The Picard ManeuverThe speed of light
teftThe speed of light is a tautology. We define it via how many meters light travels in a second. And we define the meter by the same measure. It’s just the distance light travels in 1⁄299792458
wolframhydroxidec is a measurable constant, not come unit that is arbitrarily defined. Like Boltzmann’s Constant, or the ground state hyperfine transition frequency of the Cesium-133 atom… it just… Is.
Therefore, it is a useful tool to define units. You claim it is a tautology because we write it in units of meters per second, while the meter is defined based on c. This is easily disproven, as you can represent the speed of light in any unit of velocity. It is a fundamental constant, derivable through experiment without any unit a priori.
It’s not useful to tell somebody it is constant without a way to make use of it. Without knowing how it’s defined relative to other things we can’t use it.
The thing about all the absolute physical constants is that they are almost all based on units defined relative to other things. Unitless constants (defined only as a ratio) are extremely rare (like the fine structure constant) - but even then you have to make up units to measure them (although you can still agree on unitless values with somebody else who chose different base units for measurements).
I was unaware that the person to whom I was replying, who claimed to be intimately familiar with the complete works of Feynman, needed instruction in how to “make use of” a fundamental constant of nature. If that is something you think is necessary, perhaps you should see to their instruction in such matters, as you are so confident in your faculties of condescending instruction.
Furthermore, I am acutely aware of the existence and nature of dimensionless constants, thank you very much.
Again, I think you’re replying to the wrong person. I never disagreed with any of this. I literally learned all of this years ago. I appreciate your attempt to educate, but I’m unclear on its purpose. The dude claimed that the speed of light is defined based on the meter, and that that makes it a tautology. That is simply, provably false. Then the dude tried to move the goalposts. Never did I say that our measurements are anything less than relative. Never did I suggest that our derived units are not based on fundamental constants. Now, you’ve said that the statement I made didn’t tell the dude “how to make use of” dimensionless units, which is a complete non sequitur. If you feel that that lecture is an important one when a dude demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what c even is, that’s your own affair, and I invite you to give this lecture a few comment levels up to the guy who thinks that c is defined based on the meter.