yikes
You are correct, jlhredshift talked about it in post #6
Sorry about that
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlhredshift
I thought the answer to "why" is "because". Science creates models to explain actions, not to answer "why". There are a whole list of parameters that we do not know "why". My favorite is the Fine Structure constant; 1/137 + a little bit; "why",we do not know.
|
here is exactly what you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
Not really a good example. There is no absolute speed of sound, like there is an absolute speed of light. This little fact gives us plenty of other information that we can go on to determine the whys, hows, and therefores [sic].
|
I guess this statement is ambiguous to me because apparently I did not understand what you were talking about I took it as we know that the speed of light is absolute therefore that fact is all the information we need to “determine the whys, hows, and therefores”
Sorry if I took this out of context.
As for the rest, they were most likely rhetorical.
however, as you asked,
Quote:
By asking the question, you are implying that nobody is studying it, or implying that somebody says it's not worth studying.
Again; where do you get the idea that nobody is interested in studying it?
|
Again because two posts above seemingly shrugged off the premise that there is a need to understand why and how the speed of light is what it is, an exercise in futility means to me that something is pointless. How could trying to understand why and how the speed of light is what it is be pointless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
And I agree with jlhredshift in that science is more suited to explain the 'hows', 'wheres', 'whens', and not the 'whys'. Why is the speed of light c?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by alainprice
You are asking why the speed of light is the speed of light.
It's like trying to define time; an exercise in futility.
|
__________________