The speed of Light

[1/(mu naught times epsilon naught)]^(1/2) = c

thats what

forgive me for not knowing how to put in the actual characters, im a newfag

I think he's asking what is the mechanical property of the universe, or the logically exclusive process of math, that forces that.

Granted, I'm still trying to figure out why half spin particles can't occupy the same space ala Pauli Exclusion Principle. Meh Both risk the infinite why regression, but meh, on the surface they sound pretty basic.

this answers the question the best really

Tell that to the next cop who pulls you over with a radar gun.

Nice digits
see and

>Why is it that speed?
Because that is the way the meter is defined.

Actually it is not.
This is due to human perception.
Notice that sound and light are mere energy and depending on which way we collect it, we call it sound or light. Also notice the correlation between speed of sound and speed of light.

Woosh

why is the blue car blue

Because it's travelling fast towards you. Get out of the way!

>m

Wait a second...

>correlation between speed of sound and speed of light
Well, speed of light in a vacuum travels as fast as it is possible to go, and speed of sound in a vacuum is zero, as there's no medium to travel through... I guess that's a correlation.

[math]
\displaystyle
c = \frac{1}
{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0
\mu_0
}
}
[/math]

any constant looks weird because of how we use numbers to view them

i'm sure in some other medium or form that has nothing to do with numbers, the constant can be represented in a way that makes perfect sense

latex broken in Veeky Forums ?

It's true that the exact value of the speed of light is arbitrary because the exact value of a second is arbitrary as well as the meter to light year ratio.

However seconds are based on the divisions of the day, so the concept is not arbitrary

>speed of light not measured in feet

He asked why, not what.

If we assume that the number that is the speed of light wasn't arbitrary, and we tried to work our way backward from that, redefining seconds, could we get any interesting results?

Not really. Seconds were once defined with nuclear reactions afaik, and there were some problems with the speed of light, they knew it was constant and some kind of an "upper limit", but couldn't prove it.

Einstein solved it by posing it as an axiom.

its the speed that satisfies them simultaneously or something similar

>why
Vacuum has something analogous to fluid compressibility and density, that is, vacuum isn't just "nothing".

All you've done is replace one constant with two. Why are the other constants the values they are? I'll give you a head start, we define mu exactly.

Well, at least some folks know enough about the subject not to dodge it by giving yet another definition of the speed of light or simply saying "seconds are fucked".

OP is asking what are the mechanical properties that cause the speed of light (or the maximum speed of causality) to be what it is. What prevents it from being faster, or slower, for instance.

If that was the question he should have asked it as such

Time and space are the same thing.

1 second is exactly 299 792 458 meters in the 4th dimension. When you use the correct speed of 1 m/m, that is dimensionless 1. And when you do c^2, if you still get 1, and E=m (with a constant depending on what units you use). All velocities in the universe are dimensionless and between 0 and 1.

it's always been two

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Propagation_of_light

[autism intensifies]

I'm kinda confused as to how, "Why is it that speed?" would generate any other sort of response.

I mean, if someone asks "Why is the speed limit on the highway 55mph?" - "Because the sign says so!" or "25+30 = 55" or "Cuz miles are arbitrary!", aren't legitimate answers.

Why doesn't light travel the entire universe instantly if the photons doesn't have mass? What is slowing it down?

Because of how a fucking meter is defined. Are you all idiots?

political correctness

photons energy
E=pc

So there is no objective speed for light, its just our subjective arbitrary measurement of it using our method of calculations?

checked

Activated almonds, ect.

correct, just one feminist dance therapy class is all you need to change c

Woosh

the real question is: is the pilot wave moving faster than the light we observe?

>Because of how a fucking meter is defined. Are you all idiots?
facepalm.jpg

If only we HAD started out defining the meter in relation to lightspeed, we could have made c = 3x10^8 m/s, and not 2.99792458 x10^8 m/s.