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> <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> <675357ca$0$28494$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7dde1f4c26d5621d09432295bd146ac7@www.novabbs.com> <67542b7b$0$5218$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <6c7c9526f2de83d788e8f50df99118f0@www.novabbs.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?