Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!decwrl!pyramid!ctnews!gypsy!andrew!KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Speed of light
Message-ID: <258@sri-arpa.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 23-Nov-86 19:22:55 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.258
Posted: Sun Nov 23 19:22:55 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Nov-86 22:14:43 EST
Lines: 31

From:  "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

    From: columbia!heathcliff.columbia.edu!zdenek@Seismo.arpa (Zdenek Radouch)

    Let me remind you that the constant speed of light is not an implication
    of the new definition of meter. The speed of light is assumed to be
    constant.  The definition is based on that assumption.

  But given the current definition, how could one falsify the
assumption that the speed of light is constant?

    It doesn't make any sense to use this definition when questioning constant
    speed of light.

  Right.  One can't question it.

    If we find that speed of light really is changing, we are going to get
    rid of the definition.

  Given the definition, we can't find that it is changing.

    Consider this:
    I am going to define the length of meter in terms of the length of the
    second and the speed of my car. Then I can say that the speed of my car
    is constant...

  Right.  Your gas pedal then changes the length of the meter instead
of the speed of the car.  Other than being horribly unintuitive and not
very useful in terms of physics and engineering, what's wrong with that?

								...Keith