From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)    
   wrote:   
      
   > In article <1peqwo1.1pvreq6wg61gwN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>,   
   > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:   
   >   
   > > Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)    
   > > wrote:   
   >   
   > > The problem with your position is that you postulate   
   > > that what has to be shown,   
   > > namely that there is such a thing as the speed of light,   
   > > and that it is a constant of nature.   
   > >   
   > > As far as we know now there is no such a thing.   
   > > We can formulate all known laws of nature in such a way   
   > > that the speed of light doesn't occur in any of them.   
   > >   
   > > What remains is that the 'speed of light' is an artefact   
   > > caused by maladroit choices in the definition of our unit systems.   
   > > It has no more physical reality than Boltzmann's constant,   
   > > or the impedance of the vacuum.   
   > >   
   > > If you want to have a 'speed of light' as a constant of nature   
   > > you must invent new, and fundamentally different laws of physics   
   > > in which there is such a thing,   
   >   
   > Please explain.  There are various sources of light.  We can measure a   
   > distance.  We can measure a time.  Thus, we can measure a speed.  We   
   > find that the speed of light is always the same.  Similar results for   
   > the speed of sound at a given temperature and pressure.   
      
   OK, I'll try to write a tutorial.   
      
   > Your position seems to be that the speed of light is merely a conversion   
   > factor, and might as well be set to 1 (not uncommon in some fields of   
   > physics).   
      
   Not just my position, the position of the people who decide   
   about those kind of things, at places like NIST and BIPM and ...,   
   with the approval of the CGPM.   
   So the position of every competent physicist.   
      
   And not just some fields of physics, all of physics.   
   (at least in principle, and as far as we know now)   
   This position will not need to be changed   
   until new laws of nature are discovered.   
   In other words, it is not just theoretically pleasing,   
   it is empirically adequate.   
      
   > However, that is possible only if the speed of light is a   
   > constant of nature.  Thus, it seems to me that you are the one making   
   > the assumption that the speed of light is some fundamental physical   
   > quantity.   
      
   There is no such thing as the speed of light, (as a physical constant)   
   just like there is no such thing as the impedance of the vacuum.   
   These things are artefacts of clumsy unit systems.   
      
   > Yes, it is possible to have units where the speed of light is just a   
   > conversion factor, or is 1, or whatever, but that is possible only if it   
   > IS a constant of nature.   
      
   It is the only unit system we have nowadays.   
   We could in priciple abolish the meter completely,   
   and agree to express all distances in (nano)seconds.   
   The meter is kept only for practical reasons of convenience   
   and backward compatibility.   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)