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

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:02:45 +0000, rhertz wrote:
 

And I forgot:
>
The settlement of constants BY COLLUSION requires that ALL THE
INSTRUMENTATION THAT EXIST (used in any science) BE RE-CALIBRATED, to
obey.
>
>
Do you get this?
>
If you manufacture mass spectrometers, voltmeters, timers, WHATEVER,
better that you RE-ADJUST the values that come from measurements.
>
Example: Your voltmeter measures 1 Volt as 0.9995743 OLD Volts? Then
RECALIBRATE THAT MF or you will sell NONE. Is that clear?
>
CALIBRATION is an essential part in the design and manufacturing OF ANY
INSTRUMENT!. But you require MASTER REFERENCES (OR GUIDELINES LIKE THOSE
FROM BIPM).
>
Your laser based distance meter measure 1 meter as 1.00493 meters?
RECALIBRATE THE INSTRUMENT RIGHT IN THE PRODUCTION LINE.
>
Not to talk about instrumentation used to compute Atomic Weight or
a.m.u.
>
ADJUST, COMPLY AND OBEY OR YOU'RE OUT OF THE BUSINESS.
>
Did you manufacture a single instrument in an university lab? ADJUST,
COMPLY AND OBEY or you are OUTCASTED.
>
How do you dare to measure c = 299,793,294 m/s? ARE YOU CRAZY? Adjust
the readings to c = 299,792,458 m/s, OR ELSE.
>
And this has been happening since late XIX Century. Read the history
behind the definition of 1 Ohm, mainly commanded by British
institutions, with Cavendish lab behind it.

 
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)

Jan