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

On 12/03/2024 01:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/02/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/02/2024 06:35 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

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.

>
So, a pat on the head or a kick in the ass?
>
I suppose their theories of gravitation fixed perpetual motion
too, or the constant violation of conservation of energy.
>
Don't get me wrong, the equivalence principle wasn't always
a thing, and the ether/aether theories have come in and out
of fashion.
>
One time I read in a magazine "the difference between fashion
and style, is that fashion goes in and out of style,
yet style is never out of fashion."
>
>
Since Lense Thirring and Pioneer Anomaly yet really after
classical mechanics what's different "gravity's force"
and "g-forces", some sites claim things like "equivalence
principle is violated all the time".
>
https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle
>
Once entirely forbidden and vigorously castigated,
now top in results "don't be what you think is right wrongly".
>
Because it really ruins argument from authority
when it's not anymore. Or if it was ever wrong.
>
>
The magnetopause or about where Earth's gravity well
is 50/50, to decay or not, you can read Einstein about
it, it's like "Einstein, did you really say there _is_
an ether?" and he's like "yeah, uh huh", then it's like
"Einstein, what does that mean for the equivalence principle"
and he might be like "well, you see, it's just a _principle_,
it's a nice way of looking at things that totally simplifies
some thing, _principles_ are not the same thing as _cause_,
see".
>
Now, the L-principle for light's speed's constancy is held
up a little more than that, strength-wise, yet "the locality
of SR" has that it's according to the space and that the
space is according to GR, much like the equivalence principle,
the L-principle.
>
About _mass_ and _inertia_ and _momentum_ and _heft_ and
whether _heft_ is _inertial_ and whether _momentum_ in
kinematics oscillates real/virtual or classical/potential,
that it's an _inertial system_ and with regards to
whether the terrestrial frame is moving along with
the solar moving along with the pole star frame,
and so on, the orbital and the ecliptic and the zodaical,
has that according to Einstein it's an _inertial_ system
for avoiding circular insoluble mathematical singularities,
and he has that as a _law_.
>
>
Anyways if "theories of gravitation" don't solve "conservation
of energy" then they deserve the great round-file.
>
Now, Eotvos was a pretty big deal, if the precession of
the ball pair is to considered for its "rest for its
spinning out at the LaGrange point", vis-a-vis, Michelson-Morley
and "the mirror-pond of the mercury bath, after it all
wound down and we could watch it spin following Foucault",
to be sure, in the middle, there's a null.
>
"Round and round and round it goes,
then it sort of goes according to Foucault".
>
Or Coriolis, ....
>
>
About "fifth force" or whatever that was just supposed
to be "gravity straight down", that in a fall-gravity
is quite different than a pull gravity, where it's
figured that fall-gravity just makes time and gravity
their gradients balance each other.
>
So, this way then fall-gravity is same as nuclear,
that any theory of gravity must satisfy being a
model of a fall-gravity.
>
If laws are the same everywhere, ....
>
In principle, ....
>
>

>
O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter" is
really pretty great, from the outset he details why
there is the aether yet also that the medium makes
for the usual analysis as these days is, and then
also things like charge and "real and fictitious",
helping explain why matters of potential are real
and "real and fictitious" merely differentiate perspectives
and they're both real, contra usual un-qualified usage
where of course fictitious means un-so.
>
So, of course he's a big fan of Faraday.
>
It's after Lorentz and Zeeman, yet also after Rutherford
and Geiger, works up a usual Laplace, Gauss, Green, Poisson,
and gets into rays and refraction, which affects light,
and Roentgen Rays.
>
"One is tempted to ask what can be the use of
a conception of the electric intensity which is
so much at variance with what we believe to be
the reality. The answer is, of course, that most
of our methods of experimenting are so coarse,
compared with the atomic scale, that they do not
detect these enormous differences which occur within
distances of the order of atomic magnitude. Our
experimental arrangements for the most part measure
only the average values over spaces containing a
large number of atoms. The reason why our average
values possess validity is not because they are
the true values but because, so far as such experimental
arrangements enable us to detect, everything happens
as if the average values were the true values."
-- O.W. Richardson
>
>
Mentions Rowland, 1876, Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik,
reminds me to look into Droste, then about Leroux
and Kundt, with regards to Richardon's optical
theories of transmission vis-a-vis the dielectric.
>
Since they're not the same, optical and electrical
intensity, ....
>
>
Yeah a fall gravity courtesy a gradient, with
mechanics and inertia and heft flow and flux,
and then the electrical, flow and flux, and
optical and radionuclear, flow and flux,
courtesy time in space, makes for a usual
theory where "energy is conserved" is not
ignored or violated or made un-scientific or
non-scientific or otherwise what's considered wrong.
>
>

Richardson helps advise that light's "c", and
electromagnetic radiation's "c", and the ratio
electrostatic/electromagnetic, "c", are
three different things.
About the same, ..., in deep space in a vacuum.