On 10/04/2012 8:51 AM, Rotwang wrote: > On 10/04/2012 15:11, Nam Nguyen wrote: >> On 10/04/2012 6:49 AM, Michael Stemper wrote: >>> In article<uoPfr.26515$V94.8992@newsfe19.iad>, Nam >>> Nguyen<namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes: >>>> On 08/03/2012 8:55 AM, Mike wrote: >>> >>>>> Can physics be derived from pure logic? >>>> >>>> That's a good question. I have only a limited knowledge about >>>> mathematics and mathematical logic and my physics is even >>>> worse; so I could only speculate here. >>> >>>> In the end I gave up: there are so many difficult things to learn >>>> and yet nowhere have I found even a slightest hint in mathematics or >>>> in logical reasoning that would explain the mystery as to why the speed >>>> of light is 300,000.00 km/sec, instead of 299,299.99 km/sec! >>> >>> Would it bother you if somebody pointed out that the speed of light is >>> neither of those, but is actually 299,792.458 km/s -- by definition? >> >> It was only a manner of speaking; the particular constancy value is >> the issue. In this case the question is essentially the same: why >> not, say, 299,792.457 km/s? >> >> Btw, " by definition"? I thought physics quantities are _measured_ ? > > Not in this case, no. The metre is defined to be 1/299792458 times the > distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1 second.
Same question, really: why would light not travel at 99.9999999% of the current constant speed, instead of 100%?
-- ---------------------------------------------------- There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
