Vikky Storm πŸ‘»πŸ”«πŸ€ πŸ₯€πŸ•ŠοΈ is a user on left.community. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

Vikky Storm πŸ‘»πŸ”«πŸ€ πŸ₯€πŸ•ŠοΈ @deathpigeon@left.community

This quippy joke is getting more attention than the thread I made before it on science (still not very much, tho), but that thread is more interesting and informative, so everyone appreciating this joke should go read it, too. twitter.com/deathpigeon/status

Feynman's β€œPhilosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" simultaneously shows how bad his understanding of philosophy of science is and how bad his understanding of ornithology is.

tl;dr The speed of light isn't fundamental to anything. The speed of causality is and light goes that speed because it can't go any faster than that speed.

But, if we think of c as the speed of causality, it makes more sense for c to show up everywhere. Causality is absolutely relevant to the amount of energy in a unit of mass, and basically everywhere in physics.

Plus, so long as we're thinking of c as merely the speed of light, its presence in a whole multitude of calculations is baffling. Why is light relevant to the amount of energy in a unit of mass?

This helps not just to avoid thinking that c is something particular to light, but also helps us grasp what c is and why light goes at speed c (there can be no causal connection between two points more than c apart in time and distance, so light can't go faster than that).

A more accurate description is that it's the speed of causality. According to relativity, nothing can go faster than c, so no effect can go from point a to point b at a speed faster than c, therefore there's no way to cause something at a distance and time more than c away.

Light goes at speed c because light goes as fast as things are able to go, and nothing can go faster than speed c. But this is true of anything without mass, not something particular to light.

I know why we call c the speed of light. We figured it out, experimentally, using light & light is the most obvious thing in the universe with speed c. But I don't think we should. It's not something particular to light and calling it the speed of light gives the impression it is

LADIES imagine this, it’s 15 years from nowβ€”your son's up to bat, she's calling a cab while he's having a smoke and she's taking a drag. Now they're going to bed. Your stomach is sick. It's all in your head but she's touching his chest. Now he takes off her dress.

NOW LET YOU GO

So, apparently, some people were upset about the revelations in a Single Pale Rose because it was "too predictable" and, like, that's just called good set up? It was "predictable" because of foreshadowing and set up. That's good writing.