Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 02:29:07 +0000
Subject: Re: E = 3/4 mc? or E = mc?? The forgotten Hassenohrl 1905 work.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
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> <2Ji4P.2$4s%.1@fx15.ams4>
 <6751f410$0$518$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 18:29:15 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6751f410$0$518$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <m1Sdnbxu8Kfu_M_6nZ2dnZfqn_UAAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8mONky55M0r6Bq5KNmSgdgoN4gM7GcisCuVDVeEojbArF9fqYOj4GjuWBlEnXPmnjjI8LwrZZphHuGH!SWIWi/WurMKTi2Ylvc+E394ZW07QnsvbnclxpO7aJltzQcIW4mk89hn1ifsD/CoxMb68A1a5TKUZ
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5050

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"?