant of otherwise habitat destruction, overpredation, and waves of >invasive species, or neglect, if we were stewards of the environment.
It's February in the Rocky Mountains, so it being spring-like is
also not conducive to usual accounts of ecological development.
Here "Four Seasons" is considered ideal.
Anybody check the Earth's average distance to the Sun or
the "definition" of "1 Astronomical Unit" lately?
We've seen a few Monarchs this year in our backyard in San Francisco.
We and some other people are planting milkweed for them.
We get lots of butterflies here, expecially some flimsy little white
ones. The birds like them.
We have two seasons. Summer is cool and dry.
Winter is cool and wet.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 08:43:53 -0800, Ross Finlayson
<ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2026 02:35 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 1/03/2026 8:39 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000028, 28.02.2026 um 14:52 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 28/02/2026 8:28 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000026, 26.02.2026 um 18:54 schrieb Bill Sloman:
...
The Greenland ice sheetIndeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
would be good for 7.4 meters of sea if it all slid off into the >> >>>>>>>>>> sea at
once, and similar events happened at the end of the most recent >> >>>>>>>>>> ice age.
The West Antarctic ice sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
will probably deliver 3.3 meters of sea level rise rather sooner. >> >>>>>>>>>
That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.
Well, yes, humans exhale CO2.
But, please, don't stop to do that.
But in case of sea-level rising due to climate change I can assure >> >>>>>>> you, that emitting CO2 by you has absolutely zero effect upon sea- >> >>>>>>> levels.
You can assure me as much as you like, but you don't strike me as
having a clue about what you are talking about.
First:
there is actually 'climate-change' as a real phenomenon in many
places.
But that isn't caused or even related to CO2, but has other reasons. >> >>>>>>>
Mainly the water is the key to understand weather. Climate is
strictly local and the result from what is happening in a certain
region.
Climate isn't remotely local. When the El Nino and La Nina states
show up, they are most clearly visible in the ocean surface
temperatures in the Pacific around the equator. They change the
rainfall patterns in Eastern Australia. Weather is about moving
heat from the equator towards the poles, and it ties into ocean
currents that do the same job. We can see the ones flowing on the
surface. The deep currents that handle the return flow are now
being documented by the Argo Buoy program, but there are only a
couple of thousand of them and a great deal of ocean.
'Climate' was once defined as the mean local state of the atmosphere. >> >>>>>
But once the scum took over, that was changed and the word was used
to describe the word as a whole.
That happened when weather forecasting became practical. People got
to realise that high pressure areas and low pressure areas travelled
across the country in roughly predictable directions at roughly
predictable speeds. Electric telegraph system got fast enough after
the 1850's for observers to keep track of them. If you think that
those people were scum, you can comfort yourself with the thought
that they are all dead.
Australia's "Telegraph" Todd was one of them, and he was highly
respected at the time (and his grandson, Lawrence Bragg was
Australia's first Nobel Prize winner).
This was necessary, because the scandal is meant as justification of >> >>>>> what I would call 'tax on air', which is apparently planned for the
first world countries, where 'climate' is more or less OK, even it
could be a little warmer in many areas.
The real problem occurs, of course, in much poorer regions, where
pollution and population growth is out of control.
But even if the countries in that region are actually responsible
for what they do, they are far too poor to allow to extract a lot of >> >>>>> tax.
So, the industrialized world is blamed for what they are not
responsible and what they could not change efficiently.
The industrial revolution did involve burning a lot of fossil carbon
which has had visible and now well-documented effect on the climate
over the last century. Now that we have got the point where the
cheapest way of generating electric power is with solar cells, and
wind turbines are the second cheapest, we can stop burning fossil
carbon and messing up the climate even more and still manufacture
stuff in huge volumes, and more cheaply and efficiently than we used
to. We haven't actually got to the point where we are burning less
fossil carbon than we did last year, but we are close to it, and
China is making a lot of money out of making remarkably cheap solar
cells in enormous volumes (which is why they can make them cheaply).
The means to justify this bunk is actually a redefinition of the
word 'climate', which is now used to describe the mean temperature
of the entire Earth.
Climate got redefined when we could collect enough data around the
world to realise that the weather around the world was connected.
Satellites in orbit looking down at the atmosphere did a much better
job than weather observatories on the ground has done, but ground
based observers had been doing a pretty good job for about a century
before we had satellites to do it better.
This was needed, because otherwise countries in the first world
could rightfully claim, that they were not responisible and had
nothing against warmer 'climate'.
The low lying islands in the Pacific aren't too worried about a
warmer climate in their area, but they are deeply worried about the
effects of a warmer climate on the ice sheets on top of Greenland and >> >>>> West Antarctica.
Didn't you know, that Antarctica is REALLY cold?
How could any sane person assume, that the Ice-sheet on top of
Antarctica or Greenland would eventually melt?
Nobody does. The assumption is that it would slide off into the ocean
and float until it get closer to the equator.
It's has been doing that for the last few million years. When ice ages
give way to interglacials, it slides off a lot faster. Anthropogenic
global warming hasn't been going on for the sliding-off rate to rise all >> >> that much yet, but it will.
The floating ice doesn't count, of course, because floating ice does
not change sea levels, once it melts.
But ice that was previous sitting on solid earth before it slid down
into the ocean does raise the sea level when it starts floating.
But sea-levels do actually fall slowly. That can be seen around the
globe at almost any location you like.
For instance: the Sahara desert was once the bottom of an ocean, hence >> >>> global sea-levels had dropped significantly in respect to former
sea-floor areas.
You need to read up on continental drift.
We can also watch sea-levels dropping in connection with the low level >> >>> islands in the Pacific, because they are mostly atolls. And an atoll
is build from remains of corals and corals are animals, which live in
the sea.
Since the corals are not supposed to fly above sea-levels (to build
the atolls), the sea-levels have fallen in geological times.
They fall quite a bit during ice ages, and go up again during
interglacials. The Pacific Rim isn't all that geologically stable, and
places like Iceland and Hawaiian Islands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Islands
pop up as volcanoes from time to time. The oldest Hawaiian Island is 28 >> >> million years old.
If you want to draw conclusions from Pacific Island histories you do
have to be specif about their geological histories.
These are are going to slide off and melt over the next few
centuries, and produce about 10 meters of sea level rise, which will
submerge a lot of low lying islands. The Dutch sea defenses are going >> >>>> to need work too.
Before the ice-sheets of Antarctican and Greenland could eventually
melt, they need to become a lot warmer than their roughly minus 60#
Celsius.
And if the history of ice age to interglacial transitions is anything to >> >> go by, they get warmer by sliding off into the ocean and drifting closer >> >> to the equator. Ice bergs do it all the time and it doesn't take a lot
of global warming to persuade the ice bergs to slide off faster.
James Hansen spelled it out in 2016. It's a minority view, because
nobody know much about the processes happening under the surface of ice >> >> sheets, and the fossil carbon extraction industry really doesn't want
anybody to look hard. They do have a lot of political clout.
The other day I saw a butterfly. There used to be tons of butterflies
everywhere, something like the Monarch needs milkweed and is not very
tolerant of otherwise habitat destruction, overpredation, and waves of
invasive species, or neglect, if we were stewards of the environment.
It's February in the Rocky Mountains, so it being spring-like is
also not conducive to usual accounts of ecological development.
Here "Four Seasons" is considered ideal.
Anybody check the Earth's average distance to the Sun or
the "definition" of "1 Astronomical Unit" lately?
We've seen a few Monarchs this year in our backyard in San Francisco.
We and some other people are planting milkweed for them.
We get lots of butterflies here, expecially some flimsy little white
ones. The birds like them.
We have two seasons. Summer is cool and dry.
"cool" is gilding the lily a bit; "cold" might be more accurate for
much of the summer. I was married for the first time in mid-June 1968
in San Francisco (more exactly on Treasure Island). In those days
British people didn't fly half-way round the world to attend weddings,
and the only member of my family who came was an aunt who lived in
Toronto. I warned her that she would need warm clothes for a San Francisco >summer, but she didn't believe me (everyone in Toronto knows that California >is warm and sunny throughout the year). She was OK for the wedding itself, >when it was indeed warm and sunny. However, then she went for a week to >Carmel, where she had to buy herself a new warm coat
Winter is cool and wet.
Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Don wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:Bill Sloman wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
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,
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.
Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile,
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.
Optical frequency standards do exist,
such as Strontium lattce 'clocks' for example,
but so far they are frequecy standards only,
not yet clocks.
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >>>> his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
Could Einstein's definition of time have been one of the
greatest hindrances to the advancement of human knowledge
that history has ever known?
About Time: Einstein Was Wrong
Discussions about how to define 'time' inevitably become
philosophical debates. As I've noted previously, 'everybody
knows what time is until they try to define it'. For the
framework of this article, let's limit our discussion about
time to looking at Einstein's definition of time in special
relativity and contrasting that with the understanding of
time in quantum mechanics.
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes, as measured by a clock.
This is a sensible, straightforward measure. For example,
the time it took me to read the previous paragraph, measured
by a stopwatch, was 10 seconds. In special relativity, clocks
are used as an objective standard for measuring the time
intervals of physical processes.
The problem is that this sensible measure of time becomes time
itself.
For example, if an atomic clock is observed to slow down (it
registers fewer oscillations of the caesium atom at a different
altitude), this is not understood as a change in the clock's
operating speed. In relativity, this slowing is interpreted
as a slowing in the rate of time itself.
... this mistaken interpretation commits an error that Sir
Isaac Newton warned us against in his Philosophiae Naturalis
Principia Mathematica.
Newton wrote, 'Relative quantities are not the quantities
themselves whose names they bear, but sensible measures of
them.. and by the names time, space, place, and motion their
sensible measures are to be understood; and the expression
will be unusual if the measured quantities themselves are
meant. ..those violate the accuracy of language, who interpret
these words for the measured quantities.'
Putting this concept into the modern context, even when the
motion of light in a vacuum is used as the standard 'clock' to
measure time, it is still just a physical entity that can be
influenced by other physical processes, known or unknown. This
was Einstein's biggest mistake; he employed a physical process
(the motion of light) to serve as a stand-in for time itself.
In Newton's words, he expressed a sensible measure of time as
time itself.
French philosopher Henri Bergson, a contemporary of Einstein,
disputed relativity's portrayal of time by arguing that there
is a difference between time itself and what clocks display.
Clocks display arbitrary fractions of periodic events such as
the motion of the Sun across the sky (as shown on a sundial),
grains of sand moving through an hourglass, the number of
swings of a pendulum, or the number of oscillations of a
caesium atom (the current standard), but this is not the
physical reality of time itself. The physical reality of time
is the standard against which we can compare these events.
<https://brentshadbolt.substack.com/p/about-time-einstein-was-wrong> >>
My understanding of time begins with MAN AND TIME by Priestley. Although >>>> it's intellectually imprudent to excerpt a single sentence to summarize >>>> his survey:
"One metaphysical idea of Time: We do not discover Time but
bring it with us; it is one of our contributions to the
scene; our minds work that way."
You cannot understand Physics as natural philosophy anymore. We have grown >>> out of such thinking about 300 years ago (Newton).
Shadbolt shares similar sentiments:
They are obviously clueless:
[...]
In special relativity, Einstein defined time simply as a
measure of how long an event takes
No. This statement betrays a fundamental misconception about special
relativity already.
An event does not "take time": It is a *point* of a spacetime. A point has >>> dimension *zero*, it has *no extent*.
Prove Priestley wrong. Use your best rhetoric to define Time in your own
words.
Rhetoric and words have no physical meaning.
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 Wo+|niak wrote:
On 2/26/2026 3:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/26/2026 02:21 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What, you thought Boltzmann constant was aAs of the latest revision of the SI, Boltzmann's constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just another conversion factor between units. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
purely physical constant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no longer any physical content to it,
Jan
The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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.
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 <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 9:46 pm, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 4:02 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/24/2026 03:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 12:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:Another table tells me that there are 5280 feet to the mile, >>>>>>>>>>>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
-a 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.
-aFrom 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-a 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.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 16:20:01 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,384 |
