🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 21, 3:37 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > C is never unity.  One can of course choose various units
> > such as light-seconds per second, where the numeric portion
> > of c is 1, but that's not unity, it's 1 light-second per
> > second in this case, as c is a speed.
>
> This is not true. In modern physics we often use units in which c=1.
> That is indeed 1, a simple real number without any units attached.
> Distances are measured in seconds (not light-seconds), as are durations.
> The choice of units is ARBITRARY, and one is free to do this.
>
> When measuring a distance in such units, a light beam (in vacuum) and
> clock are required (no ruler is used). Nothing wrong with that, it's
> just different from what you happen to be used to.
>
> The ISO redefinition of the meter in 1983 made it a secondary unit, not
> a primary one...

and established once and for all the validity of Einstein 1905 false
light postulate, according to Superior Brother Steve Carlip:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Superior Brother Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum,
constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the
following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was
adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This
defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant":
Yes, c is constant by definition!"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com