So does anyone else see the meter definition as silly

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
Reply to
Spaceman
Loading thread data ...
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
Reply to
Brian Whatcott
| 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? :)
Reply to
Spaceman
Dear Spaceman:
...
It isn't "d= d/t". It is d = integral( v . dt).
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"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?
Reply to
Spaceman
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
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
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.
Reply to
YouGoFirst
|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.
Reply to
Spaceman
"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?
Reply to
Spaceman
It would be very difficult to conconct a statement which demonstrates a worse understanding of special relativity than this.
Tom.
Reply to
Tom Sanderson
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 1500-1600?) 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..
Reply to
hob
| > 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.
Reply to
Spaceman
| 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 1500-1600?) 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. :)
Reply to
Spaceman
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.
Reply to
Tom Sanderson
| 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
Reply to
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
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
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 pre-western Africans did not use tens as fundamental units.
The British tens and force-length-second 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, ten-metric 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- product-type) use threes and fours
Reply to
hob
"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?
Reply to
Spaceman
|
| >
| > | 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 1500-1600?) | 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 pre-western Africans did not use tens as fundamental units. | | The British tens and force-length-second 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, ten-metric | 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- product-type) use threes and fours
Wow. all very cool stuff. thanks. :)
Reply to
Spaceman
"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.
Reply to
Tom Sanderson

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.