Physics is broken. Maybe it always was, but we were groomed
to live in a world of lies.

These "constants" are false:

- Avogadro number
- Zero kelvins, or absolute zero
- Planck constant
- Speed of light in vacuum
- Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs
- Speed of sound in air
- Gravitational constant
- Charge of electron
- Fine structure constant
- Mass of electron
- Boltzmann constant
- Coulomb constant
- Magnetic permeability in vacuum
- Electric permittivity in vacuum
- Atomic mass of carbon-12
- Bohr radius
- Classical electron radius

and dozens of constants derived from the combination of the above ones.

In particular, I repudiate this one: zero kelvins, or absolute zero (-273.15°C).

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:38:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Physics is broken. Maybe it always was, but we were groomed
> to live in a world of lies.
>
> These "constants" are false:
>
> - Avogadro number
> - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero
> - Planck constant
> - Speed of light in vacuum
> - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs
> - Speed of sound in air
> - Gravitational constant
> - Charge of electron
> - Fine structure constant
> - Mass of electron
> - Boltzmann constant
> - Coulomb constant
> - Magnetic permeability in vacuum
> - Electric permittivity in vacuum
> - Atomic mass of carbon-12
> - Bohr radius
> - Classical electron radius
>
> and dozens of constants derived from the combination of the above ones.
>
> In particular, I repudiate this one: zero kelvins, or absolute zero (-273..15°C).

To what percentage do we know the gravitational constant?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:38:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
<total cretinisms>

Nurse,

Patient Richard Hertz has has another seizure, time for his anti-psychotic drugs

- Avogadro number: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
- Zero kelvins, or absolute zero: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Planck constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Speed of light in vacuum: : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
- Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
- Speed of sound in air: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Gravitational constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Charge of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Fine structure constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Mass of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Boltzmann constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Coulomb constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Magnetic permeability in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
- Electric permittivity in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
- Atomic mass of carbon-12: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Bohr radius: SAME AS ABOVE.
- Classical electron radius: SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:29:24 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> - Avogadro number: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
> - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Planck constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Speed of light in vacuum: : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
> - Speed of sound in air: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Gravitational constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Charge of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Fine structure constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Mass of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Boltzmann constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Coulomb constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Magnetic permeability in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> - Electric permittivity in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> - Atomic mass of carbon-12: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Bohr radius: SAME AS ABOVE.
> - Classical electron radius: SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.

Idiocies by an idiot.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:29:24?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > - Avogadro number: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations
> > not EXACT measurements.
> > - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Planck constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Speed of light in vacuum: : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> > - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs: Defined by consensus
> > after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
> > - Speed of sound in air: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Gravitational constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Charge of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Fine structure constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Mass of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Boltzmann constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Coulomb constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Magnetic permeability in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. :
> > SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> > - Electric permittivity in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. :
> > SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> > - Atomic mass of carbon-12: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Bohr radius: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > - Classical electron radius: SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
>
> Idiocies by an idiot.

Not quite.
The magnetic permeability in vacuum
and the electric permittivity in vacuum
-are- idiocies invented by idiots.
They were enshrined by even more idiots at some CGPM conference.

He is wrong though in blaming 'relativists' for it.
Those idiocies were committed well before relativity was invented.

Unfortunately the idiocies didn't stop there.
The last CPGM added more shit to the pile
by giving the electron charge a defined value.
(which it cannot have, since the fine-structure constant
is truly a constant of nature that needs to be measured.
You cannot possibly define it.
Hiding the errors away in \eps_0 and \mu_0 is thoroughly unphysical,

Jan

PS The others are fine of course.
There is nothing wrong with giving the Boltzmann constant
a defined value (and making the triple point of water measurable)
instead of the other way round.

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:38:21 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Physics is broken. Maybe it always was, but we were groomed
> to live in a world of lies.
>
> These "constants" are false:
>
> - Avogadro number
> - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero
> - Planck constant
> - Speed of light in vacuum
> - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs
> - Speed of sound in air
> - Gravitational constant
> - Charge of electron
> - Fine structure constant
> - Mass of electron
> - Boltzmann constant
> - Coulomb constant
> - Magnetic permeability in vacuum
> - Electric permittivity in vacuum
> - Atomic mass of carbon-12
> - Bohr radius
> - Classical electron radius
>
> and dozens of constants derived from the combination of the above ones.
>
> In particular, I repudiate this one: zero kelvins, or absolute zero (-273..15°C).

These modern values are derived from CALCULATIONS, not REAL MEASUREMENTS.

The problem is, as in many other fieds: TOO MANY IMBECILES GETTING A JOB IN SCIENCE, ONLY TO PUT A CHICKEN ON THE TABLE.

* November 2000, NUCLEAR SPIN temperatures below 100 pK (10e-10 K) were reported by he Helsinki University of Technology's Low Temperature Lab in Espoo, Finland.
* May 2005: the European Space Agency proposed research in space to achieve femtokelvin temperatures.
* January 2013: physicist Ulrich Schneider of the University of Munich in Germany reported to have achieved temperatures formally below absolute zero ("negative temperature") in gases.
* September 2014: scientists in the CUORE collaboration at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso in Italy cooled a copper vessel with a volume of one cubic meter to 0.006 kelvins (−273.144 °C; −459..659 °F) for 15 days, setting a record for the lowest temperature..
* June 2015: experimental physicists at MIT cooled molecules in a gas of sodium potassium to a temperature of 500 nanokelvin.
* 2017: Cold Atom Laboratory (CAL), an experimental instrument was developed for launch to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2018, TO "MEASURE" temperatures as low as 1 picokelvin (10E−12 K).

THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, GIVEN BY SOFTWARE, WITH HARDWARE SUPPORT (INDIRECT MEASUREMENTS).

And the above craziness is just for ONE "constant of nature".

With others, the pattern of claim as true theoretical calculations or just DEFINITIONS is the norm, not the exception.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:38:21?PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Physics is broken. Maybe it always was, but we were groomed
> > to live in a world of lies.
> >
> > These "constants" are false:
> >
> > - Avogadro number
> > - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero
> > - Planck constant
> > - Speed of light in vacuum
> > - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs
> > - Speed of sound in air
> > - Gravitational constant
> > - Charge of electron
> > - Fine structure constant
> > - Mass of electron
> > - Boltzmann constant
> > - Coulomb constant
> > - Magnetic permeability in vacuum
> > - Electric permittivity in vacuum
> > - Atomic mass of carbon-12
> > - Bohr radius
> > - Classical electron radius
> >
> > and dozens of constants derived from the combination of the above ones.
> >
> > In particular, I repudiate this one: zero kelvins, or absolute zero
> > (-273.15°C).
>
> These modern values are derived from CALCULATIONS, not REAL MEASUREMENTS.

Worse, it is a definition,
(of the temperature of triple point of water)
It was of course based on backward compatibility
with previous measurements,

Jan

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:48:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 4:29:24?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > - Avogadro number: Defined by consensus after gross theoretical calculations
> > > not EXACT measurements.
> > > - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Planck constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Speed of light in vacuum: : SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS..
> > > - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs: Defined by consensus
> > > after gross theoretical calculations, not EXACT measurements.
> > > - Speed of sound in air: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Gravitational constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Charge of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Fine structure constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Mass of electron: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Boltzmann constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Coulomb constant: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Magnetic permeability in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. :
> > > SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> > > - Electric permittivity in vacuum: SAME AS ABOVE. :
> > > SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> > > - Atomic mass of carbon-12: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Bohr radius: SAME AS ABOVE.
> > > - Classical electron radius: SAME AS ABOVE. COLLUSION OF RELATIVISTS.
> >
> > Idiocies by an idiot.
> Not quite.
> The magnetic permeability in vacuum
> and the electric permittivity in vacuum
> -are- idiocies invented by idiots.
> They were enshrined by even more idiots at some CGPM conference.
>
> He is wrong though in blaming 'relativists' for it.
> Those idiocies were committed well before relativity was invented.

Something tells me this won't prevent him from blaming everything
on relativity.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:17:33 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:48:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> > Those idiocies were committed well before relativity was invented.
> Something tells me this won't prevent him from blaming everything
> on relativity.

Your "something" is WRONG. The OP is a critic to physics and chemistry in general, and comprehend 400 years of evolution.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:21:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:17:33 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:48:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Those idiocies were committed well before relativity was invented.
> > Something tells me this won't prevent him from blaming everything
> > on relativity.
> Your "something" is WRONG. The OP is a critic to physics and chemistry in general, and comprehend 400 years of evolution.

You you haven't read what I wrote before responding.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:38:21 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Physics is broken. Maybe it always was, but we were groomed
> to live in a world of lies.
>
> These "constants" are false:
>
> - Avogadro number
> - Zero kelvins, or absolute zero
> - Planck constant
> - Speed of light in vacuum
> - Hyperfine transition frequency of 133Cs
> - Speed of sound in air
> - Gravitational constant
> - Charge of electron
> - Fine structure constant
> - Mass of electron
> - Boltzmann constant
> - Coulomb constant
> - Magnetic permeability in vacuum
> - Electric permittivity in vacuum
> - Atomic mass of carbon-12
> - Bohr radius
> - Classical electron radius
>
> and dozens of constants derived from the combination of the above ones.
>
> In particular, I repudiate this one: zero kelvins, or absolute zero (-273..15°C).

Why does a small magnet manifest large weight
in comparison to gravity. If energy gives force
its strength like Einstein said a magnet's small
energy manifests mush more weight in a
direct comparison. That is the intensity of
magnetism...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:25:01 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:21:33 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:17:33 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 3:48:37 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Those idiocies were committed well before relativity was invented.
> > > Something tells me this won't prevent him from blaming everything
> > > on relativity.
> > Your "something" is WRONG. The OP is a critic to physics and chemistry in general, and comprehend 400 years of evolution.
> You you haven't read what I wrote before responding.
>
> --
> Jan

I read it but, as usual, you didn't understand. The OP is a critic to MODERN physics and chemistry in general.

I clearly have in mind the evolution of capabilities for measuring and computing along the timeline of hard sciences, and
the advances are extraordinary.

But I consider that the current ability to measure and compute is being overused, even when CODATA (Committee on Data
of the International Science Council (ISC)) stops at 10 digits, plus a margin of two additional error digits, FOR NOW.

Consider this timeline for computing data:

* In 1590 Napier invented the logarithm as a calculation tool, to speed up multiplications and divisions.
* In 1623 Schickard built the Calculating Clock, the first known calculator..
* in 1642 Pascal invented the Aritmethic Machine (Pascaline), to perform additions and subtractions.
* In 1673 Leibniz invented the Step Reckoner, which added multiplication and division to the machine of Pascal.
* In 1815 Roget invented the sliding rule, which was used for the next 157 years by everybody, until personal digital calculators appeared.
* By 1820 Babbage invented the Differential Engine, the first computer. It was used to elaborate more precise logarithm tables.
* In 1888 Burroughs invented the mechanical calculator. Today, his company exists as Unisys.
* In the early XX century, analog mechanical computers were used to compute differential equations, until WWII, when digital computers
started to appear, at a very high pace.
* By early '60s, the development of advanced computer languages marked the birth of real computer sciences, which took off at an
incredible pace.
* In a parallel timeline, the invention of the microprocessor in 1972, started a new field which has allowed for everyone to have
an incredible amount of processing power for personal use.
* By the same time, Cray came out with the first supercomputer, which is almost a toy for today standards.

The accuracy and precision only took off with the digital age.

Today, imbeciles not knowing what to do, push the limits of accuracy to more digits.

It's incredible the paradox that science faces today: All the way back to late 1800, when Kelvin announced that he only foresee
the progress in science as adding more digits to constants and measurements..

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

[- irrelevancies about computers]

> The accuracy and precision only took off with the digital age.

The digital revolution has nothing to do with it,
except practically, to reduce workload.
The 'precision revolution' came through quantum metrology,
not through supercomputers.

> Today, imbeciles not knowing what to do, push the limits of accuracy to
> more digits.

It may have escaped your notice,
but measurements really -are- that accurate, nowadays.

> It's incredible the paradox that science faces today: All the way back to
> late 1800, when Kelvin announced that he only foresee the progress in
> science as adding more digits to constants and measurements.

Nothing paradoxical about it:
Experimental physics -is- accurately measuring things,
as accurately as possible.

What also escaped your notice is that everyday life
has become very dependent on that precision. For example:
You cannot build chips to nanometer accuracy without it,

Jan

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 22:36:31 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [- irrelevancies about computers]
> > The accuracy and precision only took off with the digital age.
> The digital revolution has nothing to do with it,
> except practically, to reduce workload.
> The 'precision revolution' came through quantum metrology,
> not through supercomputers.
> > Today, imbeciles not knowing what to do, push the limits of accuracy to
> > more digits.
> It may have escaped your notice,
> but measurements really -are- that accurate, nowadays.
> > It's incredible the paradox that science faces today: All the way back to
> > late 1800, when Kelvin announced that he only foresee the progress in
> > science as adding more digits to constants and measurements.
> Nothing paradoxical about it:
> Experimental physics -is- accurately measuring things,
> as accurately as possible.

Bullshit; if real measurements (like GPS) were
treating your bunch of idiots seriously no precision
would be possible.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 6:36:31 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Nothing paradoxical about it:
> Experimental physics -is- accurately measuring things,
> as accurately as possible.
>
> What also escaped your notice is that everyday life
> has become very dependent on that precision. For example:
> You cannot build chips to nanometer accuracy without it,

And what escapes to you, blind relativist, is that THE ABOVE is the end of Moore's Law,
as chips are entering into THE ATOMIC SCALE, ending a 60 years ERA.

No ATOM BASED FLIP-FLOP is under any forecasting. No stability in trusting on 10 atoms to do that job.

There are LIMITS FOR EVERYTHING, and chip lithography is reaching one of them.

Now will come a new kind of "quantum electronics", but question yourself for how many years industry is done with these levels.

For consumer electronics: 10 years? 50 years?

For science and military electronics: 10 years? 50 years?

Tell me something about quantum noise and cosmic rays, here and in space.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 6:36:31?PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Nothing paradoxical about it:
> > Experimental physics -is- accurately measuring things,
> > as accurately as possible.
> >
> > What also escaped your notice is that everyday life
> > has become very dependent on that precision. For example:
> > You cannot build chips to nanometer accuracy without it,
>
> And what escapes to you, blind relativist, is that THE ABOVE is the end of
> Moore's Law, as chips are entering into THE ATOMIC SCALE, ending a 60
> years ERA.
>
> No ATOM BASED FLIP-FLOP is under any forecasting. No stability in trusting
> on 10 atoms to do that job.
>
> There are LIMITS FOR EVERYTHING, and chip lithography is reaching one of
> them.

So you got that one wrong too.
Moore's law is not about the size of a transistor,
it is about the number of transistors on a single chip.

Still growing,

Jan

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> So you got that one wrong too.
> Moore's law is not about the size of a transistor,
> it is about the number of transistors on a single chip.
>
> Still growing,

You should meddle with things that really know, and stop posing as a smart-ass, while actually being an imbecile.

Semiconductor lithography is the basis of Moore's Law, as it defines the smallest line that can be drawn in silicon.

Actually, there are two Moore's Laws:

First, 1965 to 1975: Cramming transistors into a chip will double each year.. It stopped being valid when 65,000 transistors were crammed.
Second, since 1975: Cramming transistors into a chip will double every two years. More or less valid until today, with 2 nm process.

IBM achieved 2 nm in lab, with 65,000 billion transistors in a chip. IBM claims that it involves about 5 atoms per transistor, even when
the technology is still plagued by UNKNOWN quantum effects.

Semiconductor lithography is intimately linked to transistor density, and defines the smallest line that can be drawn into a chip.

As many different technologies were involved in semiconductor lithography, the expression "5 nm chip" is not related to the
transistor size, but name different process that enable smaller transistors..

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process

This equation for the development of lithographic process and the nanometers involved is valid between 1795 and 2022:
s = 3E+148 e(-0,168y)

The size of the process is "s", while "y" is the year since 1975.

The second Moore's Law, as intended, is thought to be reaching its end in the next few years (2030?), after the 1 nm process be
developed and reach maturity to industrialize it.

Moore's Law between 1971 (10 um process) and 2012 (22 nm process)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/IntelR-microprocessor-transistor-count-evolution-between-1971-and-2012-For-the-last-40_fig1_323459912

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 7:24:17?PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > So you got that one wrong too.
> > Moore's law is not about the size of a transistor,
> > it is about the number of transistors on a single chip.
> >
> > Still growing,
>
> You should meddle with things that really know, and stop posing as a
> smart-ass, while actually being an imbecile.
[off-topic ramblings]

> Moore's Law between 1971 (10 um process) and 2012 (22 nm process)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure/IntelR-microprocessor-transistor-count-evo
lution-between-1971-and-2012-For-the-last-40_fig1_323459912

Why stop in 2012 when you can go on to the present?
Moore's law is still going strong,

Jan

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1970-2020.png>