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

On 12/04/2024 12:17 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:40:04 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:

>

E ≈ 1.0000000 mc^2 is not a calibration adjustment. It is a
measurement made with calibrated instrumentation whose consistency
with other instrumentation has been carefully verified by procedures
such as you cast aspersion upon above.

>
Was, was, was. There is nothing to 'cast upon' anymore.
With the redefinition of the kilogram in 2018
those measurements have become irrelevant.
>
E = m c^2 now holds exactly,
by the definition of the kilogram.
(and the Joule)

>
Specious argument.
>
When the kilogram was defined in terms of a metal artifact held in
vaults in Paris, it was a legitimate question whether the mass of said
artifact varied over time, even though by definition it was _the_
kilogram. As a matter of fact, that mass was found to vary despite its
being the basis as the definition of kilogram.
>
The mere fact that E = mc^2 holds exactly according to our present
definitions of the kilogram and the Joule does not make irrelevant
experiments intended to check whether the assumptions that have led to
the adoption of our current set of standards are correct.
>
The mere fact that theory and over a century of experimental
validation have led to the speed of light being adopted as a constant
does not invalidate experiments intended to verify to increasing
levels of precision the correctness of the assumptions that led to
it adoption as a constant.

>
So you haven't understood what it is all about.
I rest my case,
>
Jan
>

What's that in dynes?
The "dynamics" and all, ....
The current latest greatest SI units make it dirt simple to
formalize electronic circuitry (in deep space, in a vacuum,
alone, at operating temperature), and leave out as "dimensionless"
all the "dynamics" what go into the "derivations" all these
matters of very definitions of units themselves.
So, it only serves a particularly simple subset of SR-ians.
Because layout is hard, ....
"The latest SI re-definition."
Of course, then there's that that "E = mc^2, exactly"
is a _circular_ argument and makes, though a positivist
theory, demanding what it stipulates is so, that
it's not really attached to the "physical interpretation",
insofar as with regards to electrostatic, electromagnetism,
electrical and magnetic and optical intensities, and such
matters of radionuclear radiation, and also "gravitational
waves" and other forms of radiation, like nutation.
The very latest here makes a very brief packet,
"here's physics, SR-ians, you're on your own".
(I forgot who here originally coined the term
"SR-ians", with regards to things like "Einstein
already said SR was local and its space was spacial,
75 years ago", with regards to SR-IANS, and, "KISS-SR-ians",
as it were.)