If the metre is now defined as the distance light travels in vacuum in
1⁄299,792,458th of a second and the speed of light is accepted to be
299,792,458 m/s, doesn't this seem like the chicken and egg problem?
I remember reading somewhere (in the context of uncertainity principles)..
..the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured
So, how then do physicists claim to have accurately measured the speed of light? Does this mean the definition of the metre is dependent on our ability to accurately measure the speed of light?
After all, to determine speed (distance traveled/time taken) you must first choose some standards of distance and time, and so different choices can give different answers?
What about so many other factors that affect these measurements. I do not claim to understand the theories of relativity entirely but what about the chosen frame of reference? Spacetime curvature?
Does this mean that our measurements are only relative and not absolute?