That's very slow light. I think you meant 299.792 456 2 Mm/s. The correct figure, by the way, is 299.792 458 Mm/s. The meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in 1/299.792 458 s. The official definition uses only that fraction and does not attempt to rationalize it to a non-fraction. However, if it were expressed as a non-fraction, it would be 3.335 640 95 ns, not 77.162 709 5 ps.
And what's a "pico-metric second?" The term is picosecond (ps). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Brij Bhushan Vij >Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:01 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [USMA:23748] Re: Dallasnews - kilogram > > >James and John Nichols, sirs: >Refined value for velocity of light, c, was reported by Time, New York in >their issue of 4 December 1972 as: 299.7924562 metre/second; and I >attempted >to define in term for measure of length Unit,METRE to be the distance >traversed by light during 77.1627095 pico-metric second (Refer: The Metric >Second; ISI Bulletin, Vol 25, No.4, 1973 April - a publication of >Bureau of >Indian Standards, New Delhi). >Regards, >Brij Bhushan Vij<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [USMA:23741] Re: Dallasnews - kilogram >>Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:44:08 -0500 >> >>John Nichols wrote: >> > >> > I thought someone found that c is not constant recently but is slowing >>up >> > like me. >> > >> > Just a thought. >> >> And still a fairly new hypothesis as I understand it, John. >This is far >>from being widely accepted. However, the change of other constants (such >>as G, the gravitational constant) are fairly widely believed to be >>changing very slowly over time; that comes from the general theory of >>relativity and it relates to the cosmological constant that Einstein >>suggested, then removed, then wished he hadn't. Put it up there with the >>recent "dark energy" hypothesis. I think the two are related, actually. >> >> For practical purposes, though, the effect on SI units is >vanishingly >>small. We would be overly proud to consider that our standards will >>stand for millions of years. >> >>Jim >> >>-- >>James R. Frysinger >>Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist >>Senior Member, IEEE >> >>http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Office: >> Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer >> Dept. of Physics and Astronomy >> University/College of Charleston >> 66 George Street >> Charleston, SC 29424 >> 843.953.7644 (phone) >> 843.953.4824 (FAX) >> >>Home: >> 10 Captiva Row >> Charleston, SC 29407 >> 843.225.0805 > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail >
