Re: Real value of c = 299733463.58589089 ?

On 16 juil, 16:40, "roger" <ro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
On 16 juil, 13:36, "roger" <ro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<s...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

On 15 juil, 23:25, "roger" <ro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
could it be that the real speed of light in vacuum
is rather 299,733,463.58589089 m/s instead of
the *defined* value of 299,792,458 m/s ?

How did you get this figure ?

this could help understanding why it is different
from the standard value.

I multiplied c by G (the Gravitational Constant, 6.6742x10^-11), ie.
x = c * G = 0.02000874823
Then I thougth that maybe this relation is supposed to be 0.02,
because the inverse of this would give a whole number,
ie. an integer number; that's 1/0.02 = 50
I just searched for some possible "symmetries" between the constants...
So you used the standard value of c to start with, then rounded up
the result of the product by G and retro calculated a now arbitrary
value for c it seems to me. Correct ?

Yes, that way I "reverse engineered" the nature :-)
Only a fraction yet :-)

There is a general consensus that there is no margin of error for
c but that there is a rather hefty one for G.

See my other posting with the exact value of G (called Gr for "G real" :-)

Is there a reason for you to doubt so much that the value for c
would be less to be trusted than that for G.

The exact value of G I already had for some weeks,
but that of c I just found yesterday.

And how did you arrive at that value of G, and why do you think
it is better than the standard value ?

André Michaud

.

Relevant Pages