Sujet : Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.
De : tomyee3 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 05. Dec 2024, 13:42:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <67a76dbc2e8f41f5749777b1fa55e2c1@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:57:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> 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.
>
OK. Maybe I gave up on you to soon.
>
Since 1983, the speed of light in vacuum has been defined as exactly
equal to 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
Correct, almost.
Conceptually better: the meter is defined as....
The CGPM is concerned with how measurements are to be done,
not with theoretical proclamations.
>
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?
>
That's where you go wrong.
The agreement to give c a defined value
is irrelevant to any experiment.
That was PRECISELY my point!
It is a convention that tells us how to represent
the outcomes of experiments.
So the results of an anisotropy of space experiment
must be presented (under the SI) as the length of meter rods
depending on their orientation in space.
(even if it may loosely be called differently)
It has no bearing at all on the possibility of doing such experiments.
EXACTLY!
Jan
>
PS Given unexpected outcomes of such experiments
those in the know may of course rethink the SI.
No need or use to pre-think such hypotheticalities.
Given that you obviously understand this point, please think back
on your comments on experiments intended to verify E=mc^2.
Even post-2018, properly framed questions on the validity of
E=mc^2 may still be posed.
E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.