Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "socratus" <israelsad@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
> news:1168168675.489237.16720@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
> > inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
> > absolute black  body,
> > negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space,
> > "a method of renormalization",  etc.
>
> All the sources of physics are created on concrete ideas:
> measurements of time, distance, mass:
>
>   http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>     "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
>     radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
>     hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

This is OK but only as far as it goes.

>   http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
>     "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in
>     vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second"

" Note that the effect of this definition is to fix the speed of light
in vacuum at exactly 299 792 458 m·s-1". Quote from the website you
linked to crank.

You assume a speed of light constant in advance, which you have not
measured since you do not know yet what distance is. Furthermore, as it
turns out the meter is equal to the path traveled by light in
9192631770/299792458 periods of the radiation corresponding to the
transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the
cesium 133 atom, or equal to:

30.663318988498369762190615215544........

periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the
two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

pretty well undefined crank. Unless you know how to get an integer out
of that and devide it in equal parts equal to 1 meter.


>   http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/kilogram.html
>     "The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass
>     of the international prototype of the kilogram."

hahahahahahahahahaha

Idiot,  X being equal to itself (X) is not a definition, it is a plain
use of the identity rule (tautology).

You must try to do better crank. No wonder why the world if full of
psychos like you when people are taught to define things in terms of
themselves or using a priori definitions with no empirical content.

Mike