Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:13:15 +0000
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_E_=3d_3/4_mc=c2=b2_or_E_=3d_mc=c2=b2=3f_The_forgotten?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_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>
 <tfGdnSYN5prZztP6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <095f2840c6fa1af0a3d70f9f5a2136b7@www.novabbs.com>
 <lBOdnYVqxNFD6NP6nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <HI-dnf917PSq4NL6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 09:13:21 -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: <HI-dnf917PSq4NL6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <mJWcnYGWRo82EM36nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 187
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-REqd6qEOOvJ52YqgoVva29tYebv/F9e2ARST8uJWOXHh9bTLTzjRH4cw56m4y4xl6tGwMrItvFoSaEP!kjF6+D88NQLBAIOzMcdJzlCh+poLj6OpjQjqYfZQI5DPnGANlPk5/HHUG4qISIyXwP9jsMPXOg==
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: 9528

On 12/03/2024 01:50 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 07:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 06:35 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 0:39:36 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2024 01:54 PM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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."
>>>>
>>>> Oh, which way is it going to be?
>>>
>>> Either way is a win.
>>>
>>> A negative result, which would render highly implausible most of the
>>> alternative gravitational theories (which mostly predict breakdown of
>>> the equivalence principle by the 10^-18 level) would be comparable in
>>> importance to the MMX negative result, which rendered highly
>>> implausible most variants of luminiferous ether theories.
>>>
>>> A positive result would serve to validate decades of effort to find
>>> a viable theory of gravitation beyond GR.
>>
>> So, a pat on the head or a kick in the ass?
>>
>> I suppose their theories of gravitation fixed perpetual motion
>> too, or the constant violation of conservation of energy.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, the equivalence principle wasn't always
>> a thing, and the ether/aether theories have come in and out
>> of fashion.
>>
>> One time I read in a magazine "the difference between fashion
>> and style, is that fashion goes in and out of style,
>> yet style is never out of fashion."
>>
>>
>> Since Lense Thirring and Pioneer Anomaly yet really after
>> classical mechanics what's different "gravity's force"
>> and "g-forces", some sites claim things like "equivalence
>> principle is violated all the time".
>>
>> https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle
>>
>> Once entirely forbidden and vigorously castigated,
>> now top in results "don't be what you think is right wrongly".
>>
>> Because it really ruins argument from authority
>> when it's not anymore. Or if it was ever wrong.
>>
>>
>> The magnetopause or about where Earth's gravity well
>> is 50/50, to decay or not, you can read Einstein about
>> it, it's like "Einstein, did you really say there _is_
>> an ether?" and he's like "yeah, uh huh", then it's like
>> "Einstein, what does that mean for the equivalence principle"
>> and he might be like "well, you see, it's just a _principle_,
>> it's a nice way of looking at things that totally simplifies
>> some thing, _principles_ are not the same thing as _cause_,
>> see".
>>
>> Now, the L-principle for light's speed's constancy is held
>> up a little more than that, strength-wise, yet "the locality
>> of SR" has that it's according to the space and that the
>> space is according to GR, much like the equivalence principle,
>> the L-principle.
>>
>> About _mass_ and _inertia_ and _momentum_ and _heft_ and
>> whether _heft_ is _inertial_ and whether _momentum_ in
>> kinematics oscillates real/virtual or classical/potential,
>> that it's an _inertial system_ and with regards to
>> whether the terrestrial frame is moving along with
>> the solar moving along with the pole star frame,
>> and so on, the orbital and the ecliptic and the zodaical,
>> has that according to Einstein it's an _inertial_ system
>> for avoiding circular insoluble mathematical singularities,
>> and he has that as a _law_.
>>
>>
>> Anyways if "theories of gravitation" don't solve "conservation
>> of energy" then they deserve the great round-file.
>>
>> Now, Eotvos was a pretty big deal, if the precession of
>> the ball pair is to considered for its "rest for its
>> spinning out at the LaGrange point", vis-a-vis, Michelson-Morley
>> and "the mirror-pond of the mercury bath, after it all
>> wound down and we could watch it spin following Foucault",
>> to be sure, in the middle, there's a null.
>>
>> "Round and round and round it goes,
>> then it sort of goes according to Foucault".
>>
>> Or Coriolis, ....
>>
>>
>> About "fifth force" or whatever that was just supposed
>> to be "gravity straight down", that in a fall-gravity
>> is quite different than a pull gravity, where it's
>> figured that fall-gravity just makes time and gravity
>> their gradients balance each other.
>>
>> So, this way then fall-gravity is same as nuclear,
>> that any theory of gravity must satisfy being a
>> model of a fall-gravity.
>>
>> If laws are the same everywhere, ....
>>
>> In principle, ....
>>
>>
>
> O.W. Richardson's "The Electron Theory of Matter" is
> really pretty great, from the outset he details why
> there is the aether yet also that the medium makes
> for the usual analysis as these days is, and then
> also things like charge and "real and fictitious",
> helping explain why matters of potential are real
> and "real and fictitious" merely differentiate perspectives
> and they're both real, contra usual un-qualified usage
> where of course fictitious means un-so.
>
> So, of course he's a big fan of Faraday.
>
> It's after Lorentz and Zeeman, yet also after Rutherford
> and Geiger, works up a usual Laplace, Gauss, Green, Poisson,
> and gets into rays and refraction, which affects light,
> and Roentgen Rays.
>
> "One is tempted to ask what can be the use of
> a conception of the electric intensity which is
> so much at variance with what we believe to be
> the reality. The answer is, of course, that most
> of our methods of experimenting are so coarse,
> compared with the atomic scale, that they do not
> detect these enormous differences which occur within
> distances of the order of atomic magnitude. Our
> experimental arrangements for the most part measure
> only the average values over spaces containing a
> large number of atoms. The reason why our average
> values possess validity is not because they are
> the true values but because, so far as such experimental
> arrangements enable us to detect, everything happens
> as if the average values were the true values."
> -- O.W. Richardson
>
>
> Mentions Rowland, 1876, Drude, Lehrbuch der Optik,
> reminds me to look into Droste, then about Leroux
> and Kundt, with regards to Richardon's optical
> theories of transmission vis-a-vis the dielectric.
>
> Since they're not the same, optical and electrical
> intensity, ....
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========