299 792 458 m/s

>>2851205
I think your question is better for /sci/

But in case I'm wrong, bump

it isn't. The speed of light can vary.

>>2851205
>$c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}$
>tl;dr constants and shit, might as well ask why isn't Planck's constant a bit bigger

I hope this answers your question. Otherwise I would recomand you to study theory of relativity.

>>2851205
Why am I not on /sci/?
Oh right, the grass.

>>2851219
Not talking about slowing down light with atmosphere or gravity. Don't be childish. You can't make it go faster.

>>2851219
Wrong

effective speed can.

>>2851229
>why isn't Planck's constant a bit bigger
That's actually a good question too.

>>2851248

Because God made a universe with physical attributes that can support life.

Or... in any event, if those things changed we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

>>2851205
Anthropic principle

>>2851205
>>2851214
>>2851229
>>2851235
>>2851248
>>2851382
Why =/= How

There is no why, that we know of, the universe doesn't have a reason to be, it just is.

Science isn't concerned with why, just how. Answering why is a matter relegated to philosophy and theology

>>2851205
Because God is a jerk who won't let us explore space

>>2851361
>>2851382
So it's more like many dimensions explanation. We are in that one that can host life... and you are saying this world got randomly this amount of speed of light.
That migh be so.
How big was the range? Could the speed of light be round 300 000 000 m/s and still make the world ok for life? What would differ if it was twice as slow?

>>2851205
Because our universe is a computer simulation and it just happens that the variable c has been initiated with that value in this particular iteration.

>>2851397
How did it happen that speed of light is that much? Was it pure chance?
Btw. Fuck you.

>>2851205
fock off to >>>/sci/ your STEM fag!

>>2851440
According to atheists, yes, according to theists, no.

Pick your poison, you rude fuck.

>>2851438
What can be said of the outside (real?) universe?

>>2851443
>your STEM fag!
>your
That's bait, right?

t. Yours truly Stem fag.

>>2851448
But there must be more on how different world woud be with different speed of light? Could it even exist?

>>2851452
language is a social construct.

>>2851452
We can't conceive of it because we don't possess the conceptual apparatus for it. My guess fractal multiverse. As above so below.

>>2851487
>My guess fractal multiverse
But if we are a simulation inside another universe, this would imply a chain or a tree of universes with a root. There would be an original world containing all the other worlds. Every contained world would have to consist of less information than the previous (higher) one.

- see, you can say something about that.

>>2851466
See >>2851487

Everything is possible desu we might be able to prove it at some point, we have no way of knowing how much of a impact it would make until then tho.

>>2851571
Bullshit. I just fucked up by posting my question on /his/. Hypothetizing about different speed of light would require building a theoretical model of the universe with new parameters. How speed of light impacts other elements of this "machinery" and how it effects the evolution of the universe.

It literally wouldn't matter.

>>2851205
Why didn't God just make it so he can redeem us all at the click of the fingers?

Them's just the breaks.

>>2851205
I only know that there are lasers that can travel hundreds of times the speed of light and if you point them towards eachother you can create a black hole/ boil the fabric of space and tear it.

File: shit's fast yo.jpg (2MB, 3000x1996px)

2MB, 3000x1996px

>>2851205
First, the speed light isn't really the speed of light, it's the maximum speed of information propagation - or to put it another way, the maximum speed of causality. Massless particles all interact at this speed.

In the end, it's a limit caused by Lorentz transformations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

Mind you, causality isn't absolutely inviolable, and different observers in two different frames may disagree about the order of events in a third, due to relativistic effects, but generally speaking, this convergence is what prevents things from happening faster than they do.

Which is basically the >>>/sci/ explanation.

As for the grand "why", I dunno... It's just how shit came to work. Sometimes shit just happens. I suppose the limitation does provide a sort of great filter, in that any civilization that wants to spread among the stars more or less has to get its shit together first, likely having to abandon any infinite growth model in the process, and thus any civilization successful in spreading beyond its cradle will likely be "mature" enough to minimize its destructiveness and spread, ensuring every such civilization will still have a chance to reach its potential, rather than having a situation where the first civ bent on infinite expansion colonizes the entire galaxy. Whether that's evidence of intent or just dumb luck (or even true) who the fuck knows...

>>2852921
but c is more like a result of the parameters, not a parameter itself

>>2853329
Ok, tell me more.

>>2853259
The youtube video seems to be touching something, but stops at popsci.

>>2853610
Well, that's sadly always the best you can hope for without the maths (that is, after all, why we have pop-sci) - but there are some links to the hard explanations if you click the Youtube button and open it up, should you be so inclined.

>>2851205
>why is speed of light exactly that much?

why are you using m/s to measure it? What even is "distance"/"time"?

File: mind blown.gif (1MB, 466x350px)

1MB, 466x350px

>>2851477
social constructs are social constructs