Why would god use dumbasses as the standard unit of philosophy?
post
How fast is a dumbass?
1 dumbass per... hour? Minute? Second? 🤷♂️
It's already the right unit. Like a watt is a joule/s
1 dumbass per idiot
Universal refresh rate.
It's deeper than that as we have instruments to measure things we can't personally perceive.
From everything we know it's quite literally the limit the universe can update. For the photon moving at light speed time quite literally doesn't exist. When you look up at the stars, for the photons hitting your eye balls their experience is that creation to reception is instantaneous. The millions or billions of years we perceive it traveled doesn't exist at that speed.
I just think that's neat.
That's beautifully written. I like the idea that I receive cute lil interstellar photons. The stochastic nature of the universe means I am being irradiated by an interstellar object thousands of years away. They started a journey from a star thousands of years ago, crossed the vast expanse of space without hitting anything, pierced our planet's atmosphere as our planet and system hurtle through space, and was then absorbed by a single cone cell in my eye. It almost feels unbelievable.
I'm a dumbass? I'm not the one deciding all speed should be scaled to a fraction of the fastest thing that exists, dipshit.
The speed of light is a tautology. We define it via how many meters light travels in a second. And we define the meter by the same measure. It’s just the distance light travels in 1⁄299792458 Of a second.
The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club lol
c is a measurable constant, not some unit that is arbitrarily defined. Like Boltzmann's Constant, or the ground state hyperfine transition frequency of the Cesium-133 atom... it just... Is.
Therefore, it is a useful tool to define units. You claim it is a tautology because we write it in units of meters per second, while the meter is defined based on c. This is easily disproven, as you can represent the speed of light in any unit of velocity. It is a fundamental constant, derivable through experiment without any units a priori.
Ergo, it is 1
It’s not about the units i used. It’s about using something to define itself. The same problem happens when you use c to define empty space since empty space can define c.
Once you decide which units are used in maxwells equations then the electromagnetic permeability and permissivity pops out as a proportions of c.
Read more Feynman if you don’t believe me.
That may be, and I've been meaning to dig into my copy of the Lectures, but that's moving the goalposts. You said that it was a tautology because it was defined by the meter, and the meter was defined on it. That statement is demonstrably false.
Everything in physics is defined by relative properties. Scale all fundamental units by the same factor and we can not detect any change in behavior whatsoever
Speed of light may be constant, but we can not make measure it through any other means then by measuring it in terms of ratios against other constants
I used the meter because that’s generally what is used for measurement in scientific endeavors. There was no goal post moving if the statement applies for all SI measurements.
Literally the entire point of the comment that you're responding to is that it isn't true for the metre, and it isn't true for any SI units.
Your entire claim of tautology rests on the assertion that the speed of light is defined by something external to light itself. That's false. It remains false irrespective of which SI measurements you swap in.
Just because the speed of light can be expressed in terms of SI units, doesn't mean its definition depends on them. Which is the point that wolframhydroxide was making.
This directly disproves your original assertion of tautology.
Every metric of speed of light is necessarily relative to other things. Even if you define as 1, now you must be able to know what one unit of time is relative to one unit of distance, and if you do not know that then you do not know that your speed of 1 means.
All fundamental units are defined relative to each other in physics, and all other units are defined relative to the fundamental units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

Even the Cesium time standard is defined relative to electric fields which are defined by time and distance and charges, and charges are defined by energy defined by force defined by time and distance and more....
But isn't the measurement of the speed of light our own proportion derived from the constant that is 1g of water at 1ATM?
It's not useful to tell somebody it is constant without a way to make use of it. Without knowing how it's defined relative to other things we can't use it.
The thing about all the absolute physical constants is that they are almost all based on units defined relative to other things. Unitless constants (defined only as a ratio) are extremely rare (like the fine structure constant) - but even then you have to make up units to measure them (although you can still agree on unitless values with somebody else who chose different base units for measurements).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant
Edit: the most obvious immediate reason Wolfram here is fully wrong is that Cesium frequency is defined as the frequency you measure when light of the correct energy/wavelength is emitted against the atom, to then measure the corresponding returned light of the right energy/wavelength.
To determine what that wavelength should be with your instruments you can measure things like the electric field and charges - which depends on units that are all defined relative to each other, and as soon as you start fixing some units (like when you have measured the energy state differential in the atom) then you will realize you have defined ratios between the units
a second is defined as the time it takes for a caesium atom to oscillate exactly 9192631770 times, at least according to the SI. a meter is then defined, as you said, as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 seconds, which corresponds to some large number of oscillations of those caesium atoms. these numbers are pretty much arbitrary though, we just picked them to match our previous, less precise, definitions of meters and seconds. but using oscillations of caesium atoms and speeds of light in your is completely equivalent to using meters and seconds, except that the latter units are more familiar to us
This got me thinking if we defined the metre to be a more round number, like 1⁄300000000.
It would shrink the metre by 0.6918mm.
Now I'm curious about what implications that would have.
But we defined what a meter was long before we knew the speed of light
The small thing defines the big thing that defines the small thing that defines...
Why is it 1 then?
There's a convention in theoretical physics to adopt so-called "natural" units. In the natural system of units, measures of length, time, and mass are chosen so as to make the speed of light and the gravitational constant 1. Or sometimes it's the speed of light and Planck's constant.
Anyhow, this makes the resulting measures of length, time, and mass completely nonsensical to any human scale problem. But it makes physics equations much shorter to write down, because you can drop all of the c's, G's, and h-bars and whatnot.
For example, the famous E = m c^2 becomes E = m. Energy is mass. Voila.
Explains perfectly well how I can eat a hot dog and then go do some things.
Also explains that after I do some things, I need to take a shit.
Don’t correct me, you all know I’m right and fifteen percent of you are currently on the toilet.
Speed of light is infinite.
The speed of light being finite has been settled for three centuries.
They are all wrong
No they're not
Agree to disagree.
Wrong if you're a photon. No time will pass as you cross the universe
Dividing by zero equals undefined, not infinite.
You're assuming there's no alternative means of defining the formula, such as a contraction of length of the distance to the destination to zero which puts the experienced travel time at zero, which does not require you to divide by zero
Please post your formula
Look if you've never seen formulas where the physics is remains consistent as you cross by a division of zero before (such as a ton of differentials in thermodynamics where you simply substitute the term at that point) then maybe try again
I know there's a reflexive instinct to discard any formula producing division by zero, but if the extrapolation of the graph make sense without breaking any physics maybe it's correct
And aside from all that, something for which time is undefined obviously don't experience the passing of time
all 81 comments