usenet weirdness

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.

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.

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.

"Name a 20'th century physicist". "Einstein." "Name another one." ".... The robot-voice guy." "OK. Keep going. "er.... The bongo guy?"

If you want a great account of Pauli principle with regards to "The Electron Theory of Matter", you should read O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter", where at least in the first

If you go through the list of Nobel prizes awarded in physics, there's sort of a pattern to distinguish. Basically on even years it's an account of reductionism, on odd years an account of anti-reductionism.

Realists are eventually anti-reductionists, because reductionists are eventually nothing.

What, you thought Boltzmann constant was a purely physical constant?

blahblahpipitiblah. And the predicte value of \alpha is?

Jan

Perhaps. Pauli was quite capable of debunking erroneous ones, and of suggesting useful ones.

You realise that all of this was a practical joke engineered by Georg Gamow?

Jan

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'.

Ah, you have the right end?

Jan

Indeed, it could but it is very unlikely that it will.

Inventing catastrophes is easy. Why not let the Yellowstone super-volcano explode first?

Jan

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

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:

None of this has anything to do with the Brout--Englert--Higgs mechanism.

Unzicker's whole argument is a fallacy, and so is yours.

Modern probability theory has at least three problems, since Bayes rule is only for finite distributions and priors, the central limit theorem isn't uniformizing or polar limit theorem, and the error record is a long tail.

Modern mathematics has at least three definitions of continuous domain, at least three laws of large numbers, at least three Cantor spaces, at least three limit theorems in probability theory, at least two definitions of chance and uncertainty, and exactly one "time".

People usually associate the big-endians and little-endians with Gulliver's travels or notions of bit or byte order, yet there's also the big-end or little-end of the infinite series.

Duns Scotus has a lot of the interesting technical ideas that basically resolve to "infinity is in" and "infinity is one". A thing about the medieval philosophers vis-a-vis the ancient philosophers is that the medieval philosophers had the ancient philosophers, and we have both, and the benefit of the medieval philosopher's extended ruminations on the ancient philosophers.

I just don't believe that "men are natural enemies" like Spinoza or "men are born in a state of sin" like Calvin, it's not a sin to be a man, and not an excuse to violate the Mosaical laws to have neighbors.

Anyways Duns Scotus says some things that are more or less pertinent to the "canon" and "dogma" and "doctrine" of the technical philosophy, sort of "first".

Seems I've pointed out that Boltzmann constant gets "predicted" first, and it doesn't get "predicted" it gets "derived".

Mostly though it seems I point out that there's a true theory, _at all_, and exactly one of them. Then by definition that's it.

A "strong mathematical universe hypothesis" is a usual idea, naturally with a "clock hypothesis" and various other absolutes.

Nyah

So, it's its own butt?

The Boltzmann constant is provided to you in a little table.

Except that "etymology" is a word, and thus part of the language you are discussing - or in this case - misrepresenting.

More that he lied to himself.

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.

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.

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.

That depends on how fast we cut our carbon emissions.

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.

It's actually an academic joke.