Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp2-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 11:57:06 +0100
References: <309fb33a3a66f01873fdc890e899a968@www.novabbs.com> <674BCF8E.822@ix.netcom.com> <674CCA90.3DD9@ix.netcom.com> <a89d71ab22cb1e3e279a59fe50ab5ebb@www.novabbs.com> <9f1cd556912a273a8946c77614611242@www.novabbs.com> <8a0014e4135992c8ec7bd3f2f1983164@www.novabbs.com> <d906fde3148d43d339b1663f1127216a@www.novabbs.com> <13877dcc9c6a6f2dd8056d8c05f0c661@www.novabbs.com> <a7d26012926823b22e139af8670cbbe7@www.novabbs.com> <df76d88c3e9729de443afca2c0cf99fa@www.novabbs.com> <2c831e6c7e0103c00fcebe8074fec8db@www.novabbs.com> <7d37d6e841cd1936217b21a5847fc507@www.novabbs.com> <7511bb1b9b748c76df265f91eaaa468a@www.novabbs.com> <67503f94$0$12915$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <3c8abe81804e4c5b6ced7aefae766c7d@www.novabbs.com> <6750b8d4$0$29710$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <d4459e69f16a34d89b68e5f2cdcb59a5@www.novabbs.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <67518702$3$11436$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Dec 2024 11:57:06 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1733396226 news-2.free.fr 11436 213.10.137.58:61816
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 3493

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.