Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: E =?UTF-8?B?PSAzLzQgbWPCsiBvciBFID0gbWPCsj8gVGhlIGZvcmdvdHRlbiBIYXNz?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZW5vaHJsIDE5MDUgd29yay4=?=
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:22:27 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <a7d26012926823b22e139af8670cbbe7@www.novabbs.com>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1011456"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$lFwhIic3z2Q5a4Px.iIQM.abrffbWQF.pA1wpySeA7afiZN8oUbpC
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
Bytes: 4462
Lines: 84

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?