Yes as in iSpace but the CODATA-value is stipulated (fixedly defined) since 1986 and an Integer (299792458). If you would use miles instead of meters or another historical unit it looks different.

I have found (derived by iSpace theory on *exact* value and integer geometry of constants of nature) an integer geometric expression on the (4 prime aggregate) number 299792458 to (about) 10 (!) digits, so above the ninimum required precision to replace SI human artefact induced definition of speed of light (in SI).

What most physicists “playing around“ (sorry) with such physical constant numbers are not at all aware of, 299792458 is not only the speed of light c in SI (in m/s units), but likewise physically (!!) involved directly in a (very much actually primary, whatever the definitions in your - any - any unit system) Planck-Resistance unit (in iSpace-SI units):

iOmegaPlanck := ((299792458 Volt) / (10^7 Ampere)) = 29.9792458 Ohm (exact!)

but above holds in any unit system (surprisingly!) and is hence physical, while the individual ratio integers are (SI) human artefacts for sure (and hence should be physically completely meaningless - yet they are not). Its clear they are not yet exact, as above goes directly into FSC alpha in form of the following equation (as derived by iSpace theory):

alpha = 2 * Pi * OmegaPlanck / OmegaQH

with OmegaPlanck the above shown iOmegaPlanck and OmegaQH just the well known and very precise lab measurable Quantum-Hall effect or the von-Klitzing constant, in other words.

iOmegaQH := ((2*3*6961 Volt) / (GoldenRatio Ampere))

with „3“ is just the iSpace Pi3 integer circular number of 6 cells around 1 cell integer circular number of the physically underlying integer circle (LEGO style) base geometry, GoldenRatio Ampere „just“ the derived - prooven - quantum of Ampere (as valid in any unit system as well!) and possibly most surprising: 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (in physically 1:1 iSpace-IQ unit system able to do away with any human artefacts whatsoever) is just the iSpace derived and predicted quantum of time!

Gerd Pommerenke,

The value I'm talking about comes from a theory, and the CODATA value is experimental. I'm currently submitting a paper that includes the equation for the speed of light. In this paper, submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, I give the equations and absolute values ​​of the parameters from the 2018 Planck report. I also indicate the absolute value of the speed of light. In this paper, I explain how I obtain the absolute values ​​of physical constants and parameters. Once obtained, you can use this paper to calculate other absolute values ​​for other constants. The theoretical principle is simple: I take inspiration from a right triangle whose sides represent absolute speeds. By applying the Pythagorean theorem, you obtain two equations for the Lorentz factor. One is the famous equation used by Einstein in special relativity, and another, new and still unknown, that I use in cosmology. As I always say, Einstein only discovered 50% of the nature of the universe! But the triangle I drew is closely related to the triangle Einstein used in special relativity, whose sides are distances. That's why it gives only one equation for the Lorentz factor. I also know the absolute value of Newton's constant and Planck's constant, but unfortunately, the reviewers are hermetically sealed and don't want to deviate even slightly from what Einstein provided us. The unfortunate thing is that Einstein imposed too many restrictions, which meant he trapped himself and everyone else who wanted to make progress with these theories. He hermetically isolated special relativity and general relativity, which are easily reconcilable; you just have to find the trick; the triangle I'm proposing makes that easier. Another element that has contributed to the detriment of the link between these two theories: the reduced ratio h/h, which is a function of 2Pi instead of being a function of LAMBDA or even OMEGA. It will then become entirely possible to link the constants of cosmology and the quantum world. Finally, whether my article is accepted by the journal or not, I will publish it on RG, along with five others on quantum gravity, the hydrogen atom, etc. If you like, my right triangle that I am talking about exists, but not in detail, in my pages on RG whose title is: "Time dilation as an intrinsic property of light explaining the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the frame of reference from which it is measured." It is thanks to this triangle, which has two equations, one from Pythagoras and the other that I give myself, that you will be able to calculate everything in absolute value. And you will find the twin sister of E=mcc, because this one is not the ultimate equation, it only provides 50% of the puzzle, because it takes into account the rest mass. But what happens if we take the mass of the quantum black hole? You see, it was easy for Einstein to make us swallow this, because he does not take into account quantum gravity. But in my opinion there is no rest mass if the proton and the neutron are not black holes. In conclusion the restrictions that Einstein put as well as any other physicist whose theory was accepted have made barriers that last more than 100 years and getting rid of them will be very difficult because the majority of peer-reviewers are imbued with it up to their necks!

If anyone wants to work with confidence, do not use the CODATA value but use: c=299792. 387 543 252 595... you have 12 exact decimals while waiting for my article.

Dear Jamil Kooli

Let me guess - the reviewers will reject the article? That's right about the triangle and how accurate are your values? I can calculate everything with at least 10^-10 accuracy. See Preprint The Metric Universe

>>If anyone wants to work with confidence, do not use the CODATA value but use: c=299792. 387 543 252 595... you have 12 exact decimals while waiting for my article.

Sorry, the CODATA value is coordinated with the definition of the (CODTA-)second.

Gerd Pommerenke,

Yes I know. But the exact value of the speed of light should emerges from a theory which could link c, h, and G. To do this you should have the absolute values of c, h, and G. Iinvite you to see my paper: "Determining the Absolute Theoretical Time required for Light to Travel exactly one 'Terrestrial Mile' leads to a New Value for the Speed of Light proving that ARNE BJERHAMMAR's 1972 value is more accurate than CODATA's" there you have the unique paper who gives how much it take for light to travel an absolute terrestrial mile. The absolute time it takes for light to travel one terrestrial mile is confirmed by the experimental value of Bjear HAMMAR 299792. 367 km/sec. it is the best experimental value in physics till now. The terrestrial mile is according to me a wave-length which belongs to the radio waves. The atomic clolck need this wave to count the second. But people use it and do not know that it exists in a theory. Then: 1 terrestrial mile= c t. this c=299792. 387 543 252 595... and the absolute t exists in my paper cited above. With this technique I find the length of the sidereal year etc which figure in another paper in my pages on RG. You see you shoukd link the physical constants.

@Jamil Kooli - "The value I'm talking about comes from a theory, and the CODATA value is experimental" - No, thats plain wrong. It is simply an exact DEFINED entity, and the only "thing" actually lab measured is a frequency, the inverse of which is related to an - SI exact assumed and hence defined - value of 299792458 Meter / Second [SI]. Thats is, its based on Relativity.

"If anyone wants to work with confidence, do not use the CODATA value but use: c=299792. 387 543 252 595.." sorry Jamil, but thats plain unphysical - and imho very bad argued as well (from looking at simply what you stated above and what I know from many of your much older papers) - nonsense!

@Jamil Kooli: "To do this you should have the absolute values of c, h, and G" ... you/one simply cannot ever set all 3 (2 are ok!) of h, c and G to predefined values, as these 3 are indeed fully dependent on each others (as shown by the 4 physical base quanta derived by iSpace theory - see my RG home for indepth information why so necessarly). Some set even all 3 to 1 ... WRONG!

Christian G. Wolf,

We can absolutely relate c, G and h using the twin primes (13, 17) and (17, 19). Moreover, we can construct all physical constants on these twin primes. But this time, the quotient h by reduced h will be a function of OMEGA or even a function of LAMBDA. We can find the absolute values ​​of all cosmological parameters from Einstein or Planck 2018 results using these twin primes. This will be published in my new preprints on RG.

I have a preprint on RG which describe that the most accurate experimental value of the speed of light is the one of Bjear HAMMAR which is 299792. 367 km/sec it is in very close link with the value I presented here. But the value of CODATA is less precise.

Now what do you think of Bohr's hydrogen atom? For example, is the electron velocity he gives correct? No, it's completely wrong. The correct electron velocity around the hydrogen nucleus is V = c/100. This corresponds to one hundredth of the speed of light.

By the way, do you think there is another equation for the Lorentz factor suitable for cosmology? Yes, absolutely, there is a new one. I have a 30-page article. I'll submit it to a reputable journal in a few days, and if it's not accepted, it will appear on my RG pages. It's a very relevant article. Another thing: what is the natural energy of the electron? Isn't it 7.83 times ten to the power of negative nineteen eV? It's in one of my preprints. How do you imagine that such an important particle in physics, the electron, still has no known natural energy, even though all electronic transitions in atoms are directly related to this energy? Now, what about the size of the proton? There are several candidates, and I said there are three radii? Another thing, do you think there isn't another, more adequate equation for the Rydberg constant? Yes, there is another, and it's much better.

THEREFORE, PHYSICS NEEDS A GENERAL REVISION TO BECOME MORE HARMONIOUS. I CALL THIS ABSOLUTE PHYSICS. IT WILL PROVIDE ALL THEORETICALLY CONFORMING CONSTANTS, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC.

Jamil Kooli

>>reduced h will be a function of OMEGA or even a function of LAMBDA...

The Planck quantum of action h and its reduced value is the effective value of a special wave function and a function of time. Thus it cannot be the ratio of two primes, no way. See "The Metric Universe" Section 4.6.4.1.

The CODATA people can arbitrarily modify all measurements by order di mufti via the definition of the measurement units, but they are not free from errors. So it can happen that one value too much is stipulated, e.g. three instead of two. This has a particularly negative effect if the three have a relationship to each other that is not known to the creators. This means that the noble goal of maximizing the accuracy of all values cannot be achieved - on the contrary.

Your „value“ of c is simply just „exact“ to its maximum of 6 decimal digits (as anyone can easily see) and the proper conclusion would be simply to give in that your model or theory has failed to comply to required mandatory to be minimal inter-constant unit pressure!

Gerd Pommerenke,

Christian G. Wolf,

We can fine-tune all the constants of physics by opting for a reduced value of the quotient h/h according to OMAGA and even LAMBDA. The aim is to find more precise values ​​than those of CODATA from the Einstein parameters LAMBDA and OMEGA, so as to easily connect the constants of the infinitely small and the infinitely large. In other words, we will use cosmological parameters in parallel with the constants c, h and G, but we must retire Pi because Pi should no longer appear as a calculation constant in physics. In addition, a better equation for the Rydberg constant as a function of the classical electron radius is more adequate than the current equation. A purely relativistic method for the hydrogen atom, also based on OMEGA and LAMBDA, is easy to do. The constant radii and masses of protons and neutrons also based on OMEGA and LAMBDA and c and G is very possible to realize. No need to determine the value of h and reduced h experimentally, because they can be calculated from the values ​​of LAMBDA and OMEGA, which is very easy to do. All constants of all disciplines of physics can be refined thanks to LAMBDA and OMEGA and thanks to quotients of prime numbers 11, 13, 17, 19. I have five articles to appear soon on RG they use all these calculation techniques.

@ Jamil Kooli - your chain of arguments both model and input data wise is flawed - I read your reference given above in chat to:

“ARNE BJERHAMMAR's 1972 value is more accurate than CODATA's" there you have the unique paper who gives how much it take for light to travel an absolute terrestrial mile. The absolute time it takes for light to travel one terrestrial mile is confirmed by the experimental value of Bjear HAMMAR 299792. 367 km/sec“

Such simply confirms that there are precision wise weak 7-8 digit confirmed repeatable measurement precision of speed of light c being - to be expected - scientifically proper averaged after a series of 100 about. In other words, if you just do one measurement more the last 1-2 digits of the c result presented will completely change.

Hence one is allowed to take exact defined numbers (if CODATA in SI or otherwise) and use their aggregated RANDOMLY appearing prime factors, but of course NEVER from measurement based rounded/averaged results, as long as the measurement precision is/was not sustained 1-2 digits above the required 9 digit precision as here in case of c, so 10-11 minimum (as told below, I have found an iSpace theoretical integer geometric a) simple enough to be physical and b) precise enough to be allowed to substitute the 4x prime factor aggregate of 299792458 with such number (like say 299792458.00245..).

Hence your small 2-digit base prime number multiplicative approach can unfortunately not be taken scientifically serious and is sadly just another approach of numerology (which is sad, as mainstream is exactly and rightfully criticizing any such approach, making it even much harder for sound scientific approaches like the impressive 4D model of Gerd Pommerenke and my own mathematically trivial physical base quanta approach as verifiable and prooven by being able to derive c, e, h, QHR, FSC alpha and electron mass me in iSpace-IQ unit system from such 4 Volt, Ampere, Second, Meter related base units:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Christian G. Wolf,

According to my theoretical model, the absolute terrestrial mile is a radio wavelength used by atomic clockmakers to excite atoms, especially strontium atoms, in order to count one second. It is related to a magic frequency; I don't know what it is, but I have encountered this term in literature on atomic clocks. The absolute frequency that counts seconds is described in my preprint: "Absolute Frequencies of Strontium Atomic Clocks from Theoretical Dimensional Ratios of Strontium frequencies to Quartz Frequency." My value is: 𝒇𝒋 = 𝟒𝟐𝟗 𝟐𝟐𝟖 𝟎𝟎𝟒 𝟐𝟐𝟗 𝟓𝟓𝟒 𝐇𝐳 and the BIPM value is: (429,228,004,229,873.2 Hz, October 2015). My value is obtained theoretically. The time given in the cited article is actually the time it takes light to travel the length of that radio wave. The speed of light I used is the one we are currently discussing, but I will publish the report giving the exact value of that speed on my RG pages. By giving the exact value of the speed of light to an infinite number of decimal places, you will obtain the absolute value of the terrestrial mile, which, as I mentioned, coincidentally corresponds to the length of a radio wave.

Furthermore, I obtained the absolute values ​​of the lengths of the sidereal year and the sidereal day using my own model that links all the constants and parameters. All constants can be easily adjusted with LAMDA and OMEGA thanks to their prime number-based values.

If you look at the papers on atomic clocks, you will see that the diagrams show that the calculations for the ultrafine structures of atoms that count seconds are in the form of a ratio such as 2/13 or, more generally, of the form X/13, X from 1 to 13. Or other ratios. If you look at the frequency I give in the cited paper, my ratio has 13 in the denominator. So this is the same calculating mind that went into the creation of atoms. I mean, atoms benefit from wonderful mathematics, but simple as pie. Do you know that I submitted an excellent paper easily demonstrating the incorporation of the cosmological constant OMEGA into quantum calculations with experimental proof from the CREMA COLLABORATION, and the person on the reading committee rejected it, saying that the mathematics I use is very simple and actually corresponds to elementary rules of algebra. In fact, I didn't create the universe, the one who created it can do what he wants! I don't hope they die quickly, but I hope that young people will take things in hand as quickly as possible, like the current trend in the USA! Today, physics is financial interests, goodbye Einstein, Planck and company!