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

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.