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

On 12/04/2024 02:20 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 20:17:25 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>

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,

>
You prematurely rest your case.
>
Since 1983, the speed of light in vacuum has been defined as exactly
equal to 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
Given this definition, is there any point to conducting experiments
to test whether there are anisotropies in the speed of light due to
Earth's motions in space? Such as these: https://tinyurl.com/8hkry7k3
>
The definition of the speed of light is such that there can't be.
>
Right?

The definition of the speed of light in what theory?
You mean you have a theory that says nothing at all
about it except that it's a finite constant?
Then other theories say what that entails,
if it isn't up into indeterminate-quantities
then besides like Einstein says that the
L-principle is a local thing and that the
"spacial SR" and "spatial GR" are at least
two different things and that it depends
on what's "classical gravity" and depends
on whether motion has constant velocity,
these kinds of things?
What you don't include boost addition, the Riemann
tensor, Ricci tensor and Regge map, Hermann,
Baecklund, Bianchi, these kinds of things?
So, the L-principle of SR indeed has that
light's speed is a constant, and finite.
Then though sometimes "wave-length" is
"inverse frequency" and in other considerations
"wave velocity", so, they kind of line up
at one end, yet, there's multiplicities,
that's what-all singularity theory, usually
theories about 2/3 of the hypergeometric
with principal branches of multiplicity theories.
Don't get me wrong, "multiple-worlds" has no
physical interpretation, or, at least scientifically.
It's a great realm of many theories, though.
I sort of enjoy this since foundations of mathematics
and foundations of physics have a lot in common.
Mathematical physics, ....