I agree with what James has said. The context of my change *from speed to velocity* was to draw the attenstion of scholars that there had been a better value for velocity of light (1972) that had been ignored, and my paper expressed the re-working of *improved* value to define the METRE that had not been linked to arc-angle. This was presented by my entire reworking as: The Metric Second (1973 April). Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [USMA:21617] Velocity of Light >Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:59:31 -0400 > >Brij Bhushan Vij wrote: > > > > Hi All: > > Using the term 'speed of light' does not fit into the SI-practice; >when it > > is desired to link or express it with the definition of LENGTH unit >*Metre*. > > In my humble way, I tried to give the BEST value for velocity of light >and > > presented a way to:MEASURE LENGTH UNIT USING TIME TAKEN TO TRAVERSE THE > > DISTANCE *METRE*. > > Perhaps I'm missing some subtle point here, Brij. To me the term "speed >of light" is entirely appropriate since there is no particular direction >associated with it. If one were to give a value for the "velocity of >light" it would be necessary to include information on the direction it >is traveling. > > I have no comments on the rest of your message. I'm too interested in >getting the current SI adopted fully to worry much about improving upon >it---except for a few tiny details that pale in comparison to your view >of what needs to be revised. > >Jim > >-- >Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" >James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ >10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Charleston, SC 29407 phone: 843.225.6789 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
