usenet weirdness

Eh? There is no 'empirical domain' without measurement. There is no measurment without standards. There are no standards beyond the SI,

Jan

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

'a while' is the word.

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 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,

Jan

That's part of being a competent experimenter.

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.

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)

Popper has repeatedy and loudly complained about the so-called 'irrationality' of scientists, because they (being competent scientist) ignored his prescriptions,

Jan

It's a problem already when you need more than first-order approximation.

There are at least five or six or more points of approximation or 'linearisation' in the standard derivations given in the standard linear curriculum, like Hooke's law and Arrhenius and Clausius and Planck and Fourier analysis at all and anything touching Differential Geometry, mass/energy equivalence the usual account given by SR-ians, without even getting into quantum indeterminacy, these premier theories come with a caveat as Einstein puts it "good to first-order".

I.e., "more than slide-rule accuracy".

Then various empirical domains specialize their measurements because the generic account _fails_.

Also you'll notice that Dark Energy and Dark Matter have falsified the usual premier theories anyways, besides that they can't compute torque or many other matters of the practical, that the many and myriad empirical settings have their own domains of units, _that being what defines empirical_, by definition.

Hypocrite.

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.

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.

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.

Deep space is a usually a pretty good vacuum, but the gear you need to calibrate isn't much used out there.

Let's agree to disagree about that.

Like Diogenes for example?

Jan

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There is no "us" here. You are alone in your special kind of crackpottery.

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. “Men 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.”

--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:

You might wonder, where do the common values of physical constants, the fundamental physical constants represented by symbols in the stacks of derivations after definitions, you might wonder: where do these constants come from, that then get put in a museum in France and then called Systeme Internationale.

The values of these fundamental physical constants arrive from the NIST PDG CODATA.

Every few years, NIST PDG CODATA releases new values of these constants, the smallest or most precise values. Then, you might figure that each revision, they get _more precise_. They do, in a sense: also they get _smaller_, they actually _shrink_.

Similarly, every time astronomy gets a new telescope and looks upward, astronomy can estimate the size and age of the universe. Does it get more exact, one might wonder. What it does is it gets _larger_ and _older_ every time.

Eventually then the "particle" is _nothing_ in the middle of _nowhere_, or "deep space at a nonce".

So, this helps establish that "running constants" are real.

You are merely arguing from your own ignorance and incompetence.

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.

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:

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.

Thank you so much for keeping Sloman amused.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

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.

Not that it demonstrates "particle mechanics", which is a usual thing that people think since "quantum mechanics" is said to be what is "particle mechanics".

Must be waves, ..., in fields.

Geometry is motion.

Truth is regular, ..., geometry is motion.

Ross F>> Ross F>>>> >>>>>

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 +ℏ/2 and -ℏ/2; physics justifies the ℏ) which makes them behave like that in a magnetic field:

Everybody who has any clue about quantum mechanics knows this. You don't have a clue, and neither has J. J. Lodder.

Why, this is looking more and more like "The Blind Men and the Elephant".

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.

The next generation of references will presumably depend on an oscillation of the atomic nucleus rather than of the electrons orbiting around it. Thorium-229 has a very low energy nuclear resonance and there are proposals to exploit it.

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.

Which aren't particularly rich in food resources.

It happened in the obvious place - on the shoreline, which moved.

The bible has elements that are right, and a lot of invention, that isn't.

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.

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 th 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.

...

TH