Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659277 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-01 00:28 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-12-02 00:56 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-01 00:28 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-11-30 18:53 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-01 12:44 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-02 00:36 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-02 17:44 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-02 18:07 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 11:20 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-02 21:54 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 16:39 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-03 02:35 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 19:07 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:50 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 09:13 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 02:22 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-03 14:15 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-03 14:01 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 18:27 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-03 19:02 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 10:10 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-04 12:40 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 12:41 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-04 21:17 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 13:29 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-04 22:20 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 15:56 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-04 17:15 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-05 11:57 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-05 12:42 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-05 15:26 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-05 19:42 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:29 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-06 03:55 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 10:48 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 04:51 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-06 14:46 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 21:00 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 13:27 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 01:21 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 18:30 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 12:03 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 16:03 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 10:49 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 22:35 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 05:42 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 06:46 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 21:35 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-10 09:15 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-10 23:16 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-10 18:37 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 21:35 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-07 22:35 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-08 10:19 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:56 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-08 15:01 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-07 22:19 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 22:14 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-08 09:19 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:30 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-09 15:21 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-09 20:28 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-10 11:20 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 14:05 -0600
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-09 22:44 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-09 23:26 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 23:32 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-08 12:30 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-12-07 00:34 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-08 04:52 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-12-04 15:44 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2024-12-11 05:59 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 19:10 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 19:37 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-01 12:27 +0200
Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-01 12:38 +0100
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-01 12:19 +0000
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 10:30 -0800
Re: E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-02 00:56 +0000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 00:28 +0000 |
| Subject | E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <309fb33a3a66f01873fdc890e899a968@www.novabbs.com> |
In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik that received and published his papers about relativity. His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship: m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as E = 3/4 mc² which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity. His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the University of Vienna. This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m = 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes, publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's paper deriving E = mc². https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21 Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics, and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving up in 1942 (7th. attempt). The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by the relationship m = 4/3 E/c². This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the problem. All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when ether is barely mentioned. Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with E = 0.75 mc². Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick (1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other constants and formulae. GR?). Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one: γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β² + 3/4 β⁴ + 15/24 β⁶ + 105/192 β⁸ + .. Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for consensus due to its convenience). The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions: - A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero stress from the forces of radiation and motion. - A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in velocity of the cavity. - The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity. In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit solid angle. - This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant Energy formula by (c/4𝜋), which he accepted when integrating along the volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation energy. With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect). The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these days, in order to be understood. This paper Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc² Stephen Boughn Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041 March 29, 2013 https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162 is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity (or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze Hassenohrl's work. However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first 1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance, introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the velocity). I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen Boughn. Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? Which one would the physics community adopt? Hmmm....
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 18:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <674BCF8E.822@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #659277 |
rhertz wrote: > > In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz > Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship > between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik > that received and published his papers about relativity. > His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an > elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect > black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly > accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to > deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship: > > m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as E = 3/4 mc² > > which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity. > His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the > Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he > succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the > University of Vienna. > > This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m > = 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes, > publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's > paper deriving E = mc². > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21 > > Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different > works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and > changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later > the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by > Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with > the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect > black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics, > and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of > Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has > theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving > up in 1942 (7th. attempt). > > The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy > (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by > the relationship m = 4/3 E/c². > > This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be > explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the > problem. > > All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when > ether is barely mentioned. > > Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist > yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the > cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a > relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it > much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with > E = 0.75 mc². > > Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the > direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick > (1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A > different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a > proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation > was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other > constants and formulae. GR?). > > Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the > velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the > contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use > to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the > first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on > the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one: > > γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β² + 3/4 βⴠ+ 15/24 > βⶠ+ 105/192 β⸠+ .. > > Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he > extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him > neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited > approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for > consensus due to its convenience). > > The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very > detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He > did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions: > > - A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a > perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two > perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero > stress from the forces of radiation and motion. > > - A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in > velocity of the cavity. > > - The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never > mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which > formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity. > In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux > Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit > solid angle. > > - This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant > Energy formula by (c/4ðœ‹), which he accepted when integrating along the > volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation > energy. > > With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his > final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the > problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work > where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works > from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity > cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to > do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in > particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect). > > The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous > complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these > days, in order to be understood. > > This paper > Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc² > Stephen Boughn > Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041 > March 29, 2013 > https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162 > > is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by > using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the > Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity > (or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute > reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to > explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under > the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze > Hassenohrl's work. > > However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first > 1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where > Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance, > introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential > to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the > velocity). > > I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It > seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with > electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to > find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen > Boughn. > > Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? Which one would the physics community > adopt? > > Hmmm.... You mean...in those days they never heard of...footnotes? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <674CCA90.3DD9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #659279 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > rhertz wrote: > > > > In March 1905, six months before Einstein, the Austrian physicist Fritz > > Hasenohrl published his third and final paper about the relationship > > between mass and radiant energy in the same journal Annalen der Physik > > that received and published his papers about relativity. > > His final paper, a review of his former two since 1904, was an > > elaborated thought experiment to determine if the mass of a perfect > > black body radiation increased, from rest, while it was slowly > > accelerated (the same hypothesis used by Einstein in his SR paper, to > > deal with electrons). The final result was that this relationship: > > > > m = 4/3 E/c² , which can be expressed as E = 3/4 mc² > > > > which he found to be independent of the velocity of the cavity. > > His work received much attention from the physics community, and won the > > Haitinger Prize of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. In 1907 he > > succeeded Boltzmann as professor of theoretical physics at the > > University of Vienna. > > > > This is the translation of his first paper, in 1904, where he derived m > > = 8/3 E/c². In the next two papers, he corrected some mistakes, > > publishing the last one in March 1905, six months before Einstein's > > paper deriving E = mc². > > > > https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies#cite_note-21 > > > > Prior to Hassenohrl, and since 1881 paper from J.J. Thomson, different > > works were published correcting Thomson and relating mass increase and > > changes of the electrostatic energy of a moving charged sphere (later > > the electron) by Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Larmor, Wien and (finally) by > > Abraham in 1903. The work of Hassenohrl was based on Abraham, but with > > the fundamental change of using radiant energy from inside a perfect > > black body moving. This alone was considered a breakthrough in physics, > > and Einstein took note of it and simplified the thought experiment of > > Hassenohrl (a closed system) for other in an open system, which has > > theoretical deficiencies, which Einstein was never able to solve, giving > > up in 1942 (7th. attempt). > > > > The remarkable work of Hassenohrl showed, beyond doubts, that any energy > > (electrostatic or radiant) is related to mass increase, when moving, by > > the relationship m = 4/3 E/c². > > > > This fact, known for almost a decade since FitzGerald, couldn't be > > explained correctly until 1922, when Enrico Fermi focused on the > > problem. > > > > All these works are considered today as pre-relativistic, even when > > ether is barely mentioned. > > > > Hassenohrl himself used two references (Einstein jargon didn't exist > > yet): A fixed reference frame and a co-moving reference (along with the > > cavity). The popularization of relativity and the easiness of having a > > relationship E = mc² (even with restricted use of velocities) made it > > much more appealing to the scientific community than having to deal with > > E = 0.75 mc². > > > > Even more, in the next decades, using c = 1 became popular, and so the > > direct use E = m, as it was shown in the calculations done by Chadwick > > (1932) to justify that he had proven the existence of the neutron. A > > different world would exist if E = 0.75 mc² had been adopted, which is a > > proof of what I've sustained for years about that such a simple equation > > was adopted for convenience and colluded consensus (like many other > > constants and formulae. GR?). > > > > Hassenohrl's work proved that his equation is independent of the > > velocity, and that mass is an invariant property of matter. On the > > contrary, E = mc² has a limited range of applicability, forcing its use > > to rations v/c << 1. This is because its derivation comes from using the > > first term (the cuadratic one) of an infinite McLauring series used on > > the expansion of the Gamma factor minus one: > > > > γ - 1 = 1/√(1 - v ²/c²) - 1 = 1/√(1 - β²) - 1 = 1/2 β² + 3/4 βⴠ+ 15/24 > > βⶠ+ 105/192 β⸠+ .. > > > > Einstein used L (γ - 1) ≈ L/2 β² = 1/2 (L/ c²) v², from where he > > extracted m = L/ c² as the mass in the kinetic energy equation. Nor him > > neither von Laue (1911) nor Klein (1919) could solve this very limited > > approximation for uses on closed systems. Yet, the equation stayed (for > > consensus due to its convenience). > > > > The work of Hassenohrl, based on his thought experiment, is very > > detailed. Much more than the loose arrangement of Einstein's paper. He > > did care to present his closed system with severe restrictions: > > > > - A perfect black body cylindrical cavity, with the walls covered with a > > perfectly reflective mirror, exterior temperature of 0"C, and two > > perfect black body caps on the ends, tightly fixed and having zero > > stress from the forces of radiation and motion. > > > > - A very small acceleration, in order to cause smooth changes in > > velocity of the cavity. > > > > - The black body radiation is taken from its intensity i (he never > > mentioned Planck), which he described as a "pencil of energy", which > > formed an angle θ with the vector of velocity. > > In modern terms, it's the Monochromatic Irradiance or Spectral Flux > > Density: Radiance of a surface per unit frequency or wavelength per unit > > solid angle. > > > > - This directional quantity differs from Planck's Spectral Radiant > > Energy formula by (c/4ðœ‹), which he accepted when integrating along the > > volume of the cavity, giving original Planck's density u of radiation > > energy. > > > > With the above considerations, and many others, Hassenohrl wrote his > > final paper, for which he gained recognition and a prize. But the > > problem for him, and for physics, is that it was a pre-relativistic work > > where absolute reference at rest was used (as in all the other works > > from legions of physicists during the centuries). Relativity > > cannibalized all the classic physics, except when it's not convenient to > > do so: a blatant hypocrisy (take the merging of reference frames in > > particle physics, or just the Sagnac effect). > > > > The problem that Hassenohrl's work poses for physics is his enormous > > complexity, which has consumed a lot of manpower since 1905 up to these > > days, in order to be understood. > > > > This paper > > Fritz Hasenohrl and E = mc² > > Stephen Boughn > > Haverford College, Haverford PA 19041 > > March 29, 2013 > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7162 > > > > is one of many modern papers that try to understand Hassenohrl's work by > > using relativity and Planck, which simplify the complex work of the > > Austrian physicist. Even this paper poses some doubts about the validity > > (or not) of Hassenohrl's work in these days, where a notion of absolute > > reference frame is gaining momentum within physics. The paper try to > > explain (but fails) which were Hassenohrl's mistakes (of course under > > the light of relativity), but it serves as a guide to analyze > > Hassenohrl's work. > > > > However, the author is highly biased, because he focused on the first > > 1904 paper and not in the final publication in Annalen der Physik, where > > Hassenohrl had changed substantially his first proposal. For instance, > > introducing the idea of a slowly accelerated cavity (which is essential > > to prove the independence of the gain in mass with respect to the > > velocity). > > > > I'm sorry not being able to get the March 1905 paper to cite it here. It > > seems that efforts to erase Hassenohrl's work (or Abraham's work with > > electrons) from the history have been successful. You have to resort to > > find books from the '50s to get some info, like the one cited by Stephen > > Boughn. > > > > Now, E = 3/4 mc² or E = mc²? Which one would the physics community > > adopt? > > > > Hmmm.... > > You mean...in those days they never heard of...footnotes? I mean, in those days 'they' didn't use footnotes to make reference their sources because it wasn't required then... So, why would Fritz Hasenohrl and Einstein (the guy with autism looking everywhich way than everyone else) be in the same room with Fritz if Einstein didn't get permission to steal from Fritz in 1911???? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1911_Solvay_conference.jpg -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 00:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a89d71ab22cb1e3e279a59fe50ab5ebb@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659290 |
In what is considered as the first experimental proof of Einstein's 1905
E = mc² paper, 27 years after (1932), the English physicist John
Cockroft and the Irish physicist Ernest Walton produced a nuclear
disintegration by bombarding Lithium with artificially accelerated
protons.
They used beams of protons accelerated with 600,000 Volts to strike
Lithium7 atoms, which resulted in the creation of two alpha particles.
The experiment was celebrated as a proof of E = mc², even when the
results were closer to E = 3/4 mc², BUT NOBODY WANTED TO NOTICE THIS!
For this paper, Cockcroft and Walton won the 1951 Nobel Prize in Physics
for their work on the FIRST artificial transmutation of atomic nuclei,
not for proving E = mc², a FALSE CLAIM still used by relativists.
Cockcroft and Walton NEVER HAD IN MIND to prove E = mc², as it can be
shown in his 1932 publication, nor they mentioned Einstein even once:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133
Yet, relativists hurried to celebrate the experiment as a triumph of
Einstein's theories, because they needed such accomplishment to
celebrate the veracity of their pseudoscience.
The equation for their experiment was the following:
7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy
From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932):
Lithium7 amu 7.0104
Hydrogen amu 1.0072
8.0176
Helium amu 4.0011
Helium amu 4.0011
8.0022
Difference 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 ± 2.7 MeV
The difference in energy using E = mc², with 2024 NIST values, varies
from -2.1% to -49.7%, AVERAGING almost -25%.
CURIOUSLY, the average error over hundred of measurements is EXACTLY the
factor 0.75 of the Hassenohrl's formula E = 3/4 mc².
What happened with the history of this experiment. Was it re-written
since THIS single experiment, NEVER EVER REPEATED, to hype Einstein?
---------------------------------------------------
These are the values with NIST 2024:
Lithium7 amu 7.0160034366
Hydrogen amu 1.00782503223
8.02382846883
Helium amu 4.00260325413
Helium amu 4.00260325413
8.00520650826
Difference 0.01862196057 amu
17.36590E+07 MeV
************************************************************
INTERESTING: 92 years after the 1932 experiment, NIST managed to correct
the amu of the elements, so the difference FITS with E = mc².
WORSE YET: In the Manhattan booklet "Los Alamos Primer", written by
Serber & Oppenheimer in 1943, to instruct scientists recruited for the
project, the calculations WRITTEN THERE were based on electrostatic
repulsion of split atoms, which ALSO DIFFER IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT with the
infamous 200 MeV computed by Meitner and her nephew in 1939.
Serber, on his 1992 book, affirmed that nuclear fission WAS UNRELATED to
E = mc², and that the fission process was NON-RELATIVISTIC.
Yet, just after WWII finished, the infamous Time Magazine cover had the
figure of Einstein and the nuclear cloud with E = mc² written on it.
Time Magazine was widely known as an outlet of Jewish propaganda, and
still is (what was left of it).
So, Hassenohrl was the real deal and Einstein the Jewish icon to be
hyper-hyped as the most important physicist since Babylon times?
From 1932 to 1943, the brightest minds involved in EXPERIMENTAL nuclear
fission DIDN'T SUPPORT E = mc².
The above FACT has to count, and open the eyes of most. The drive to
reinstall the genius of Einstein and relativity re-started in the early
'50s, and never did stop (cosmology, particle physics, etc.).
We live in a world of lies and INFAMOUS reconstruction of history, and I
mean ALL THE HISTORY.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9f1cd556912a273a8946c77614611242@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659300 |
SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS POST: On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote: <snip> > From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932): > > > Lithium7 amu 7.0104 > Hydrogen amu 1.0072 > 8.0176 > > Helium amu 4.0011 > Helium amu 4.0011 > 8.0022 > Difference Δamu = 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 MeV ± 2.8 MeV. To this, it has to be added an extra energy of 2.7 MeV Δamu varies between 0.0124 amu and 0.0187 amu. The total change in energy ΔE varies between 14.3 MeV and 19.8 MeV. It corresponds to equations: ΔE = 2/3 Δmc² for 14.3 MeV ΔE = 7/5 Δmc² for 19.8 MeV Authors claimed that momentum was accounted and conserved. These values are written, after hundred of experiments, following the relationship: 7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133 This corresponds to the equation: Considering that momentum is conserved and the energy of the proton is 0.6 MeV, the final values are closer to Hassenohrl than to Einstein. Hardly an experimental verification of ΔE = Δmc², as relativists have claimed as this being the first experimental proof of such equation. <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8a0014e4135992c8ec7bd3f2f1983164@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659305 |
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:44:33 +0000, rhertz wrote: > SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS POST: > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote: > > <snip> > >> From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932): >> >> >> Lithium7 amu 7.0104 >> Hydrogen amu 1.0072 >> 8.0176 >> >> Helium amu 4.0011 >> Helium amu 4.0011 >> 8.0022 >> > > Difference Δamu = 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 MeV ± 2.8 MeV. To this, it > has to be added an extra energy of 2.7 MeV > > Δamu varies between 0.0124 amu and 0.0187 amu. > > The total change in energy ΔE varies between 14.3 MeV and 19.8 MeV. > > > It corresponds to equations: > > ΔE = 2/3 Δmc² for 14.3 MeV > > ΔE = 7/5 Δmc² for 19.8 MeV > > Authors claimed that momentum was accounted and conserved. > > > > These values are written, after hundred of experiments, following the > relationship: > > 7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133 > > This corresponds to the equation: > > Considering that momentum is conserved and the energy of the proton is > 0.6 MeV, the final values are closer to Hassenohrl than to Einstein. > > > Hardly an experimental verification of ΔE = Δmc², as relativists have > claimed as this being the first experimental proof of such equation. Modern measurements are much more accurate. For example, https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a The full paper is also available online. Many more measurements are consistent with E=mc^2, even if the measurements are not from experiments specifically designed to test the prediction. For instance, electron-positron annihilation is routinely observed to result in 0.511 MeV gamma rays. Do you honestly believe that some sort of conspiracy exists to suppress measurements inconsistent with relativistic predictions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 11:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <y6KdnWNMk8g-ldP6nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659306 |
On 12/02/2024 10:07 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: > On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:44:33 +0000, rhertz wrote: > >> SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS POST: >> >> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:36:16 +0000, rhertz wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> From their paper, this is the balance (as published in 1932): >>> >>> >>> Lithium7 amu 7.0104 >>> Hydrogen amu 1.0072 >>> 8.0176 >>> >>> Helium amu 4.0011 >>> Helium amu 4.0011 >>> 8.0022 >>> >> >> Difference Δamu = 0.0154 ± 0.003 amu = 14.3 MeV ± 2.8 MeV. To this, it >> has to be added an extra energy of 2.7 MeV >> >> Δamu varies between 0.0124 amu and 0.0187 amu. >> >> The total change in energy ΔE varies between 14.3 MeV and 19.8 MeV. >> >> >> It corresponds to equations: >> >> ΔE = 2/3 Δmc² for 14.3 MeV >> >> ΔE = 7/5 Δmc² for 19.8 MeV >> >> Authors claimed that momentum was accounted and conserved. >> >> >> >> These values are written, after hundred of experiments, following the >> relationship: >> >> 7:3 Li + 1:1 H ---> 4:2 He + 4:2 He + energy >> >> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1932.0133 >> >> This corresponds to the equation: >> >> Considering that momentum is conserved and the energy of the proton is >> 0.6 MeV, the final values are closer to Hassenohrl than to Einstein. >> >> >> Hardly an experimental verification of ΔE = Δmc², as relativists have >> claimed as this being the first experimental proof of such equation. > > Modern measurements are much more accurate. For example, > https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a > The full paper is also available online. > > Many more measurements are consistent with E=mc^2, even if the > measurements are not from experiments specifically designed to > test the prediction. For instance, electron-positron annihilation > is routinely observed to result in 0.511 MeV gamma rays. > > Do you honestly believe that some sort of conspiracy exists to > suppress measurements inconsistent with relativistic predictions? One imagines not, necessarily, since for example that having "dark energy and dark matter" has long ago falsified theories without such non-scientific non-explanations. In "Electron Physics", O.W. Richardson decribes that the "electron's" "relativistic mass" as it may be as almost entirely relativistic in explanation, vis-a-vis its "mass", per se, while for example long since Lienard-Wiechert's original experiments or this was about a century ago, these days it's "electron-holes" which sort of only represent a bit of back-and-forth what propagates, current. How about the 1995 if not the 2024 "atomic weight" values? Of course it's well known that NIST CODATA Particle Data Group releases new values for constants every few years. "Modern measurements" _decrease_. Of course everybody knows that the usual e=mc^2 is only derived from K.E. Taylor series first term, the rest infinitely-many truncated (not even having matching units), and that SR's arrival at e = mc^2 is circular. Then there's also "Einstein's second mass-energy equivalency derivation", yet it's sort of, formally un-linear. Anyways if you leave out "dark matter" then "relativity" or the "classical in the limit, Newtonian", in the limit it attains to is long ago falsified. Then, about things like electron self-energy and various quite a few things about the stack of derivations and what the "linearisations" have made so great and lost, have that it's the mathematics that needs more than a "partial" account. Anyways the actual laws of mechanics even indeed have things to fix and repair since before Galileo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <13877dcc9c6a6f2dd8056d8c05f0c661@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659306 |
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:22:50 +0000, rhertz wrote: > Yes, I do. > > In particular since mid '50s. > > Too much money, credibility on science due to the sustained hype over > relativity, prestige and many other important issues are involved. > > Considering that E = mc² has been publicly hyped as the most important > equation in the history of science Most famous, NOT the most important. Hardly ANYBODY would claim that it is the most important. > (See Max Planck Institute), imagine > THE DISASTER for science, millions of publications, academy, etc., that > it would cause publishing (with proofs): > > BREAKING NEWS: E = mc² HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE > SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISMENT! > > > What would follow to this news, even if actually E = 0.99 mc²? We know that E = mc² to about the 10^-7 level. If the equation is found to be off at some level of significance, that would be an extremely important result, not the end of science. > Worse than proving that the speed of light in vacuum, across large > distance, IS NOT A CONSTANT. Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost | towards unification."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 16:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tfGdnSYN5prZztP6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659308 |
On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: > Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle > test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that > it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at > some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: > > | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are > | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a > | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a > | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this > | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from > | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts > | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive > | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost > | towards unification." Oh, which way is it going to be?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 02:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <095f2840c6fa1af0a3d70f9f5a2136b7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659309 |
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: > >> Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle >> test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that >> it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at >> some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: >> >> | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are >> | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a >> | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a >> | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this >> | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from >> | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts >> | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive >> | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost >> | towards unification." > > Oh, which way is it going to be? Either way is a win. A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories. A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 19:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lBOdnYVqxNFD6NP6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659311 |
On 12/02/2024 06:35 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: > >> On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >> >>> Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle >>> test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that >>> it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at >>> some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: >>> >>> | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are >>> | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a >>> | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a >>> | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this >>> | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from >>> | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts >>> | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive >>> | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost >>> | towards unification." >> >> Oh, which way is it going to be? > > Either way is a win. > > A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the > alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of > the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in > importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly > implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories. > > A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find > a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR. So, a pat on the head or a kick in the ass? I suppose their theories of gravitation fixed perpetual motion too, or the constant violation of conservation of energy. Don't get me wrong, the equivalence principle wasn't always a thing, and the ether/aether theories have come in and out of fashion. One time I read in a magazine "the difference between fashion and style, is that fashion goes in and out of style, yet style is never out of fashion." Since Lense Thirring and Pioneer Anomaly yet really after classical mechanics what's different "gravity's force" and "g-forces", some sites claim things like "equivalence principle is violated all the time". https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle Once entirely forbidden and vigorously castigated, now top in results "don't be what you think is right wrongly". Because it really ruins argument from authority when it's not anymore. Or if it was ever wrong. The magnetopause or about where Earth's gravity well is 50/50, to decay or not, you can read Einstein about it, it's like "Einstein, did you really say there _is_ an ether?" and he's like "yeah, uh huh", then it's like "Einstein, what does that mean for the equivalence principle" and he might be like "well, you see, it's just a _principle_, it's a nice way of looking at things that totally simplifies some thing, _principles_ are not the same thing as _cause_, see". Now, the L-principle for light's speed's constancy is held up a little more than that, strength-wise, yet "the locality of SR" has that it's according to the space and that the space is according to GR, much like the equivalence principle, the L-principle. About _mass_ and _inertia_ and _momentum_ and _heft_ and whether _heft_ is _inertial_ and whether _momentum_ in kinematics oscillates real/virtual or classical/potential, that it's an _inertial system_ and with regards to whether the terrestrial frame is moving along with the solar moving along with the pole star frame, and so on, the orbital and the ecliptic and the zodaical, has that according to Einstein it's an _inertial_ system for avoiding circular insoluble mathematical singularities, and he has that as a _law_. Anyways if "theories of gravitation" don't solve "conservation of energy" then they deserve the great round-file. Now, Eotvos was a pretty big deal, if the precession of the ball pair is to considered for its "rest for its spinning out at the LaGrange point", vis-a-vis, Michelson-Morley and "the mirror-pond of the mercury bath, after it all wound down and we could watch it spin following Foucault", to be sure, in the middle, there's a null. "Round and round and round it goes, then it sort of goes according to Foucault". Or Coriolis, .... About "fifth force" or whatever that was just supposed to be "gravity straight down", that in a fall-gravity is quite different than a pull gravity, where it's figured that fall-gravity just makes time and gravity their gradients balance each other. So, this way then fall-gravity is same as nuclear, that any theory of gravity must satisfy being a model of a fall-gravity. If laws are the same everywhere, .... In principle, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <HI-dnf917PSq4NL6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659312 |
On 12/02/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 12/02/2024 06:35 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> >>> On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >>> >>>> Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle >>>> test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that >>>> it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at >>>> some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: >>>> >>>> | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are >>>> | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a >>>> | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a >>>> | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this >>>> | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from >>>> | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts >>>> | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive >>>> | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost >>>> | towards unification." >>> >>> Oh, which way is it going to be? >> >> Either way is a win. >> >> A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the >> alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of >> the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in >> importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly >> implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories. >> >> A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find >> a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR. > > So, a pat on the head or a kick in the ass? > > I suppose their theories of gravitation fixed perpetual motion > too, or the constant violation of conservation of energy. > > Don't get me wrong, the equivalence principle wasn't always > a thing, and the ether/aether theories have come in and out > of fashion. > > One time I read in a magazine "the difference between fashion > and style, is that fashion goes in and out of style, > yet style is never out of fashion." > > > Since Lense Thirring and Pioneer Anomaly yet really after > classical mechanics what's different "gravity's force" > and "g-forces", some sites claim things like "equivalence > principle is violated all the time". > > https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle > > Once entirely forbidden and vigorously castigated, > now top in results "don't be what you think is right wrongly". > > Because it really ruins argument from authority > when it's not anymore. Or if it was ever wrong. > > > The magnetopause or about where Earth's gravity well > is 50/50, to decay or not, you can read Einstein about > it, it's like "Einstein, did you really say there _is_ > an ether?" and he's like "yeah, uh huh", then it's like > "Einstein, what does that mean for the equivalence principle" > and he might be like "well, you see, it's just a _principle_, > it's a nice way of looking at things that totally simplifies > some thing, _principles_ are not the same thing as _cause_, > see". > > Now, the L-principle for light's speed's constancy is held > up a little more than that, strength-wise, yet "the locality > of SR" has that it's according to the space and that the > space is according to GR, much like the equivalence principle, > the L-principle. > > About _mass_ and _inertia_ and _momentum_ and _heft_ and > whether _heft_ is _inertial_ and whether _momentum_ in > kinematics oscillates real/virtual or classical/potential, > that it's an _inertial system_ and with regards to > whether the terrestrial frame is moving along with > the solar moving along with the pole star frame, > and so on, the orbital and the ecliptic and the zodaical, > has that according to Einstein it's an _inertial_ system > for avoiding circular insoluble mathematical singularities, > and he has that as a _law_. > > > Anyways if "theories of gravitation" don't solve "conservation > of energy" then they deserve the great round-file. > > Now, Eotvos was a pretty big deal, if the precession of > the ball pair is to considered for its "rest for its > spinning out at the LaGrange point", vis-a-vis, Michelson-Morley > and "the mirror-pond of the mercury bath, after it all > wound down and we could watch it spin following Foucault", > to be sure, in the middle, there's a null. > > "Round and round and round it goes, > then it sort of goes according to Foucault". > > Or Coriolis, .... > > > About "fifth force" or whatever that was just supposed > to be "gravity straight down", that in a fall-gravity > is quite different than a pull gravity, where it's > figured that fall-gravity just makes time and gravity > their gradients balance each other. > > So, this way then fall-gravity is same as nuclear, > that any theory of gravity must satisfy being a > model of a fall-gravity. > > If laws are the same everywhere, .... > > In principle, .... > > O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter" is really pretty great, from the outset he details why there is the aether yet also that the medium makes for the usual analysis as these days is, and then also things like charge and "real and fictitious", helping explain why matters of potential are real and "real and fictitious" merely differentiate perspectives and they're both real, contra usual un-qualified usage where of course fictitious means un-so. So, of course he's a big fan of Faraday. It's after Lorentz and Zeeman, yet also after Rutherford and Geiger, works up a usual Laplace, Gauss, Green, Poisson, and gets into rays and refraction, which affects light, and Roentgen Rays. "One is tempted to ask what can be the use of a conception of the electric intensity which is so much at variance with what we believe to be the reality. The answer is, of course, that most of our methods of experimenting are so coarse, compared with the atomic scale, that they do not detect these enormous differences which occur within distances of the order of atomic magnitude. Our experimental arrangements for the most part measure only the average values over spaces containing a large number of atoms. The reason why our average values possess validity is not because they are the true values but because, so far as such experimental arrangements enable us to detect, everything happens as if the average values were the true values." -- O.W. Richardson Mentions Rowland, 1876, Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik, reminds me to look into Droste, then about Leroux and Kundt, with regards to Richardon's optical theories of transmission vis-a-vis the dielectric. Since they're not the same, optical and electrical intensity, .... Yeah a fall gravity courtesy a gradient, with mechanics and inertia and heft flow and flux, and then the electrical, flow and flux, and optical and radionuclear, flow and flux, courtesy time in space, makes for a usual theory where "energy is conserved" is not ignored or violated or made un-scientific or non-scientific or otherwise what's considered wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mJWcnYGWRo82EM36nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659320 |
On 12/03/2024 01:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 12/02/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 12/02/2024 06:35 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: >>>> >>>>> Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle >>>>> test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that >>>>> it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at >>>>> some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: >>>>> >>>>> | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are >>>>> | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a >>>>> | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a >>>>> | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this >>>>> | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from >>>>> | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts >>>>> | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive >>>>> | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost >>>>> | towards unification." >>>> >>>> Oh, which way is it going to be? >>> >>> Either way is a win. >>> >>> A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the >>> alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of >>> the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in >>> importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly >>> implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories. >>> >>> A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find >>> a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR. >> >> So, a pat on the head or a kick in the ass? >> >> I suppose their theories of gravitation fixed perpetual motion >> too, or the constant violation of conservation of energy. >> >> Don't get me wrong, the equivalence principle wasn't always >> a thing, and the ether/aether theories have come in and out >> of fashion. >> >> One time I read in a magazine "the difference between fashion >> and style, is that fashion goes in and out of style, >> yet style is never out of fashion." >> >> >> Since Lense Thirring and Pioneer Anomaly yet really after >> classical mechanics what's different "gravity's force" >> and "g-forces", some sites claim things like "equivalence >> principle is violated all the time". >> >> https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle >> >> Once entirely forbidden and vigorously castigated, >> now top in results "don't be what you think is right wrongly". >> >> Because it really ruins argument from authority >> when it's not anymore. Or if it was ever wrong. >> >> >> The magnetopause or about where Earth's gravity well >> is 50/50, to decay or not, you can read Einstein about >> it, it's like "Einstein, did you really say there _is_ >> an ether?" and he's like "yeah, uh huh", then it's like >> "Einstein, what does that mean for the equivalence principle" >> and he might be like "well, you see, it's just a _principle_, >> it's a nice way of looking at things that totally simplifies >> some thing, _principles_ are not the same thing as _cause_, >> see". >> >> Now, the L-principle for light's speed's constancy is held >> up a little more than that, strength-wise, yet "the locality >> of SR" has that it's according to the space and that the >> space is according to GR, much like the equivalence principle, >> the L-principle. >> >> About _mass_ and _inertia_ and _momentum_ and _heft_ and >> whether _heft_ is _inertial_ and whether _momentum_ in >> kinematics oscillates real/virtual or classical/potential, >> that it's an _inertial system_ and with regards to >> whether the terrestrial frame is moving along with >> the solar moving along with the pole star frame, >> and so on, the orbital and the ecliptic and the zodaical, >> has that according to Einstein it's an _inertial_ system >> for avoiding circular insoluble mathematical singularities, >> and he has that as a _law_. >> >> >> Anyways if "theories of gravitation" don't solve "conservation >> of energy" then they deserve the great round-file. >> >> Now, Eotvos was a pretty big deal, if the precession of >> the ball pair is to considered for its "rest for its >> spinning out at the LaGrange point", vis-a-vis, Michelson-Morley >> and "the mirror-pond of the mercury bath, after it all >> wound down and we could watch it spin following Foucault", >> to be sure, in the middle, there's a null. >> >> "Round and round and round it goes, >> then it sort of goes according to Foucault". >> >> Or Coriolis, .... >> >> >> About "fifth force" or whatever that was just supposed >> to be "gravity straight down", that in a fall-gravity >> is quite different than a pull gravity, where it's >> figured that fall-gravity just makes time and gravity >> their gradients balance each other. >> >> So, this way then fall-gravity is same as nuclear, >> that any theory of gravity must satisfy being a >> model of a fall-gravity. >> >> If laws are the same everywhere, .... >> >> In principle, .... >> >> > > O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter" is > really pretty great, from the outset he details why > there is the aether yet also that the medium makes > for the usual analysis as these days is, and then > also things like charge and "real and fictitious", > helping explain why matters of potential are real > and "real and fictitious" merely differentiate perspectives > and they're both real, contra usual un-qualified usage > where of course fictitious means un-so. > > So, of course he's a big fan of Faraday. > > It's after Lorentz and Zeeman, yet also after Rutherford > and Geiger, works up a usual Laplace, Gauss, Green, Poisson, > and gets into rays and refraction, which affects light, > and Roentgen Rays. > > "One is tempted to ask what can be the use of > a conception of the electric intensity which is > so much at variance with what we believe to be > the reality. The answer is, of course, that most > of our methods of experimenting are so coarse, > compared with the atomic scale, that they do not > detect these enormous differences which occur within > distances of the order of atomic magnitude. Our > experimental arrangements for the most part measure > only the average values over spaces containing a > large number of atoms. The reason why our average > values possess validity is not because they are > the true values but because, so far as such experimental > arrangements enable us to detect, everything happens > as if the average values were the true values." > -- O.W. Richardson > > > Mentions Rowland, 1876, Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik, > reminds me to look into Droste, then about Leroux > and Kundt, with regards to Richardon's optical > theories of transmission vis-a-vis the dielectric. > > Since they're not the same, optical and electrical > intensity, .... > > > Yeah a fall gravity courtesy a gradient, with > mechanics and inertia and heft flow and flux, > and then the electrical, flow and flux, and > optical and radionuclear, flow and flux, > courtesy time in space, makes for a usual > theory where "energy is conserved" is not > ignored or violated or made un-scientific or > non-scientific or otherwise what's considered wrong. > > Richardson helps advise that light's "c", and electromagnetic radiation's "c", and the ratio electrostatic/electromagnetic, "c", are three different things. About the same, ..., in deep space in a vacuum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a7d26012926823b22e139af8670cbbe7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659308 |
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:54:42 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: <snip> > We know that E = mc² to about the 10^-7 level. > > If the equation is found to be off at some level of significance, > that would be an extremely important result, not the end of science. > >> Worse than proving that the speed of light in vacuum, across large >> distance, IS NOT A CONSTANT. > > Personally, I hope that the next space-borne equivalence principle > test, whatever technology it uses (STEP never got the funding that > it deserved), finds that the equivalence principle breaks down at > some level of accuracy. As I have written elsewhere: > > | "Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are > | approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a > | violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a > | violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this > | range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from > | other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts > | to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive > | detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost > | towards unification." These are the values of the 1932 experiment with NIST 2024 data: Lithium7 amu 7.0160034366 Hydrogen amu 1.00782503223 8.02382846883 Helium amu 4.00260325413 Helium amu 4.00260325413 8.00520650826 Difference (amu) 0.01862196057 Difference (eV) 17.3462464706347E+06 Difference (J) 2.7791750783E-12 Is this the level of precision that you claim to exist with E = mc²? Check this out: HISTORY OF THE RECOMMENDED ATOMIC-WEIGHT VALUES FROM 1882 TO 1997: A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES FROM CURRENT VALUES TO THE ESTIMATED UNCERTAINTIES OF EARLIER VALUES https://www.ciaaw.org/hydrogen.htm For Hydrogen, they don't go further than 5 decimals. Not to mention Li7, which seems to pose some problems since ever, even with the best mass spectrometry instrumentation. ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE: Atomic mass units (AMU) are a unit of mass used to measure atomic masses, while atomic weight is the average weight of an element's isotopes: Atomic mass units: A unit of mass used to measure atomic masses. One AMU is equal to 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom in a grounded state. AMU is also known as a Dalton. Atomic weight: The average weight of an element's isotopes, taking into account their relative abundances. Atomic weight is measured in AMU. --------------------------------------------------------------- So, how can NIST publish up to 10 decimal digits, if those who ACTUALLY measure atomic weight and amu of elements uses 5 decimal digits? These guys, from CIAAW, recollect and distribute data. NIST uses it. https://www.ciaaw.org/members.htm CIAAW is part of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), which publishes revised tables of RECOMMENDED atomic-weight values. Collision, collusion. Which is the difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 14:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vin06m$2q2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659310 |
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:22:50 +0000, rhertz wrote: > >> BREAKING NEWS: E = mc² HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE >> SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISMENT! >> >> >> What would follow to this news, even if actually E = 0.99 mc²? If you believe that E = const mc² where const is any number, and the constant c is the speed of light in the inertial frame where m is stationary, then you believe that the speed of light is invariant. Is this what you believe? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df76d88c3e9729de443afca2c0cf99fa@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659310 |
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 2:22:27 +0000, rhertz wrote: > Collision, collusion. Which is the difference? So, the fact that more recent measurements are significantly different from older results in that they better support E=mc^2 is de facto evidence of selective tweaking of results, fakery, and collusion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2c831e6c7e0103c00fcebe8074fec8db@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659317 |
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:01:10 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 2:22:27 +0000, rhertz wrote: > >> Collision, collusion. Which is the difference? > > So, the fact that more recent measurements are significantly different > from older results in that they better support E=mc^2 is de facto > evidence of selective tweaking of results, fakery, and collusion? ALL OF THEM. IN PARTICULAR COLLUSION TO HAVE EVERY PHYSICAL CONSTANT RELATED TO OTHERS, SO ALL THE FORMULAE GIVE COHERENT RESULTS (COHERENT WITH WHAT? WITH THE BUILDING OF PHYSICS). CALL IT AS YOU WANT. ************************************************************ SOME PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FIXED BY COLLUSION LED BY CIPM AND ADOPTED BY DIFFERENT CGPM (GENERAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHT AND MEASURES) SINCE 1970: ________________________________________ 1. Speed of Light in Vacuum (c) Value: 299,792,458 m/s Fixed: 1983, fixed by the 17th CGPM DERIVED: 1 meter is the distance light travels in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds. ________________________________________ 2. Second (s) Definition based on: Transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom. Fixed: 1967, by the 13th CGPM Second: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two levels. ________________________________________ 3. Planck Constant (h) Value: 6.626 070 15 × 10⁻³⁴ J•s Fixed: 2019, by the 26th CGPM DERIVED: The kilogram is now defined in terms of the Planck constant and the meter and second (related through quantum mechanics). ________________________________________ 4. Elementary Charge (e) Value: 1.602 176 634 × 10⁻¹⁹ C Fixed: 2019 The same redefinition of the SI system in 2019 fixed the value of the elementary charge, effectively redefining the ampere. ________________________________________ 5. Boltzmann Constant (k) Value: 1.380 649 × 10⁻²³ J/K Fixed: 2019 This fixed value redefined the kelvin as a unit of thermodynamic temperature, relating it directly to energy. ________________________________________ 6. Avogadro Constant (Nₐ) Value: 6.02214076 × 10²³ mol⁻¹ Fixed: 2019 The Avogadro constant was set to an exact value in 2019, redefining the mole. 1 mole now contains exactly 6.02214076 × 10²³ entities (atoms, molecules, etc.). ________________________________________ 7. Magnetic Constant (μ₀) Fixed Value: Previously 4π × 10⁻⁷ N/A² (inexact) Before 2019, μ₀ was defined EXACTLY, but now it is A DERIVED CONSTANT, based on the fine-structure constant (α), Planck constant, and the elementary charge. ________________________________________ 8. Electric Constant (ε₀) Similar to μ₀, the electric constant is no longer fixed but DERIVED from other constants like the speed of light and magnetic permeability. ________________________________________ 9. Fine-Structure Constant (α) Not fixed but DERIVED from other constants: α = e²/(4πε₀ℏc) ≈ 1/137 ________________________________________ 10. Rydberg Constant (R∞) Value: 10,973,731.568160 m⁻¹ The Rydberg constant is DERIVED from fixed constants like the Planck constant (ℎ), speed of light (𝑐), and electron mass. ________________________________________ 11. Gravitational Constant (G) Unlike many other constants, G (≈ 6.67430 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) is not fixed and remains one of the least precisely known constants. This is due to experimental difficulties in measuring it accurately. ________________________________________ 12. Permeability of Free Space (μ₀) Old fixed value: 4π × 10⁻⁷ N•A⁻² (EXACT VALUE) Since 2019, DERIVED based on the speed of light (c), Planck constant (h), and elementary charge (e), and no longer fixed. It is related to the fine-structure constant: μ₀=2hα/(e²c) ________________________________________ 13. Permittivity of Free Space (ε₀) Old FIXED value: 8.854187817 × 10⁻¹² F•m⁻¹ (exact value) After 2019, DERIVED using the relation: ε₀ = 1/(μ₀c²) ________________________________________ 14. Molar Gas Constant (R) Value: 8.314462618 J•mol⁻¹•K⁻¹ DERIVED from fixed constants like the Boltzmann constant (k) and Avogadro number (Nₐ): R = Nₐ × k ________________________________________ 15. Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (σ) Value: 5.670374419 × 10⁻⁸ W•m⁻²•K⁻⁴ DERIVED from fixed constants such as the Boltzmann constant (k), speed of light (c), and Planck constant (h): σ = 2π⁵k⁴/(15h³c²) ________________________________________ 16. Wien’s Displacement Constant (b) Value: 2.897771955 × 10⁻³ m•K DERIVED from fixed constants such as the Boltzmann constant (k) and Planck constant (h): b = hc/(k×4.9651) (numerical factor from Planck’s law) ________________________________________ 17. von Klitzing Constant (R_K) Value: 25,812.8074593045 Ω DERIVED from the Planck constant (h) and elementary charge (e): R_K = h/e² Used in the quantum Hall effect to define the ohm. ________________________________________ 18. Faraday Constant (F) Value: 96,485.332 123 310 C•mol⁻¹ Relates to the charge of one mole of electrons and is DERIVED from F = Nₐ × e ________________________________________ 19. Electron Volt (eV) Value: 1 eV = 1.602176634 × 10⁻¹⁹ J DEFINED in 2019, based on the exact value of the elementary charge (e). ________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7d37d6e841cd1936217b21a5847fc507@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659318 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 10:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7511bb1b9b748c76df265f91eaaa468a@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659319 |
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. Do you want to go back to three barleycorns per inch? Or the historical chaos that resulted in the Troy pound, Tower pound, London pound, Wool pound, Jersey pound, Trone pound, libra, livre and so forth? Or a second equals 1/86400 part of a day?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <67503f94$0$12915$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659325 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web