/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8037430
dude...

>>8037432
Come one, even Trudeau could answer this one

>>8037432
...Weed.

>>8037430
>why is it 186,000 miles per second?
what are miles
what are seconds

use natural units with c=1 or somesuch and these questions literally disappear

might as well ask "why do cars move faster than trees grow by x times?"

>>8037444
/thread

>>8037444
So why does it go the "4 times around the world by the time i snap my fingers" speed?

>>8037430
Why does a rules based universe have rules?

>>8037453
Because it has rules.

>>8037451
Because that's the way we defined the units...
Again, just say the speed of light is 1 "speedaunit" per second, and base all your measurement off that, and you'll still discover all the same formulas.

You asked why does causality have a speed of x, but the better question would be why is everything else slower?

>>8037460
Exactly

>>8037538
Speedaunit is bullshit

Why is it 186,000 instead of 200,000

miles per second isnt a made up term

You have 186,000 miles, light crosses it in 1 second

Wow so hard to visualize

>>8037715
are you having a stroke or something

>>8037715
It had to be some particular speed.
You might as well get a flat time and ask "why did that particular tire go flat, and not one of the others?"

>>8037717
>>8037720
You're trying to say, "Just accept that light goes this speed, then work backwards from there and don't ever question it."

>>8037538
It's not about how we defined the units. This is actually a valid question.

>>8037758
We can question it. Indeed people do.
So far it hasn't been a productive question.

As far as we can tell, the speed of causality is finite because it is. A deeper reason, to my knowledge, has not yet been prominently theorized.

>>8037715
>miles per second isnt a made up term
Did God tell you how long a mile is? Did the universe unveil the true span of a second?

>>8037768
>the speed of causality is finite because it is

god damn i hate scientists

>>8037430
He went over this decades before his death. That's old new desu.

>>8037798
science doesn't care about the "why"
if you care about the why then go get high and make bullshit idiotic unfalsifiable ideas all you want

>>8037807
i agree but would add that mathematical consistency with existing physics can be a "why" to many.

and add faith in jesus to your suggested activites.

>>8037799
Einstienium dubs for truth

>>8037430
>causality
Lrn2causation fgt pls

>>8037798
>When they don't know something they admit it instead of making up a pretty story

>That's a terrible way of making pretty stories!

>god damn i hate scientists

>>8037807
>falling for the falsifiability meme

okay undergrad

>>8038320
>"Dont even think about it, it's clearly impossible *assumption*, just ignore it".

>>8037715
Are you fucking autistic or what

>>8037758
actual backward of how Einstein worked it out but close. more like this is the observations of light from what we know how fast they are going then deduct the time the information got to get there as it was travelling at the speed of light.

>>8037430
Because of the value of permittivity and permeability.
[math]
\displaystyle
c = \frac{1}
{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0
\mu_0
}
}
[/math]

Timespace has something analogous to a liquid.

>>8038362
>The guy with painfully imprecise reasoning is an autistie
ok

Why does shitting feel really good, but shit itself smell really bad?

>>8037430
As some anon just said, the better question is "why does everything else moves slower than the speed of light? Miles and seconds means nothing, and since the speed of light is a constant, it would be smarter to measure everything else relative to it.

> b-but why?
idk m8, it's just a feature of the universe, causality just happens to have this specific speed.

>decide to create a new universe
>usually make light travel instantly through space and even time
>this time I limit it to some arbitrary number
>laugh as I read arguments about it on random Mongolian basketweaving forums from different planets

>>8037430
Even for ftl propagation the cause still precedes the effect.

>>8037430
>dude quantum computer lmao

>>8037438
>come one
>one
grenouille détectée

>>8037430
because 1m is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second

and 1 second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

the meter and the second are units defined from physical phenomena. Not the other way around.

>>8037430
he's so goddamn ugly too

>>8037720
>why did that particular tire go flat, and not one of the others?
except this question will always have a physical answer. Tires going flat isn't a random event, you can investigate it and determine an answer to that question. Whereas with light speed there is no "investigation" to determine an answer, and if there is you haven't clued us in to it. You're answer is arrogant and useless.

>>8041016
>because 1m is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second
Alright, good answer. But why is this length fixed independent of the motion of the observer? And don't give me this "science doesn't care about the why" bullshit because if you don't explain your reasoning in science you will be collectively shat on by the scientific community.

>>8041052
>why
science doesn't care about the why, you idiot
what you really want to know is how do we know that the length is independent of motion, and we have plenty of data on that

>>8041054
>science doesn't care about the why, you idiot
you are fucking retarded. Every single scientific law was discovered by asking why, not asking "how do we know".
>How do we know apples fall to the earth?
That's easy, we can see apples fall to the earth.
>Why do apples fall to the earth?
Newton creates a theory of gravity.

>How do we know Mercury's orbit precesses?
by observation
>Why does Mercury's orbit precess?
Einstein's General theory of relativity.

>How do we know light always travels at the same speed?
Michaelson and Morley
>Why does light always travel at the same speed?
Because it's actually EM radiation and the Maxwell equation's deduce it's speed mathematically.

See the pattern? You can ask "how do we know x?" all you want but you're being more of a flat earther then a scientist at that point.

>>8041052
>Alright, good answer. But why is this length fixed independent of the motion of the observer

Cause they have to have a start, and with a starting point you choose to go forwards or back(with your measurements) now given that theres not much we can do when it comes to the speed of light other than calculate

>>8041066
>I talk about shit I never bothered to study
you don't know what science is, you never studied epistemology

>Why do apples fall to the earth?
nobody knows the reason, we just know how they do, and they do through what we call gravity

>>8041071
What the fuck? that wasn't coherent whatsoever.
>The length light travels in a given time interval doesn't depend on the motion of the observer because it has to have a starting point, OBVIOUSLY
if you don't have an adequate answer just don't even try. You're just causing more confusion in the thread, likely because you're confused yourself.

>>8041074
>you don't know what science is, you never studied epistemology
Yeah, a science major doesn't know what science is because he never took a philosophy course. By the way, I actually took an epistemology course sophomore year.
>nobody knows the reason, we just know how they do, they do through what we call gravity
I don't see a difference between this statement and saying "the reason why apples fall to the earth is gravity". It's like you're avoiding saying this because you're desperately clinging on the the fact that science doesn't deal with why questions. Every single question I've asked any physics professor has been a why question, and they happily answer it every time. You're delusional.

>>8041052
>why is this length fixed independent of the motion of the observer?
we assume it is, based on what we have observed until now.

Maybe it's not true.

>>8041095
>because you're confused yourself.
I did actually but there wasn't any going back

>>8041006
Kék

post hoc