Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:22:50 +0000, rhertz wrote:

Yes, I do.
>
In particular since mid '50s.
>
Too much money, credibility on science due to the sustained hype over
relativity, prestige and many other important issues are involved.
>
Considering that E = mc² has been publicly hyped as the most important
equation in the history of science

Most famous, NOT the most important.
Hardly ANYBODY would claim that it is the most important.

(See Max Planck Institute), imagine
THE DISASTER for science, millions of publications, academy, etc., that
it would cause publishing (with proofs):
>
BREAKING NEWS: E = mc² HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE
SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISMENT!
>
>
What would follow to this news, even if actually E = 0.99 mc²?

We know that E = mc² to about the 10^-7 level.
If the equation is found to be off at some level of significance,
that would be an extremely important result, not the end of science.

Worse than proving that the speed of light in vacuum, across large
distance, IS NOT A CONSTANT.

Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle
test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that
it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at
some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere:
| "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are
| approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a
| violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a
| violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this
| range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from
| other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts
| to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive
| detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost
| towards unification."