[FrankM]

There is a better way to define the speed of light (SOL). It is possible to define the SOL using a simple geometric-mathematical relationship.

The numeric value of the SOL is dependent upon the units used to define it, but it can be defined independently of the current meters and second units and do it very accurately. The small pdf article (14k) describes the process.

http://vip.ocsnet.ne...SOLTriangle.pdf

[Qfwfq]

Modern physicists have long been using a far simpler method than that:

c = 1

A pure number, exactly equal to 1 and no units of measurement. Measurement is only necessary in order to convert between velocity values according to this and those given by archaic units, such as metres per second or miles per hour etc...

[paultrr]

If it works don't fix it comes to mind.

[Qfwfq]

Especially when it works canonically...

couldn't possibly be improved!!!

[FrankM]

The old "superstring" forum once posted a page titled "Natural Units". It explained particle physicists rationale for setting c=1 and went on to illustrate the mathematical relationships derived with that definition.

Quote

If we relate meters and seconds so that one second is equal to 300 million meters, then c=1. It's very simple. Now notice that in this system of units, mass and energy have the same units, because the relationship E = m c^2 in units with c=1 just reduces to E = m.

I did not discount the c=1 technique, I simply found that the SOL could be related to the function of an angle, which I thought was interesting.

[Bo]

hmm you just seem to have replaced the problem; your definition of the correct angle depends on the speed-unit you choose... A change in this angle would be equivalent to a redifinition of the meter/seconde system.

c=1 is so much easier

Bo

[Qfwfq]

FrankM said:

I simply found that the SOL could be related to the function of an angle, which I thought was interesting.

In the c=1 choice, c i. e. 1 is the ordinary tangent of pi/4. Any velocity is the tan of an angle. In archaic units the tan, c, is huge, the angle is nearly pi/2.

Quote

...so that one second is equal to 300 million meters...

Not quite. A second should continue to be what is is. So should a metre. These are two different units for measuring intervals. The real point is that of not using different units to measure the same darn thing.

For "the same darn thing" read an interval, which may be spacelike or timelike.

Confusing? It only takes getting used to.

[FrankM]

I checked to see if the superstring site still had the page cited on-line, and it does. It was originally in their index but don't see it mentioned anywhere.

http://superstringth...com/unitsa.html

I cited the particular quote from the site because of their contention that 300,000,000 meters could be equated to be one sec.

I thought the cosecant process was interesting as I had found the lengths for it in the dimensions of a structure.

I had asked some questions on another forum about using a right triangle as the basis for the SOL mathematical relationship, and I found that someone else was using "triangles" as the basis for solving a variety of problems. GAMERT

http://physics.gamert.co.uk/

GAMERT uses a fixed speed of light, and the second is the only time internal, and their process is not restricted to a right trangle. My right triangle allows the time interval to vary, basically allowing any time interval to be expressed as a ratio using the 45 degree triangle as the standard, which I thought was its most useful feature.