Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: E =?UTF-8?B?PSAzLzQgbWM/IG9yIEUgPSBtYz8/IFRoZSBmb3Jnb3R0ZW4gSGFzc2Vu?=
 =?UTF-8?B?b2hybCAxOTA1IHdvcmsu?=
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 05:42:07 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <885225ff00751770248eb29834cccb57@www.novabbs.com>
References: <9f1cd556912a273a8946c77614611242@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> <2Ji4P.2$4s%.1@fx15.ams4> <6751f410$0$518$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <geD4P.802$qW31.662@fx07.ams4> <675357ca$0$28494$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7dde1f4c26d5621d09432295bd146ac7@www.novabbs.com> <67542b7b$0$5218$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <6c7c9526f2de83d788e8f50df99118f0@www.novabbs.com> <YoecnZjC9d4oBcn6nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@giganews.com> <6754bfbd$0$11440$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1817356"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$3a76I1HCbRNh1ARWtcVHVenZdibr2GQlROxKp2YGGzBzGsSEpAg8C
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5467
Lines: 85

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 21:35:57 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> On 2024-12-07 16:03:31 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog said:
> [missing article on my server, sorry about mixed up quote levels]
>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:03:24 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>> Sure, you can be inconsistent, if you choose to be.
>> Don't expect meaningful results.
>>
>> 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... :-)
>>
>> Completely irrelevant,
>> and it does not get you out of your conceptual error as stated above.
>>
>> Summmary: There must be:
>> 1) a length standard, 2) a frequency standard [1], and 3) c
>>
>> Two of the three must be defined, the third must be measured.
>> Pre-1983  1) and 2) were defined, and 3), c was measured.
>> Post-1983 2) and c are defined, 1) must be measured.
>> So in 1983 we have collectively decided that any future refinement
>> in measurement techniques will result in more accurate meter standards,
>> not in a 'better' value for c.  [2]
>>
>> You don't "get" the point that I was trying to make. Let us review
>
> I do get it, and it is wrong.
>
>> | Resolution 1 of the 17th CGPM (1983)
> [snip boilerplate material]
>
>> Gamma ray burst observations have constrained the arrival times
>> between the visible light and gamma ray components of the burst to
>> be equal to within 10^-15 of the total travel time of the burst.
> [snip more irrelevancies]
>
> This is irrelevant for the issue of E=mc^2.
> Differential travel times are a test for a non-zero photon mass, if any.
>
>> Definitions are BASED ON state-of-the-art known physics. They do not
>> DETERMINE physical law.
>
> Are you really incapabable of understanding
> that all this is about metrology, not physical law?
> No definition of units can ever determine or change any physical law.
>
>> Finally, an excercise for you personally.
>> You quoted a pre-2018 experiment that verified that E=mc^2
>> to some high accuracy. (using the measured value of Planck's constant)
>> Post-2018, Planck's constant has a defined value,
>> and  E=mc^2 is true by definition. (of the Joule and the kilogram)
>>
>> So E=mc^2 can no longer be verified by any possible experiment.
>> Now:
>> Ex1) Does this make the experiment you quoted worthless?
>>
>> Not at all.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Ex2) If not, what does that experiment demonstrate?
>>
>> It would demonstrate an inadequacy in the definitions that must be
>> addressed in some future conference when the discrepancies have been
>> better characterized.
>
> I'm sorry, but this is not the right answer,

So what are you saying, then? Are you saying that, because of the
definition of E=mc^2, it is totally required that 1 gram of electrons
annihilating 1 gram of positrons completely to electromagnetic
radiation must NECESSICARILY yield the same amount of energy as 1 gram
of protons annihilating 1 gram of antiprotons completely to electro-
magnetic radiation? That the equality of these two values is a matter
of definition, not something to be established by experiment?

Are you saying that because the current definition of c is
299,792,458 meters per second regardless of wavelength, that questions
as to whether gamma rays travel faster than visible light rays are
totally nonsensical?