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

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>

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."

>
Oh, which way is it going to be?

Either way is a win.
A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the
alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of
the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in
importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly
implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories.
A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find
a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR.