Recent content by Dangoe

@jbriggs444: You are basically explaining why we invented units and why a Rolex is better than a sundial. I mostly agree, except at the end: That's relative. From overwhelmingly good to not at all. We are not in a Hollywood movie.

c I mean it wasn't guessed in the first place, so measured somehow - we had the uncertainties lately in the historical context. Things are still hidden from me behind a paper wall, I can ask my local uni or just pay access or try zlib, anyway at one point they were measuring, getting better, and...

I think I need some time off, driving me crazy and consuming way too much of my time off. Coming back, until then!

Summarizing more or less in short: "We measured c historically by the reference meter stored in Paris until we could achieve very fine-tuned measurements in a vacuum better than needed [here the point - seems not to hurt] while getting more precise clocks (atomic clocks, Cäsium-based, even...

Thanks for the further explanations as well, clarifying it even more. I feel this is all rather trivial than rocket science but for me very informative. Being authentic I imagine or at least hope other interested people at a similar level may find this thread helpful as well. I feel much...

Thank you guys, you showed almost everything possible to understand better. Am so happy I signed up. I can't ask professors so sticking to asking in a forum, here is one of the best I was told. And indeed is, thanks a lot. Wasn't reading here in between but read a part of Dale's suggestions...

Thank you! :)

I know, thought about that when writing. Anyway, I had many discussions with such people, and so I do mention it right away. Doesn't matter. Thanks for your feedback!

I was just chatting before reading and learning more. Thanks again for the hint above. And yes, makes sense when clear, not before. Until later.

While I haven't read about the extinction theorem for me "in vacuum" means in vacuum. Not complicated, what to not understand what I find unbelievable about.

Ah, ok, thanks Dale! I am going to follow your path "optical extinction theorem" to understand it better. I still can't believe we got c in a "vacuum" just like that, implying the second, meter and etcetera... Regards, Dangoe

Thanks fresh_42, but both not a vacuum anyway. Maybe enough you say? Regards, Dangoe

Hi Vanadium 50, Thanks for this number. How did you get it, and how being so sure? Regards, Dangoe

Sorry I have some issues with my device (iPad), keeps ghosting my keyboard, tried again maybe overlapping answers - I switch to another one now.

Thanks for your reply hutchphd, Of course you are absolutely right Thanks for your reply hutchphd, Of course you are absolutely right, I just skipped that because so obvious presumably. Anyway, here we go: “Im bekannten Universum gibt es kein vollständiges Vakuum, und es ist mit bekannten...