A meter by definition is defined as the length of the path travelled by
light in
absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Now if you simplify such it will come out as
a meter (d) = a distance per a time (d/t)
and simplify it further and you get
a meter (d) = a speed. (d/t)
or basically and I have to say sadly
d = d/t
anyone else see that sillyness?
:)

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Now that the speed of light c is a defined quantity,
a time duration specifies a distance.
Because, for c = s/t ( s distance, t time )
c x t = s/t X t = s, a distance.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
 Now that the speed of light c is a defined quantity,
 a time duration specifies a distance.
 Because, for c = s/t ( s distance, t time )
 c x t = s/t X t = s, a distance.
Still does not fix the mathematical problem of...
d= d/t
as a definition of a meter
also stated as
distance = same distance per a time
also stated as
meter = meter per 1/299,792,458 of a second.
It is a very stupid definition
and I really thing it is bad math also.
Do you think
d=d/t is ok?
:)
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in
message news:NJcIf.32686$jR.8187@fed1read01...
 Dear Spaceman:

 ...
 > Still does not fix the mathematical problem of...
 > d= d/t

 It isn't "d= d/t". It is d = integral( v . dt).
nope.
by definition is it simply
d=d/t
meter (d) = length(d) per 1/299,792,458 of a second (t)
Where are you getting that integral and v from?
Dear Spaceman:
Yes. As NIST will attest.
The "v" is *defined*. It is given. It is a constant. You can
do a time integral of position, but that doesn't mean it makes
sense to whine that it should be "more fundamental" than
position. In this case nature conspires to make a velocity
fundamental, and position just an integral of that.
David A. Smith
I think that you need to work on your story problem skills.
First of all, your initial equation is wrong.
Your first equation should be d=C*t, where C is the speed of light. Since
the speed of light is constant in a vacuum a precise distance can be
determined. Please see the link below to further understand the definition
of a meter.
Also, if you look at the origins of a meter
formatting link
you will see that it was
originally based on a distance. You will also note that the definition of a
meter has been revised 2 times since it was originally set up.
I think that you need to work on your story problem skills.

 First of all, your initial equation is wrong.

 Your first equation should be d=C*t, where C is the speed of light.
It is not the speed of light times a time for the distance like
you make it.
It is a length during a transistion time.
Since
 the speed of light is constant in a vacuum a precise distance can be
 determined. Please see the link below to further understand the
definition
 of a meter.
So if the speed of light is found to be non constant in a vacuum
The meter must be changed.
Well,
good news..
It won't be long..
:)
 Also, if you look at the origins of a meter

formatting link
you will see that it was
 originally based on a distance. You will also note that the definition of
a
 meter has been revised 2 times since it was originally set up.
Yes,
and it should have never been changed.
The length should have been kept as a length
and never changed to a legth at a speed.
It is a mixing of dimensions that has basically
killing the science of measurement.
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in
message news:ImdIf.32692$jR.24282@fed1read01...
 Dear Spaceman:

 >
 > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
 > wrote in
 > message news:NJcIf.32686$jR.8187@fed1read01...
 >  Dear Spaceman:
 > 
 >  ...
 >  > Still does not fix the mathematical problem of...
 >  > d= d/t
 > 
 >  It isn't "d= d/t". It is d = integral( v . dt).
 >
 > nope.

 Yes. As NIST will attest.
Even if it is like you state.
It should not be.
Having a speed be a standard to find a distance
is a break of the science of measurement
 > by definition is it simply
 > d=d/t
 > meter (d) = length(d) per 1/299,792,458 of a second (t)
 > Where are you getting that integral and v from?

 The "v" is *defined*. It is given. It is a constant. You can
 do a time integral of position, but that doesn't mean it makes
 sense to whine that it should be "more fundamental" than
 position. In this case nature conspires to make a velocity
 fundamental, and position just an integral of that.
The v = a velocity ( a speed with direction)
having such in a distance standard is silly.
Lightspeed should not be a constant that dictates
a length.
a length should be independant of lightspeed completely.
BTW: Are you an engineer or a physisict?
Having used metric and British in science, engineering, and commerce on a
daily basis for over 40 years 
The pound, degree, BTU, etc. were modified in value (about 15001600?) so as
to be integrated using water as a base, integrated to make calculations
simple. British units were Engineering units of force, length, and time,
based in numbers of which there are myriad examples of natural human
thought  base units of three and four.
The meter was supposed to be one millionth of the distance from the equator
to the pole. The metric units were pure science units of length, mass, and
time, based in artificial historical units of base ten. About as far from
useful reality as it gets for other than pure science of the last century,
perhaps.
The silly part is the attempt by SI to force scientific base ten units onto
humans who had evolved with threes and fours, and how silly it was to
abandon an integrated system for a now antiquated artificial system of base
ten.
The resistance by Americans to change has at its core the inherent comfort
of a units system that uses natural threes and fours.
If they really wanted to be modern, the standardization/bastardization
proponents would have used base 2, the basis for all modern science,
industry, and commerce.
IMHO..
 > So if the speed of light is found to be non constant in a vacuum
 > The meter must be changed.

 It would be very difficult to conconct a statement which demonstrates a
 worse understanding of special relativity than this.
Dear Tom,
I understand relativity just fine.
I am just not convinced at the supposed evidence
of lightspeed being the same for all observers.
The experiments that do supposedly do such, are sceptical at best.
 Having used metric and British in science, engineering, and commerce on a
 daily basis for over 40 years 

 The pound, degree, BTU, etc. were modified in value (about 15001600?) so
as
 to be integrated using water as a base, integrated to make calculations
 simple. British units were Engineering units of force, length, and time,
 based in numbers of which there are myriad examples of natural human
 thought  base units of three and four.

 The meter was supposed to be one millionth of the distance from the
equator
 to the pole. The metric units were pure science units of length, mass,
and
 time, based in artificial historical units of base ten. About as far from
 useful reality as it gets for other than pure science of the last
century,
 perhaps.
Actually, as I have heard..
The basis for base ten were the human fingers.
and the term "digits" was given referring to the digits of the hands.
Hence a base ten system (being easy for humans to use).
It was not actually based on artificial units.
It was actually based upon the normal total amount of physical human
fingers.
:)
Fair enough. You're right that *if* the speed of light in vacuum is not
constant for all observers, then the meter definition is a little wonky. I
disagree with you that the units are wrong (the d=d/t thing), but it would
suggest that the current definition may not be as optimum as it currently
appears.
This is a fairly big leap of physics...what do you find unconvinging about
the current experiments?
Tom.
 This is a fairly big leap of physics...what do you find unconvinging about
 the current experiments?
Basically all the experiments i have read are not even really
testing anything that could produce a different
speed for an observer heading towards a lightsource.
In fact, in all the experiments I have read about.
I do not see one that actually has an observer heading towards
the lightsource.(they all seem to be opposite that in thier
operation factors)
If you see one, please let me know.
:)
They all seem to have the lightsource moving toward the observer
and they measure the lightsource speed to the observer.
But of course if you used sound the same way,
sound could be considered constant to all also like such,
since it can not leave the source at any different rate no
matter it's speed also.
:)
Hope that made sense..
It does to me.

James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Dear Spaceman:
...
Sorry Nature does not agree with you. If you can learn Her
lessons, She will not be forced to break your leg, or end your
life in favor of a member that can learn it.
David A. Smith
I think that is one of those lame afterthought things to justify a totally
unrelated desired result.
Of the 330 cultures cataloged by Margaret Mead 
Many older cultures actually used base 8  and BTW, the thumbs as base index
points let you count higher than ten units in base 8.
Romans used multiples of 5s and twos: V one 5 ( a hand perhaps?) , X two
fives (two hands?) , L two times five times five ( a hands worth of hands),
C two times two times five time five twenty fives, etc.
(or you could claim it was a multiple of ten, but they would think you
were nuts  tens came along when the arabs rose to power several hundred
years after the fall of the western Roman Empire)
Chinese did not use tens as fundamental units.
Mayans, Inca, Aztec did not use tens as fundamental units.
Most prewestern Africans did not use tens as fundamental units.
The British tens and forcelengthsecond dominated when it was introduced to
those cultures, becuase it meshed with most threes and fours based
measurement systems of other cultures.
The French were still pissed over French losing out as the international
language entering the colonial period, but they still pushed tens  100
seconds in an hour, 100 parts to 2 pi radian, ten parts in money, tenmetric
everything else.
No logic to tens except in some fields of science. Or to mass over force.
And SI using amps (Q/time) over charge (Q) as a __fundamental__ unit ? That
alone points out how looney they are now, on the SI board.
fwiw  nuff said
Studies of memeory, rapid response, and almost all games (cuturally
developed, not the recent producttype) use threes and fours
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in
message news:anuIf.32754$jR.1230@fed1read01...
 Sorry Nature does not agree with you. If you can learn Her
 lessons, She will not be forced to break your leg, or end your
 life in favor of a member that can learn it.
Dear David,
Please take your "know it all" attitude and stick
it back in the sand where your head is at,
or actually use your brain and think a bit about
the question below..
Can you tell me how lightspeed can supposedly
ignore relative speed differences that nothing
else in the universe can do that we know of?
I can understand that it will always leave it's source
at c, (sound does this too but at a different speed of course)
But how could it be able to hit an object
that is traveling towards the source at the same speed?
Lets say this object is moving at 0.5c towards the lightsource.
and the lightsource is on Earth, and at rest to Earth.
How can the lightsource speed of it's light still
pass such an object at 1c?

 >
 >  Having used metric and British in science, engineering, and commerce
on
 a
 >  daily basis for over 40 years 
 > 
 >  The pound, degree, BTU, etc. were modified in value (about 15001600?)
 so
 > as
 >  to be integrated using water as a base, integrated to make
calculations
 >  simple. British units were Engineering units of force, length, and
 time,
 >  based in numbers of which there are myriad examples of natural human
 >  thought  base units of three and four.
 > 
 >  The meter was supposed to be one millionth of the distance from the
 > equator
 >  to the pole. The metric units were pure science units of length,
mass,
 > and
 >  time, based in artificial historical units of base ten. About as far
 from
 >  useful reality as it gets for other than pure science of the last
 > century,
 >  perhaps.
 >
 > Actually, as I have heard..
 > The basis for base ten were the human fingers.

 I think that is one of those lame afterthought things to justify a totally
 unrelated desired result.

 Of the 330 cultures cataloged by Margaret Mead 

 Many older cultures actually used base 8  and BTW, the thumbs as base
index
 points let you count higher than ten units in base 8.

 Romans used multiples of 5s and twos: V one 5 ( a hand perhaps?) , X
two
 fives (two hands?) , L two times five times five ( a hands worth of
hands),
 C two times two times five time five twenty fives, etc.
 (or you could claim it was a multiple of ten, but they would think you
 were nuts  tens came along when the arabs rose to power several hundred
 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire)

 Chinese did not use tens as fundamental units.

 Mayans, Inca, Aztec did not use tens as fundamental units.

 Most prewestern Africans did not use tens as fundamental units.

 The British tens and forcelengthsecond dominated when it was introduced
to
 those cultures, becuase it meshed with most threes and fours based
 measurement systems of other cultures.

 The French were still pissed over French losing out as the international
 language entering the colonial period, but they still pushed tens  100
 seconds in an hour, 100 parts to 2 pi radian, ten parts in money,
tenmetric
 everything else.

 No logic to tens except in some fields of science. Or to mass over force.
 And SI using amps (Q/time) over charge (Q) as a __fundamental__ unit ?
That
 alone points out how looney they are now, on the SI board.

 fwiw  nuff said

 Studies of memeory, rapid response, and almost all games (cuturally
 developed, not the recent producttype) use threes and fours
Wow.
all very cool stuff.
thanks.
:)
"Spaceman" wrote
There's a variety of experiments that all work on the basic principle of
measuring the light reflected off heavenly bodies at two points in their
orbit (usually 180 degrees opposite). The body is going in the opposite
direction (relative to us) on each side of the orbit so you get one
measurement with the lightsource moving away and one moving closer. Just do
a Google on "light speed experiment" and you'll find several.
There's no difference between the lightsource moving towards the observer
and the observer moving towards the lightsource. That's just basic vector
math. The experiments where you saw the lightsource moving towards the
observer *are* experiments where the observer was heading towards the
lightsource.
Speed of sound depends on temperature and material. Observers experimenting
on the same material at the same temperature will always get the same speed
of sound. Just like observers experimenting on light in a vacuum (assuming
all vacuums are the same, which they pretty much are by definition). The
difference is that sound requires a transmission medium, so you have to
measure speed of sound against the transmission medium. Light doesn't need
a transmission medium, so motion between the observer and the vacuum is
irrelevant.
Tom.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.