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

On 12/06/2024 05:21 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 20:00:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

Finaly, you really need to get yourself out of the conceptual knot
that you have tied yourself in.
Something is either defined, or it can be measured.
It can't possibly be both,

>
Sure it can, provided that you use a different measurement standard
than the one used in the definition.
>
It would not make sense to quantify hypothetical variations in the
speed of light in terms of the post-1983 meter. But they would make
sense in terms pre-1983 meters. Or (assuming some incredible ramp-up
in technology, perhaps introduced by Larry Niven-ish Outsiders) in
terms of a meter defined as the distance massless gluons travel in
1/299,792,458 of a second. Or gravitons... :-)

What's relevant is standards and systems of units,
when for example different units are simply defined
inverses of each other yet either way vary,
and the average versus the instantaneous,
matters of projection and perspective,
configurations and energies of experiment,
mostly though about the algebraic derivations,
and "quantities" when formulaic, and about
when "quantities" in the mathematical are
actually yet "systems of derivations", then
there's also the whole "infinitely-many higher-order
derivatives of displacement" with respect to motion
itself, and these kinds of things.
The the constants are just kind of last, ....
In a theory of sum-of-histories/sum-of-potentials,
it's the potential fields that are the real fields,
and quantities are just the last sort of quantities,
also, and yet histories/potentials themselves.
It's usually enough a field theory a gauge theory,
where particle physics lives, then with regards to
relativity it's coordinate-free thanks to tensor spaces,
so, fields, vis-a-vis material points and bodies.
So, the entire complementary dual of point-and-space
itself, geometry, is a many-splendored thing, or,
a "continuous manifold" as it's usually relayed.
The usual notion of "applied mathematics" of course
is quite thoroughly rational, ..., physics isn't
necessarily, because it's a "continuum mechanics".