DimaMazin

And so people use inexact meter for definition of exact c . Then they use exact c for definition of exact meter. Why we can't use exact c for definition of exact time?

Initially meter was defined without light travel. Therefore I can define every thing without unit of time.

I have given wrong example. We should use only meters. For example 1*109m.

Only for example.

Then how do you define interplanetary unit of time?

Unit of time should be 281374807m of length of light way. It is distance of balance of gravitational force and cosmological force of interaction of two bodies each of which has 1 kg of mass.

I talk about units of time. Atomic clocks aren't build on Earth's rotation, but they show it. They can show length of light way with the same success. What is time which should be used by interplanetary nomads? And even light clock can exist. System of calculations of distances and light receptions let you define age of the universe. Isn't it the clock?

I see no sense when citizens of every planet use time of own planet. Time should be defined only by length of light way.

Yes. Scientists use v/c as speed, but they don't understand that it is real speed without my definition of time.

Your clock are fast or slow, it has no meaning.Because your clock should tell only one thing: quantity of light motion.

Yes. But you need to know simultaneity when you use quantity of motion of another thing for definition of time. And you need no simultaneity when you use quantity of motion of light for definition of time. Therefore you can say that time is quantity of motion of light

There distance is marked without c and t . I don't know time and c.

Let's consider non-relativistic case:You are traveler without acceleration. At distance of r to a mirror you create flash. At distance r-dx you recieve the light from the mirror. Then dxlight=2r-dx. Even if you don't know time,your speed and speed of light you can define your momentum.What is parameterized here?

Thanks for sarcasm agen. When I know dxlight and simultaneous dx then I don't need to know speeds and time.

Strange questions. Show how your questions relate to my idea. You are asking about value of dt there where time doesn't exist! For example v/c has no unit and dx/dxlight has the same. If you don't understand the idea then you should try to use light clock: source creates flash and the light travels to a mirror and back then when the source recieves the light it creates flash agen. dxlight and quantity of receptions define time, time defines nothing.

No. dxlight=c*dt

Thanks. I can't patent anything.

By myself. Did you see this somewhere?

Thanks Nobox. The thought has came from definition of time http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86302-what-is-time/page-14 Change of distance to photon which is simultaneous with dx of object.

Speed of light is constant therefore we can use 'dx' of light instead of time.For example: p=m*dxlight*dx/(dxlight2-dx2)1/2

Can we use stars for change of motion direction? For example our space station travels from near neutron star to far neutron star and back therefore needs relatively small additional energy for change of motion direction. Of course payload should be accelerated. I think we could use many stars for change of motion direction of fast space station.

Spacecraft has momentum= - p . After gravitational action the spacecraft has momentum=p. Does owner of the gravitation recieve momentum= -2p ?

Archimedes created more useful things at peace time than at wartime. And at all when war kill scientists then it isn't useful for our advancement.

We can use wars for our advancements, but wars aren't reason for our advancements. Because war can kill us without creation of our advancement.

Putin has told that Russian security agencies have taken out Yanukovych from Ukraine. It means that they have discharged him from his power to annex Crimea using the anarchy. Now Russia has only two allies: deceit and violence.