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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 12:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <3c8abe81804e4c5b6ced7aefae766c7d@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659326 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 21:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <6750b8d4$0$29710$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659327 |
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So you haven't understood what it is all about. I rest my case, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 13:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <4t6dncjFbbxIVM36nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659332 |
On 12/04/2024 12:17 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > So you haven't understood what it is all about. > I rest my case, > > Jan > What's that in dynes? The "dynamics" and all, .... The current latest greatest SI units make it dirt simple to formalize electronic circuitry (in deep space, in a vacuum, alone, at operating temperature), and leave out as "dimensionless" all the "dynamics" what go into the "derivations" all these matters of very definitions of units themselves. So, it only serves a particularly simple subset of SR-ians. Because layout is hard, .... "The latest SI re-definition." Of course, then there's that that "E = mc^2, exactly" is a _circular_ argument and makes, though a positivist theory, demanding what it stipulates is so, that it's not really attached to the "physical interpretation", insofar as with regards to electrostatic, electromagnetism, electrical and magnetic and optical intensities, and such matters of radionuclear radiation, and also "gravitational waves" and other forms of radiation, like nutation. The very latest here makes a very brief packet, "here's physics, SR-ians, you're on your own". (I forgot who here originally coined the term "SR-ians", with regards to things like "Einstein already said SR was local and its space was spacial, 75 years ago", with regards to SR-IANS, and, "KISS-SR-ians", as it were.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 22:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <d4459e69f16a34d89b68e5f2cdcb59a5@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659332 |
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. Since 1983, the speed of light in vacuum has been defined as exactly equal to 299,792,458 meters per second. 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 15:56 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <cnmdnYSL9bOIcc36nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659334 |
On 12/04/2024 02:20 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog 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. > > Since 1983, the speed of light in vacuum has been defined as exactly > equal to 299,792,458 meters per second. > > 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? The definition of the speed of light in what theory? You mean you have a theory that says nothing at all about it except that it's a finite constant? Then other theories say what that entails, if it isn't up into indeterminate-quantities then besides like Einstein says that the L-principle is a local thing and that the "spacial SR" and "spatial GR" are at least two different things and that it depends on what's "classical gravity" and depends on whether motion has constant velocity, these kinds of things? What you don't include boost addition, the Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor and Regge map, Hermann, Baecklund, Bianchi, these kinds of things? So, the L-principle of SR indeed has that light's speed is a constant, and finite. Then though sometimes "wave-length" is "inverse frequency" and in other considerations "wave velocity", so, they kind of line up at one end, yet, there's multiplicities, that's what-all singularity theory, usually theories about 2/3 of the hypergeometric with principal branches of multiplicity theories. Don't get me wrong, "multiple-worlds" has no physical interpretation, or, at least scientifically. It's a great realm of many theories, though. I sort of enjoy this since foundations of mathematics and foundations of physics have a lot in common. Mathematical physics, ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 17:15 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <6750FEB8.500C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #659334 |
ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog 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. > > Since 1983, the speed of light in vacuum has been defined as exactly > equal to 299,792,458 meters per second. > > 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? There is 'no such thing' as a vacumn that exist anywhere... the definition is a fraud. There is no 'vacumn' that exist in which an "experiment" can be performed at. -- 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 | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 11:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <67518702$3$11436$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659334 |
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. 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 orientatation in space. (even if it may loosely be called differently) It has no bearing at all on the possibility of doing such experiments. 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 hypothecalities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 12:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <67a76dbc2e8f41f5749777b1fa55e2c1@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659340 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 15:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <2Ji4P.2$4s%.1@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #659332 |
Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder: > 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, > > Jan The meter is defined as: 1 metre = (1 sec/299792458 m/s) 1 second = 9192631770 Δν_Cs Note that neither the definition of second nor the definition of metre depend on the speed of light. The constant 299792458 m/s is equal to the defined speed of light, but in the definition of the metre it is a constant. That means that it possible to measure the speed of light even if it is different from the defined value. So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458.000001 m/s, then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. The point is that the metre isn't define by the speed of light, but by the constant 299792458 m/s. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 19:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <6751f410$0$518$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659344 |
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder: > > 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, > > > > Jan > > The meter is defined as: > > 1 metre = (1 sec/?299792458? m/s) > > 1 second = 9192631770 ??_Cs > > Note that neither the definition of second nor the definition > of metre depend on the speed of light. > > The constant ?299792458? m/s is equal to the defined speed of light, > but in the definition of the metre it is a constant. > > That means that it possible to measure the speed of light > even if it is different from the defined value. > The point is that the metre isn't define by the speed of light, > but by the constant 299792458? m/s. So you didn't get the point either. (also suffering from a naive empirist bias, I guess) The point is not about pottering around with lasers and all that, it is about correctly interpreting what you are doing. To do that you need to understand the physics of it. In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. [1] > So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better > precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, > then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with > SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. Such a result does not mean that the speed of light is off its defined value, it means that your meter standard is off, and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) In other words, it means that you can nowadays calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. This is no doubt true, but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458? m/s (exactly) Jan -- Aber das ist Falsch! Sogar ganz Falsch!! (Wolfgang Pauli) [1] They publish 'prefered values' for the frequencies of a number of standard laser lines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 18:29 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <m1Sdnbxu8Kfu_M_6nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659347 |
On 12/05/2024 10:42 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder: >>> 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, >>> >>> Jan >> >> The meter is defined as: >> >> 1 metre = (1 sec/?299792458? m/s) >> >> 1 second = 9192631770 ??_Cs >> >> Note that neither the definition of second nor the definition >> of metre depend on the speed of light. >> >> The constant ?299792458? m/s is equal to the defined speed of light, >> but in the definition of the metre it is a constant. >> >> That means that it possible to measure the speed of light >> even if it is different from the defined value. > >> The point is that the metre isn't define by the speed of light, >> but by the constant 299792458? m/s. > > So you didn't get the point either. > (also suffering from a naive empirist bias, I guess) > > The point is not about pottering around with lasers and all that, > it is about correctly interpreting what you are doing. > To do that you need to understand the physics of it. > > In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called > 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) > are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. > The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements > are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', > or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. [1] > >> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better >> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, >> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with >> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. > > So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. > Such a result does not mean that the speed of light > is off its defined value, > it means that your meter standard is off, > and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. > (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) > > In other words, it means that you can nowadays > calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard > to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. > This is no doubt true, > but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. > > In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. > The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, > that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458? m/s (exactly) > > Jan > Not only "deep space in a vacuum, alone, at constant velocity", yet, what is the "radius of gyration"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 03:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <10a5a324971fc303d7a5d839145ca074@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659356 |
Permittivity and permeability at the center of each galaxy are different from the values of ε₀ and μ₀ on the outer limits of each one. So, the value of c₀ = 1/√(ε₀μ₀) applies only locally. c, out there, can be higher or lower than the fixed 299,792,458 m/s that arrogant assholes here want to project and use for the entire infinite universe. Even the Alan Guth's Big Bang model consider this as a fact in the theory, in particular since the first 10E-32 seconds up to 300,000 years after the inflation. The speed of light is considered, in the BBT, as almost infinite at the beginning of light, when it appeared after the BB. The VELOCITY of light was anything but isotropic, and has been slowing down since the dawn of time. Now, who can be so imbecile to believe that c₀ = 299,792,458 m/s apply for the entire universe of now, 3,000,000,000 ly far from here? Only retarded scientists in the last 100 years, so they can keep pretending that they can MODEL the entire universe and its behavior, living in a remote dust calling Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <6752d686$0$416$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659359 |
On 2024-12-06 02:29:15 +0000, Ross Finlayson said: > On 12/05/2024 10:42 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > > Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder: > 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, > > Jan > > The meter is defined as: > > 1 metre = (1 sec/?299792458? m/s) > > 1 second = 9192631770 ??_Cs > > Note that neither the definition of second nor the definition > of metre depend on the speed of light. > > The constant ?299792458? m/s is equal to the defined speed of light, > but in the definition of the metre it is a constant. > > That means that it possible to measure the speed of light > even if it is different from the defined value. > > The point is that the metre isn't define by the speed of light, > but by the constant 299792458? m/s. > > So you didn't get the point either. > (also suffering from a naive empirist bias, I guess) > > The point is not about pottering around with lasers and all that, > it is about correctly interpreting what you are doing. > To do that you need to understand the physics of it. > > In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called > 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) > are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. > The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements > are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', > or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. [1] > > So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better > precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, > then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with > SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. > > So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. > Such a result does not mean that the speed of light > is off its defined value, > it means that your meter standard is off, > and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. > (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) > > In other words, it means that you can nowadays > calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard > to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. > This is no doubt true, > but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. > > In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. > The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, > that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458? m/s (exactly) Not only "deep space in a vacuum, alone, at constant velocity", yet, what is the "radius of gyration"? There is no SI meter in "deep space in a vacuum, alone, at constant velocity" SI meters exist only in SI standards laboratories. Elsewhere there are only less accurate copies. Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 10:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <zuKdnel25YZn2876nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659360 |
On 12/06/2024 02:48 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > On 2024-12-06 02:29:15 +0000, Ross Finlayson said: > >> On 12/05/2024 10:42 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >> >> Den 04.12.2024 21:17, skrev J. J. Lodder: >> 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, >> >> Jan >> >> The meter is defined as: >> >> 1 metre = (1 sec/?299792458? m/s) >> >> 1 second = 9192631770 ??_Cs >> >> Note that neither the definition of second nor the definition >> of metre depend on the speed of light. >> >> The constant ?299792458? m/s is equal to the defined speed of light, >> but in the definition of the metre it is a constant. >> >> That means that it possible to measure the speed of light >> even if it is different from the defined value. >> >> The point is that the metre isn't define by the speed of light, >> but by the constant 299792458? m/s. >> >> So you didn't get the point either. >> (also suffering from a naive empirist bias, I guess) >> >> The point is not about pottering around with lasers and all that, >> it is about correctly interpreting what you are doing. >> To do that you need to understand the physics of it. >> >> In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called >> 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) >> are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. >> The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements >> are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', >> or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. [1] >> >> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better >> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, >> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with >> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. >> >> So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. >> Such a result does not mean that the speed of light >> is off its defined value, >> it means that your meter standard is off, >> and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. >> (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) >> >> In other words, it means that you can nowadays >> calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard >> to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. >> This is no doubt true, >> but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. >> >> In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. >> The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, >> that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458? m/s (exactly) > > Not only "deep space in a vacuum, alone, at constant velocity", > yet, what is the "radius of gyration"? > > There is no SI meter in "deep space in a vacuum, alone, at constant > velocity" > SI meters exist only in SI standards laboratories. > Elsewhere there are only less accurate copies. > > Jan > > > > > > Oh, here there's also a mathematical universe hypothesis, of a continuum mechanics and about infinity in nature, and also there's a "real realism", as with regards to the _ideal_, the _ideal_, of length in space and the meter of space thusly also the meter of time. It's like, I'm reading Tinkham's group theory book, it's pretty great and a lot of algebra then at the end he details a bunch of groups then these with these just arbitrary seeming "well it's less than a dozen" giving reasons why the usual "metrics" and "amplitudes" are quite very tattered at the edges.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 11:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <6752d686$1$416$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659359 |
rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > Permittivity and permeability at the center of each galaxy are different > from the values of ?? and ?? on the outer limits of each one. > > So, the value of c? = 1/√(????) applies only locally. There we go again. Is there really no part of physics that you don't misunderstand? FYI, eps_0 and mu_0 are not physical quantities. They are artifacts of an ill-conceived unit system. (the SI) In any half-way decent unit system they are both equal to 1, with c appearing explictly in Maxwell's equations in the right places. Even saying that they have been put equal to one is too kind to them. They just have no physical existence at all, Jan -- They are as physical as the 'tractability of free space' tau_0. You know, the dimensionless constant with value one that appears in Newton's force law: F = tau_0 m a
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-07 04:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <dd88bc93eb5f5019e612a47a645d58d7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659359 |
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 3:55:45 +0000, rhertz wrote: > Permittivity and permeability at the center of each galaxy are different > from the values of ε₀ and μ₀ on the outer limits of each one. > > So, the value of c₀ = 1/√(ε₀μ₀) applies only locally. Please provide references for this assertion. > c, out there, can be higher or lower than the fixed 299,792,458 m/s that > arrogant assholes here want to project and use for the entire infinite > universe. > > Even the Alan Guth's Big Bang model consider this as a fact in the > theory, in particular since the first 10E-32 seconds up to 300,000 years > after the inflation. The speed of light is considered, in the BBT, as > almost infinite at the beginning of light, when it appeared after the > BB. > > The VELOCITY of light was anything but isotropic, and has been slowing > down since the dawn of time. > > Now, who can be so imbecile to believe that c₀ = 299,792,458 m/s apply > for the entire universe of now, 3,000,000,000 ly far from here? The question as to whether accepted physical "constants" are indeed constant over all space and all time is an important one. Various theories suggest that they may not be. Experiments and careful measurements, both astronomical and in terrestrial laboratories, have been conducted to test whether such variations in fact exist. Here are some references on searches for variation in the fine structure constant, the gravitational constant and so forth. It's easy to find LOTS more. To date, all measured variations have been consistent with zero. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2964-7 https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.aay9672 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081101 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.051301 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7727-y > Only retarded scientists in the last 100 years, so they can keep > pretending that they can MODEL the entire universe and its behavior, > living in a remote dust calling Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 14:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <geD4P.802$qW31.662@fx07.ams4> |
| In reply to | #659347 |
Den 05.12.2024 19:42, skrev J. J. Lodder: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:> >> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better >> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, >> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with >> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. Note: measured with SI metre and SI second. > > So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. > Such a result does not mean that the speed of light > is off its defined value, > it means that your meter standard is off, > and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. > (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) The 1983 definition of the speed of light is: c = 299792458 m/s The 1983 definition of second is: 1 second = 9192631770 ΔνCs The 1983 definition of meter is: 1 metre = 1 second/299792458 m/s The 2019 definition of meter is: 1 metre = 9192631770 ΔνCs/299792458 m/s If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly different from the defined speed of light. So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong". Are you are saying that if we got the result 299792458.000001 m/s then the metre would have to be recalibrated to: 1 metre = 9192631770 ΔνCs/299792458.000001 m/s ? > > In other words, it means that you can nowadays > calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard > to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. Or are you saying that we would have to recalibrate the meter to: 1 metre = 9192631770.0000306 ΔνCs/299792458 m/s ? > This is no doubt true, > but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. > > In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. > The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, > that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458 m/s (exactly) > > Jan > You wrote: > In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called > 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) > are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. > The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements > are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', > or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. Is any such recalibration of the meter ever done? And which "frequency standard" are you referring to? The definition of a second? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 21:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <675357ca$0$28494$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #659363 |
Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > Den 05.12.2024 19:42, skrev J. J. Lodder: > > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:> > >> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better > >> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, > >> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with > >> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. > > Note: measured with SI metre and SI second. > > > > > So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. > > Such a result does not mean that the speed of light > > is off its defined value, > > it means that your meter standard is off, > > and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. > > (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) > > The 1983 definition of the speed of light is: > c = 299792458 m/s > > The 1983 definition of second is: > 1 second = 9192631770 ??Cs > > The 1983 definition of meter is: > 1 metre = 1 second/299792458 m/s > > The 2019 definition of meter is: > 1 metre = 9192631770 ??Cs/299792458 m/s > > If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second > defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly > different from the defined speed of light. > > So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong". You were, and it would seem that you still are. You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value. If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light measurement you don't understand what you are doing. > Are you are saying that if we got the result 299792458.000001 m/s > then the metre would have to be recalibrated to: > 1 metre = 9192631770 ??Cs/299792458.000001 m/s ? Of course not. All it would mean is that you have made some systematic error with your particular implementattion of the SI meter. > > In other words, it means that you can nowadays > > calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard > > to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. > > Or are you saying that we would have to recalibrate the meter to: > 1 metre = 9192631770.0000306 ??Cs/299792458 m/s ? Neither. The SI meter is a secondary standard that must be calibrated such that the speed of light comes to 299792458 m/s. > > This is no doubt true, > > but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. > > > > In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. > > The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, > > that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458 m/s (exactly) > > > > Jan > > > > You wrote: > > In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called > > 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) > > are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. > > The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements > > are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', > > or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. > > Is any such recalibration of the meter ever done? Of course, routinely, on a day to day basis. Guess there are whole departments devoted to it. (it is a subtle art) The results are published nowadays as a list of frequencies of prefered optical frequency standards. (measuring the frequency of an optical frequency standard and calibrating a secondary meter standard are just two different ways of saying the same thing) And remember, there is no longer such a thing as -the- meter. It is a secondary unit, and any convenient secondary standard will do. > And which "frequency standard" are you referring to? Any optical frequency standard of known frequency defines a secondary meter standard. (because given the frequency, you know the wavelength, so you can measure lengths by interferometry) A commonly used one is a certain stabilised He-Ne laser. (of specified construction) > The definition of a second? Of course not, that is fixed. (for the time being) It is the frequency that all other frequencies must relate to. It will be replaced in the not to far future by an optical frequency standard. (yet to be chosen) Finaly, you really need to get yourself out of the conceptual knot that you have tied yourself in. Something is either defined, or it can be measured. It can't possibly be both, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 13:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <VLOdnSrlz6v28c76nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659366 |
On 12/06/2024 12:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: > >> Den 05.12.2024 19:42, skrev J. J. Lodder: >>> Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:> >>>> So if the speed of light, measured with instruments with better >>>> precision than they had in 1983 is found to be 299792458?.000001 m/s, >>>> then that only means that the real speed of light (measured with >>>> SI metre and SI second) is different from the defined one. >> >> Note: measured with SI metre and SI second. >> >>> >>> So this is completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. >>> Such a result does not mean that the speed of light >>> is off its defined value, >>> it means that your meter standard is off, >>> and that you must use your measurement result to recalibrate it. >>> (so that the speed of light comes out to its defined value) >> >> The 1983 definition of the speed of light is: >> c = 299792458 m/s >> >> The 1983 definition of second is: >> 1 second = 9192631770 ??Cs >> >> The 1983 definition of meter is: >> 1 metre = 1 second/299792458 m/s >> >> The 2019 definition of meter is: >> 1 metre = 9192631770 ??Cs/299792458 m/s >> >> If the speed of light is measured _with the meter and second >> defined above_ it is obviously possible to get a result slightly >> different from the defined speed of light. >> >> So I was not "completely, absolutely, and totally wrong". > > You were, and it would seem that you still are. > You cannot measure the speed of light because it has a defined value. > If you would think that what you are doing is a speed of light > measurement you don't understand what you are doing. > >> Are you are saying that if we got the result 299792458.000001 m/s >> then the metre would have to be recalibrated to: >> 1 metre = 9192631770 ??Cs/299792458.000001 m/s ? > > Of course not. > All it would mean is that you have made some systematic error > with your particular implementattion of the SI meter. > >>> In other words, it means that you can nowadays >>> calibrate a frequency standard, aka secundary meter standard >>> to better accuracy than was possible 1n 1983. >> >> Or are you saying that we would have to recalibrate the meter to: >> 1 metre = 9192631770.0000306 ??Cs/299792458 m/s ? > > Neither. The SI meter is a secondary standard that must be calibrated > such that the speed of light comes to 299792458 m/s. > >>> This is no doubt true, >>> but it cannot possibly change the (defined!) speed of light. >>> >>> In still other words, there is no such thing as an independent SI meter. >>> The SI meter is that meter, and only that meter, >>> that makes the speed of light equal to 299792458 m/s (exactly) >>> >>> Jan >>> >> >> You wrote: >>> In fact, the kind of experiments that used to be called >>> 'speed of light measurements' (so before 1983) >>> are still being done routinely today, at places like NIST, or BIPM. >>> The difference is that nowadays, precisely the same kind of measurements >>> are called 'calibration of a (secudary) meter standard', >>> or 'calibration of a frequency standard'. >> >> Is any such recalibration of the meter ever done? > > Of course, routinely, on a day to day basis. > Guess there are whole departments devoted to it. > (it is a subtle art) > The results are published nowadays as a list of frequencies > of prefered optical frequency standards. > (measuring the frequency of an optical frequency standard > and calibrating a secondary meter standard are just two different ways > of saying the same thing) > And remember, there is no longer such a thing as -the- meter. > It is a secondary unit, and any convenient secondary standard will do. > >> And which "frequency standard" are you referring to? > > Any optical frequency standard of known frequency > defines a secondary meter standard. > (because given the frequency, you know the wavelength, > so you can measure lengths by interferometry) > > A commonly used one is a certain stabilised He-Ne laser. > (of specified construction) > >> The definition of a second? > > Of course not, that is fixed. (for the time being) > It is the frequency that all other frequencies must relate to. > It will be replaced in the not to far future > by an optical frequency standard. (yet to be chosen) > > Finaly, you really need to get yourself out of the conceptual knot > that you have tied yourself in. > Something is either defined, or it can be measured. > It can't possibly be both, > > Jan > > > > Oh, what then of quasi-invariant measure theory, with regards to Jordan measure, Lebesgue measure, with regards to Shannon and Nyquist, about three different continuous domains their models in mathematics, and with regards to what yesterday was _defined_ yet today may be _derived_? Seems you should add "in deep space, in a vacuum, at constant velocity, at an instant in time", .... Things are usually defined by what's measured.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-07 01:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work. |
| Message-ID | <7dde1f4c26d5621d09432295bd146ac7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #659366 |
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 20:00:10 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Finaly, you really need to get yourself out of the conceptual knot > that you have tied yourself in. > Something is either defined, or it can be measured. > It can't possibly be both, Sure it can, provided that you use a different measurement standard than the one used in the definition. It would not make sense to quantify hypothetical variations in the speed of light in terms of the post-1983 meter. But they would make sense in terms pre-1983 meters. Or (assuming some incredible ramp-up in technology, perhaps introduced by Larry Niven-ish Outsiders) in terms of a meter defined as the distance massless gluons travel in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Or gravitons... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web