if 66% + 33% = 100% then my name is Santa Claus .... and i disagree with this ... its totally illogical for me ... and it was proved particles who can be more faster then speed light i heard it on news but it's not really ''official'' nvm what i wanna says is 50% of people know that the sun go around the earth how can u trust that poll?
Maybe in what we call a vacuum, which most of the universe is, contains dark matter which causes friction to light. Thus limiting the speed of light to 3*10^8 m/s
@MidnightSt Bose-Einstein condensates are interesting, all right. Likewise, related experiments where photons have been slowed to almost a complete stop really bend space-time in an interesting way. We don't need to go that far though - there's lots of evidence of light being slowed slightly as it travels through different substances - but none of the above are examples of the speed of light limit being exceeded, so perhaps I'm not understanding your question?
Now, this is kind of like saying that the universe has an end. If the universe had an end, a sort of wall would be there to block anything from passing it, but if we managed to pass it, there'd still be something out there, as the universe has to be contained in something need an end be a case. Same would apply to sound, just not in the same way a case would apply to an object, but as in the way that it also keeps going. Something has to be able to "keep going" faster than light or neutrinos.
what implication does the speed of light being broken, have on the divine matrix...the field..does it support the theory or open up new possibilities?
What does this imply for the holographic universe...Somebody enlighten me on the new discovery, the speed of light being exceeded!
considering all things are different arrangements of energy, and that all light is energy, wouldnt exceeding the speed of light exceed the rate at which we are able to perceive our world, universe, dimension etc.? In other words, getting someplace before the light does means getting there before the place does, right?
@exxx55 Regarding the new evidence that neutrinos arrived 60 billionths of a second earlier than the speed of light - I would say Einstein is being disproved if you don't believe in the existence of extra dimensions. But if these neutrinos somehow took a tiny shortcut outside of spacetime, and essentially "burrowed" through the fifth dimension to arrive a little earlier, that would not violate relativity, and could well be the first direct evidence of the existence of extra dimensions. Cool!
@10thdim - Wouldn't it also just be possible that his conclusions about the limit of the speed of light were wrong, yet his axiom is still correct (light is a constant)? Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never taken a deep investigation into his work...but this is what I remember.
okay cool so you told us that light will travel at the same speed away from us even if we are travelling at near speed of light... but thats crazy! with no explanation what so ever that light some how defies all laws of basic physics.. and no one is questioning it, which is the fascinating part... So can you please care to tell me why light has this property? maybe compare it to sound and how sound is a wavelength as well but we do go faster then it.
@monstagamer Yes, it's very counterintuitive - but it really is what happens. Light always travels at a constant speed, regardless of the motion of it's source. To accommodate this, time itself changes. And you're wrong to say no one questions it - that's what science is all about...questioning, checking, testing. But all evidence for the past 100 years has proven Einsten right, and a lot of our technology wouldn't work without our understanding of this amazing fact.
A sub atomic particle named "Neutrinos" was discovered recently.But it is just a month ago that they proved that it travels FASTER than the speed of light.(6km\sec faster).I am not contradicting the fact that speed of light is the limit,but I think these particles of a very very negligible mass may have found a shortcut through a dimension!Think about it .(Like if you too doubt this)
@d993080 Your assumption is correct. With the energy they created, a black hole was created and these particles traveled a worm hole and the detectors simply 'saw' them. There is an assumption these particles traveled a conventional linear path. Thus the claim something when 'faster' than the speed of light.
@AudioJustG If you recall, the initial controversy of this entire experiment was what would be the result of creating an actual black hole. It seems the results they have measured, point to that very end, save the destruction of the entire universe.
ok i have a question.. for example if i was in a car moving 100 MPH and i turned on my flashlight will it be the speed of light + 100 MPH or will it still be the same speed as if i was standing still?
@mohammadjj it doesnt change.but i have another question wht if sound? will it change with ur speed. for me it doesnt change but they say it changes as ur speed.anyway i couldnt understand.
Most theorists consider that being able to go faster than the speed of light, " Would make it possible to send a message to yourself, as you were traveling there, telling yourself not to go." Therefor, that being said, means that you wouldn't even have traveled in the first place.
Rob, wouldn't going the speed of light open up a new direction in the fourth dimension? Let me explain, light comes from all directions, so if you were to go the speed of light, you would only be 'outrunning' light in one direction. So wouldn't light slow down in one direction and speed up in the other? So the light behind you would appear stationary; wouldn't this open up the 4D "snake" you occasionally talk about? Hope you answer!
@s199805723 Blogger rounds down the percentages, no idea why. Since you have the actual vote counts, you can see that 57 out of 86 agreed, that's 66.3%, and 29 out of 86 disagreed, that's 33.7%.
@Hogagger Yes, anything that allows a "folding" or "bending" of spacetime has the potential to get outside of the speed of light limitations, as I discussed in "Wormholes". watch?v=mi2Nh_C8Pzk
I presume you're familiar with the Alcubierre Drive? If not google that one, that's an example of what you're talking about.
I claim no more math or science background than Rob Bryanton. However, my impression is that he watched lots of Star Trek and other assorted scifi and just wrote a novel make money. It's just a matter of time when he starts talking about "static warp bubbles" and "tachyon beams".
Quick question that isn't quite computing in my grey matter: If anti-matter is simply matter travelling in reverse time, how does one explain the use of positrons in Positron Emission Tomography scans as well as in some synchrotron electron/positron experiments? They would by definition, have to exist for longer periods than a Planck Time, thus (at least in my limited understanding) would exist in our current, mundane values of the 4th dimension and not in reverse time. Comments?
The whole crap about E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 is true, except that Dirac hypothesized it and not Michio Kaku, and true about the time-relation with antiparticle with respect to matter. But your talk about "observing wave-function" and the rate at which the universe is expanding are so inaccurate and absurd. This is a cult in the name of science, or science in disguise of cult. Whatever it is, you should get more accurate information.
@LightDarkNinja the equation is just dirac's equation mathematically manipulated to give general form of e=mc^2 except that the general form of it includes relativistic momentum of a moving body
The video says that the universe is expanding 1planck length at the speed of light. Which means the supposed hubble's constant would be c/lp, where c=speed of light, and lp= planck length, and c/lp equals to, (1.856*10^43)(m/s)/m and does not equal to the NASA's hubble constant of (2.60*10^-12)(m/s)/m (equivalent to 80km/s/Mpc)
Approximation of hubble's constant statistically found by NASA is about 80km/sec/Mpc which is about (2.60*10^-12)(m/s)/m. This means that the ratio of a galaxy's velocity to its distance from a point is always constant. So, in other words, the universe is approximately expanding 1Mpc, which is 3.09*10^22m, at 80km/s.
QUESTION: If time itself slows (relatively) the closer we get to the speed of light & light travels at 186,000 Miles Per "Second", how does this affect the distance traveled in relation to time relative to an Observer vs. Someone traveling at or close to the speed of light? In others words, will the time it takes to travel 186K miles be different relative to the observer & person traveling the speed of light???
how can time in general exist if it is truly an illusion. Time, when we trace it back, was created by humans to measure the day and night using sundials and clocks. That doesnt make sense to me how time plays a role in anything if it could possibly not be real
I'm not a believer of the Big Band Theory so I ask this "How is the Universe still growing?" I personally believe universe is our dimension and nothing's happening to it. Even if it is growing what is it growing on? If universe is vacuum then it means we are growing nothing on nothing? Again then let's just say the dimension is getting bigger if everything is going to end up infinite then logically we are surpassing infinite...??
because jews said so and since they are god's chosen race, their word is as good as god's. you can tell this is true by how fast you will be punished if you question them.
I would recommend anyone to do a Google for the Michelson-Morley controversy, and read between the lines.
When Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 1907, the first American to receive that honor, it was for his measurements of the standard meter using his interferometer. The ether wind experiment was not mentioned. Why not? Presumably because many still had their doubts and concerns about tey way it was conducted. Einstein also stated that 'the result' had not influenced him.
thank you for this very entertaining and informational lecture. I think you may have a future as a screenwriter or possibly as a science fiction writer. In the words of P.T. Barnum, "there is a fool born every minute", and I think string theory has the potential to break all previous sales records for video, ebooks, and multi-media applications because as they say, "the crazier the theory, the crazier the sales." With the right team, you are going to go far.
Dimensions arise based on the erroneous assumption that time is the fourth dimension. However, time is not a dimension, merely an arbitrary measure. The trouble is, when a further dimension is accepted beyond the three real dimsensions, then mathematical abstraction can take hold, and the fallacy is compounded by further imaginary dimensions. Warped space is utter mind-bending crap. Can empty space really be curved? No it can't! Get real people.
Light is only the upper speed limit when working from the assumption (I say again, assumption) that space is empty. However, if we get back to classical physics (that is, real empirical science) which does not rely on mathematical abstraction, the situation changes.
Light is a ripple on the aether (hence the wave/particle duality issue), like a wave on a pond. It is therefore be possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but not to travel in time.
@1RadicalOne It was never disproved. It's time to get back to classical (evidential) physics, and move away from the obsession with mathematical abstraction, which is going nowhere.
@1RadicalOne The result is open to interpretation. It was a null result at best. No conspiracy required. I would recommend doing some further research, as evidence will always trump convenient consensus, eventually.
@1RadicalOne The result was meaningless and unsatisfactory, and certainly did not justify changing the direction of science away from the empirical / evidential approach.
Oh, how convenient. That is exactly the kind of thing creationists, or flat-earthers, or conspiracy theorists say when an experiment proves them wrong.
@1RadicalOne I am merely pointing out that the experiment in general, and the result in particular, was not satisfactory. Many eminent scientists have said as mush. Do some research. It does not help when you resort to mud slinging.
"Many eminent scientists have said as mush. [sic]"
Give me some names of scientists in relevant fields - not someone in say, biology, who is no authority on the matter. And I will respond with a list of scientists who back up my position.
And I rather suspect it will be like climate change, evolution, or similar: ~99% in favor of the "mainstream" view, ~1% siding with you.
@soupdragon42 thank you soupdragon for stating what needs to be said again and again. Science is devolving into a circus sideshow, and I for one find it disturbing. It is as if the screenwriters for Star Trek all got together and took over the science world. Not that I don't like Star Trek, and not that I don't like looking at new ways to solve old problems, but in the words of William Shatner, "It was a television show! It was cancelled early. Get a life!".
And what are the evidences for all of this fantastic nonsense? The answer would be: because since the Universe is "expanding" at such speed (c), one cannot exceed it; one cannot accelerate faster than what s/he exist 'In'. Off course, it is all nonsense since there are no evidence for such trash other than an autistic mathematical moron with a delusional brain, vivid imagination, pen, paper, time and public money to waste.
I really enjoy your presentation of how dimensions work, but the universe is shown capable of expanding faster than light speed. As far as I get it, light speed is just another way of saying 'timelessness'. So though an object traveling at light speed ceases to be an object relative to itself, the mass embodied universe can still witness the 'object' at a 'limited speed of light', because mass and time are synonymous. Still, the universe can expand faster than 'the speed of light'.
@LeconsdAnalyse I think you should google Planck length. You will find that it's defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.
@10thdim I think he means that there's no reason Planck length should be the limit of physical movement, just because it's the same number as light speed.
@ajthrax1 What i said is the truth. The `Planck length` is nothing more than a juggling around of certain fundamental constants with result having units of length.
@LeconsdAnalyse Since one of those "certain fundamental constants" is the speed of light, how can your statement that the "planck length" and the speed of light are unrelated quantities be in any way, shape, or form "the truth"???
and wouldn't it be possible to go faster then the speed of light by somehow jumping or skipping plancks? (not sure if this would increase your velocity or not, hell for I know maybe increasing your velocity is how you skip plancks :\ lol)
@Deeredman4 The question, "Why is the Speed of Light the Limit?" cannot be answered by taking a poll about a misunderstood unit of length. Furthermore, the universe is not one dimensional. The universe grows in volume not length.
I haven't read up on this in a while, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But I didn't think speeds faster then the speed of light have been ruled out via any theory yet. The only thing ruled out is that, shown in the mass equation of Special Relativity, you can't "approach the speed of light" because the mass goes to infinity as you approach the speed of light, so the force to move it would also go to infinity (F=ma).
So while going faster has not been shown, it has not been ruled out.
What happens to the photons leaving the sun in opposite directions? Each is travelling at twice the speed of light relative to the other, isn't it? What am I missing?
@fsmtdaler Exactly. And if you had two cars traveling at the posted speed limit in opposite directions on a road, they would be moving apart from each other at twice the speed limit even though neither of them was breaking the law.
So those photons are not breaking nature's speed limit either. And in fact, because the universe's expansion is accelerating, physicists say in the distant future we will see fewer and fewer stars, because of the same phenomenon you're describing.
@10thdim Thank you. Now if we had a flashlight, or headlights, on a really fast car, one going the speed of light one way, and another the other way, what happens?
Would it be like the sonic boom effect of the speed of sound?
(Don't wanna mess up the universe, you know.)
and would the light not shine out from the headlights cause the cars going to fast, or would they shine at the speed of light ahead of the car.
@fsmtdaler Right, this is the hard part to wrap our heads around. Whether a car is stationary, or traveling at a very high speed, the light coming out of its headlights is still only traveling at the speed of light... no matter how fast you imagine that car is traveling! But for the car to actually travel at the speed of light its mass would become infinite, so that can't happen. Light has no mass, that's why it can travel at the speed of light.
@10thdim OK... (This is fun and I do appreciate your time) So galaxies are moving apart, like speeding cars, issuing forth light in opposite directions (both, actually), which should prove that relative to one imaginary point, photons are shining out at well past twice the speed of light, right?
And the cars (space ships) issuing forth from their planets still have their headlights on but, what? No light beams! Nawww ... ;-)
@fsmtdaler Yes, some people do have trouble with one. Are you familiar with what's called the Cosmic Horizon? No matter what direction you look , there's a microwave background that is a remnant of the beginnings of our universe, and it's more or less equally strong in every direction. Does that mean we're at the center of the observed universe? Yes it does. But if we were circling a star 10 billion light years from here, we'd see the same thing - we'd still be at the very center.
@10thdim Right, Rob! So like they used to say: Wherever you are, there you are... ;-) And with the Hubble images, it continues to infinity, which just doesn't fit in the human brain - at least not mine, without a fuse blowing. Arghhh as Charlie Brown used to say. Yes, the Cosmic Horizon noise seems sort of like a sign of an eternity which confounds the mind, too. "Before" the Big Bang, what?! So there is a "beginning which hath no beginning and an end which knoweth no end."
@10thdim - Um... wait. Light has no mass? Einstein said that mass is energy, and that energy is mass, and it's well known that light itself actually can impart a pressure. As a medium that has the characteristics of both particles and waves, light itself possesss enough 'mass' that some two kilos of sunlight strikes the Earth every day Otherwise, the most massless particles I'm aware of is nutrinos, but however slight, nutrinos impart a mass-effect also, though very, very infrequently.
@Kavalino Just google "photon mass" and you'll see the scientific consensus. Here's a quote from the NASA website: "photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc^2."
You're right, we do get energy from the sun, not mass, but the energy would be equivalent to 2 kilos/second!
@Kavalino Just google "photon mass" and you'll see the scientific consensus. Here's a quote from the NASA website: "photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc^2."
You're right, we do get energy from the sun, not mass, but the energy would be equivalent to 2 kilos/second!
@10thdim - Like many others struggling with the mind-bending concepts in higher physics, I too struggle to grasp as much as possible. Not being a physicist myself by any stretch of the imagination, I rely on folks like yourself to give us mental weaklings an understandable picture of what's happening in our universe. Now... on hearing that light possesses no mass, but it still has momentum, simply bafles me. Massless momentum? Is this different form energy 'potential'? If so- how is that so?
@Kavalino I'm no physicist but I took modern physics in engineering school. So forgive me if my understanding of this is sophomoric, but I don't believe E=mc**2 says that energy IS mass and mass IS energy. It says that mass has an equivalent energy it can be converted to. Yes, light has characteristics of a wave and a particle, but that does not mean the same thing as what you're proposing...I don't think.
@muchadoaboutnoting - It has always been my understanding that E=mc2 clearly defined, among other things, the interchangeability of matter and energy, defining both as being largely the same, if not equal, but existing merely in two different 'states' or conditions, and convertable by whatever means back and forth between the two, the conversion of matter-to-energy being the 'easier' of the two processes. If I'm way off in my understanding, clarification by someone who knows will indeed help :-)
I haven't read the paper (I can't because as we speak I have exams, also note that I'm an economist by training so I accept that I could very well be wrong).
It seems to me that waves are an exception to einstein postulate since they can't gain 'weight'. So the energy can still be translated to speed (or they could have instead 'spawned' bosons). But special relativity would still hold.
Also, I don't agree with most of 10thdim's views, would be great to chat to him though.
@Mrsheytun Just because the waves travelled faster than light to the experimenter, it doesn't mean that the wave itself was travellign faster than light relative to itself
@Mrsheytun Took me a while to find what you're referring to. You can find his entry in wikipedia but you have to make sure you spell his last name correctly: Günter Nimtz.
I'm all for discussing leading edge research, but it looks like from this article and also the article on "faster-than-light" that most other physicists say that Dr. Nimtz is misinterpreting the results of his experiment, and the speed of light is not being violated. Can you point me to any articles supporting his work?
E=Mc*2 according to Albert but at 3:20 to 3:40 you say the more correct version is E=+-Mc*2. That is simply impossible as everyone in the 4th grade and higher knows whether you have a positive number or a negitive number when squared it becomes a positive number. I.E. 9 x 9 = 81 and OMG -9 x -9 = 81. Ima have to stay with Albert on this matter then you sir.
@AlliAnder42 As I say in the video, the formula E=+-Mc^2 comes from physicist Michio Kaku's writing. This is not some crazy idea I made up by myself, this comes from one of the recognized experts in the field.
@10thdim It is also worth mentioning that the formula squares C not M and therefore the squaring of a negative to a positive argument does not apply. If you really want to stretch you imagination it is possible that spacetime exists as a complex plane with the alternate dimension for time not being the opposite as in negative time.. but at a perpendicular to time as in imaginary time. The square of i is indeed -1.
@AlliAnder42 However, I this this variation of Einstein's equation attempts to take antimatter into account. it has nothing to do with the speed of light, but rather the distinction between matter and antimatter
@AlliAnder42 couldn't it be E= +/-(MC*2) due to the fact that the +/- is relative to the direction in time you are moving? I mean it's still E=Mc*2 either way, only when comparing to the other direction is negative needed to describe it?? Of course i could be completely wrong here..lol...
i believe that the way we perceive lightspeed, is because we have our own gravitational field. i believe that light does indeed need a transport medium (not gas or water) and the only one every object has, is gravitation. So the gravitational waves / field around an object will slow down light to the exact speed of light (as we perceive it) - in one or another direction.
this is just a little idea i created to understand why the speed of light is always the same :) ... and probably very wrong!
@phihaley should sufficient evidence arise (which it could) they would say otherwise, but a scientist would always rather say impossible than maybe without evidence, it's the safer conclusion.
Why do religious people find science so threatening? I don't get it. Scientists just want to be left alone to study what they can find to explain the world. Religious people seem like they just want to have a monopoly on all of the answers. If the religious were genuinely curious about the natural world. The world their God apparently created, you would think they would take SOME interest in the creation itself instead of their own personal needs from a "PERFECT FATHER FIGURE" Psychology 101
Einstein POSTULATED (SR) that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for all inertial frames, and in every direction. What does `Planck length` have anything to do with this??
I feel like Lou Costello...
bunchacrapbunchashit 21 hours ago
the forests are being defrosted and its ridiculoos all those plancks are being used to expand space.
I MEAN WHAT A WASTE.
MrCeltic76 2 weeks ago
I feel like I'm getting smarter watching this even though it makes me feel dumber.
allnamesaretakenful 3 weeks ago
if 66% + 33% = 100% then my name is Santa Claus .... and i disagree with this ... its totally illogical for me ... and it was proved particles who can be more faster then speed light i heard it on news but it's not really ''official'' nvm what i wanna says is 50% of people know that the sun go around the earth how can u trust that poll?
Florian00007 3 weeks ago
Maybe in what we call a vacuum, which most of the universe is, contains dark matter which causes friction to light. Thus limiting the speed of light to 3*10^8 m/s
Michel0555 4 weeks ago
You, Sir, are awesome. But I've got a question summed up in 3 words: Einstein-bohr condensate?
MidnightSt 1 month ago
@MidnightSt Bose-Einstein condensates are interesting, all right. Likewise, related experiments where photons have been slowed to almost a complete stop really bend space-time in an interesting way. We don't need to go that far though - there's lots of evidence of light being slowed slightly as it travels through different substances - but none of the above are examples of the speed of light limit being exceeded, so perhaps I'm not understanding your question?
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 1 month ago
You sir, are very smart!
DannyPapasFritas 1 month ago
i believe the the speed of light is only limiting to anything with mass , there are other forces with no mass i think
skywalkme 1 month ago
uhh 66% + 33% = 99% WTF
Draooth 1 month ago
@Draooth I am the 1%
RAWRWAFL 1 month ago
@Draooth
Indeed, thats wrong.
29/(29+57)=33,7% which would be rounded to 34% and not 33%
Then 34% + 66% = 100%
Michel0555 4 weeks ago
Now, this is kind of like saying that the universe has an end. If the universe had an end, a sort of wall would be there to block anything from passing it, but if we managed to pass it, there'd still be something out there, as the universe has to be contained in something need an end be a case. Same would apply to sound, just not in the same way a case would apply to an object, but as in the way that it also keeps going. Something has to be able to "keep going" faster than light or neutrinos.
MrDesu1337 1 month ago
the speed of light has been broken? see my question below!
awakeFemale 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what implication does the speed of light being broken, have on the divine matrix...the field..does it support the theory or open up new possibilities?
What does this imply for the holographic universe...Somebody enlighten me on the new discovery, the speed of light being exceeded!
awakeFemale 1 month ago
considering all things are different arrangements of energy, and that all light is energy, wouldnt exceeding the speed of light exceed the rate at which we are able to perceive our world, universe, dimension etc.? In other words, getting someplace before the light does means getting there before the place does, right?
bournethatway 1 month ago
MY BRAIN IS FULL OF FUCK
hippiechickie18 1 month ago
Comment removed
hippiechickie18 1 month ago
lol, a floating head :D
LesMuise 2 months ago
@LesMuise
Maybe he was playing with an ultra powerful laser and he accidently got beheaded
Michel0555 4 weeks ago
NEUTRINO FTW!!!
discool123 2 months ago
I want you to be my physics teacher!
DeathForSk8 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
faster-than-light. us
-
Launching shortly with the ultimate FTL experiment science breaker...
-
It demonstrate instantaneous transfer of a pulse or information over
distance of 1 meter.
-
The 3D video and all information will be published shortly..
fasterthanlight4you 3 months ago
Math can models fantasy AND reality.
IF:
A) Nothing is faster than light.
B) It takes approx. 7mins for sunlight to reach earth.
Then how does a solar system hold itself together?
If "gravity's" effect ISN'T instantaneous despite the distance, the whole system flies apart.
SC0RePIO 3 months ago
@SC0RePIO 8 min 20 seconds, not 7 min dipshit
nepalihercules 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nepalihercules LOL! When I said "approx. 7mins" was being deliberately generous.
However, yes you're correct, it IS actually an 00:08:20 delay.
LOL! The insistence on accuracy is kinda puzzling though.
Not only is the original question unanswered,
but your reply poses another one itself.
Do ya really think the extra 00:01:20 helped in that situation??
:)
SC0RePIO 3 months ago
Neutrinos, what say you about that sir!?
exxx55 3 months ago 5
@exxx55 Regarding the new evidence that neutrinos arrived 60 billionths of a second earlier than the speed of light - I would say Einstein is being disproved if you don't believe in the existence of extra dimensions. But if these neutrinos somehow took a tiny shortcut outside of spacetime, and essentially "burrowed" through the fifth dimension to arrive a little earlier, that would not violate relativity, and could well be the first direct evidence of the existence of extra dimensions. Cool!
10thdim 3 months ago 16
@10thdim - Wouldn't it also just be possible that his conclusions about the limit of the speed of light were wrong, yet his axiom is still correct (light is a constant)? Correct me if I'm wrong as I've never taken a deep investigation into his work...but this is what I remember.
kirant 3 months ago
@10thdim - To be completely fair, this has nothing to do with the visualization of dimensions...just another way of approaching the evidence.
kirant 3 months ago
@10thdim and if that gets proven to be the reason it actually gives the human race chance for space travel :D
messi996 1 month ago
okay cool so you told us that light will travel at the same speed away from us even if we are travelling at near speed of light... but thats crazy! with no explanation what so ever that light some how defies all laws of basic physics.. and no one is questioning it, which is the fascinating part... So can you please care to tell me why light has this property? maybe compare it to sound and how sound is a wavelength as well but we do go faster then it.
monstagamer 3 months ago
@monstagamer Yes, it's very counterintuitive - but it really is what happens. Light always travels at a constant speed, regardless of the motion of it's source. To accommodate this, time itself changes. And you're wrong to say no one questions it - that's what science is all about...questioning, checking, testing. But all evidence for the past 100 years has proven Einsten right, and a lot of our technology wouldn't work without our understanding of this amazing fact.
Ellie8969 3 months ago
Search neutrinos in CNN, apparently in a recent experiment neutrinos could have actually travelled faster than the speed of light.
AFYTXR 3 months ago
I could answer that .Here is a question for everyone to answer ? What make gravity ?
einsteindrieu 4 months ago in playlist Liked
What will it mean when this video goes past a 186,000 views?
ig00g1e 4 months ago
This rule is breaken by the neutrino's
DanielRecordszzzz 4 months ago
A sub atomic particle named "Neutrinos" was discovered recently.But it is just a month ago that they proved that it travels FASTER than the speed of light.(6km\sec faster).I am not contradicting the fact that speed of light is the limit,but I think these particles of a very very negligible mass may have found a shortcut through a dimension!Think about it .(Like if you too doubt this)
d993080 4 months ago
@d993080 Your assumption is correct. With the energy they created, a black hole was created and these particles traveled a worm hole and the detectors simply 'saw' them. There is an assumption these particles traveled a conventional linear path. Thus the claim something when 'faster' than the speed of light.
ig00g1e 4 months ago
@ig00g1e So you're saying that the people at CERN actually "teleported" a particle for the first time not in science fiction?
AudioJustG 4 months ago
@AudioJustG If you recall, the initial controversy of this entire experiment was what would be the result of creating an actual black hole. It seems the results they have measured, point to that very end, save the destruction of the entire universe.
ig00g1e 4 months ago
Scientists at CERN have observed neutrinos accelerating faster than the speed of light.
JohnnyFixate 4 months ago
62 people didn't listen to Einstein
ZeroC0ol1989 4 months ago
sorry i meant scientists
esraretin 4 months ago
scğientists found that notrinos are faster .change the theory:)
esraretin 4 months ago
@esraretin Hold your hopes boy. Altho I am excited it is to early to tell
iRobii 4 months ago
@iRobii i agree.im excited too:)
esraretin 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientist in CERN laboratory in Switzerland have discovered that neutrinos go faster than the speed of light. Whats up with that.
Chaliamusiclover 4 months ago
ok i have a question.. for example if i was in a car moving 100 MPH and i turned on my flashlight will it be the speed of light + 100 MPH or will it still be the same speed as if i was standing still?
mohammadjj 4 months ago
@mohammadjj it doesnt change.but i have another question wht if sound? will it change with ur speed. for me it doesnt change but they say it changes as ur speed.anyway i couldnt understand.
esraretin 4 months ago
Comment removed
mohammadjj 4 months ago
Is this North Americas answer to Prof. Brain Cox! I think so...
18N226EOlympusMons 4 months ago
Canadian.
zforzebra 4 months ago
It's a floating head! Thats why!
TheGinterN 4 months ago
WAIT WAIT. What about the speed of dark energy?!
Kentheinfinite 4 months ago
with what device do they mesure the speed of light?
british123able 5 months ago
@british123able with physiscs. lulz
TheGinterN 4 months ago
haha you are trying to describe infinity, or god.
Good luck, and I like your videos, a lot. !!
STEVEGET 5 months ago
@STEVEGET the "Imagining in the Tenth Dimension" video basically ends by describing this (calling it the 10th dimension)
manguy01 4 months ago
galaxies can expand faster then the speed of light from each other .
so i think its safe to say , some energy different then the foton particle can travel faster then ther speed of light.
maybe one day we even realise ,some energy can travel instantly ,
ImmortalUniverse 5 months ago
Most theorists consider that being able to go faster than the speed of light, " Would make it possible to send a message to yourself, as you were traveling there, telling yourself not to go." Therefor, that being said, means that you wouldn't even have traveled in the first place.
Sup3rTr0jan 5 months ago
Rob, wouldn't going the speed of light open up a new direction in the fourth dimension? Let me explain, light comes from all directions, so if you were to go the speed of light, you would only be 'outrunning' light in one direction. So wouldn't light slow down in one direction and speed up in the other? So the light behind you would appear stationary; wouldn't this open up the 4D "snake" you occasionally talk about? Hope you answer!
drunkenskaterguy 5 months ago
@drunkenskaterguy Right, have you watched my video Light Has No Speed? watch?v=ksTngIWRnWs
Also No Space, No Time, No Mass relates to your question: watch?v=NyXLYckyoF8
Check 'em out!
10thdim 5 months ago
66% plus 33% is only 99 percent what happened to the 1%
s199805723 5 months ago
@s199805723 Blogger rounds down the percentages, no idea why. Since you have the actual vote counts, you can see that 57 out of 86 agreed, that's 66.3%, and 29 out of 86 disagreed, that's 33.7%.
10thdim 5 months ago
@s199805723 still deciding ???
gdfella2 4 months ago
What if you could contract space in front of you and expand it behind you so as to get from one place to another faster than light?
Hogagger 5 months ago
@Hogagger Yes, anything that allows a "folding" or "bending" of spacetime has the potential to get outside of the speed of light limitations, as I discussed in "Wormholes". watch?v=mi2Nh_C8Pzk
I presume you're familiar with the Alcubierre Drive? If not google that one, that's an example of what you're talking about.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 5 months ago
What if there was something beyond and faster than light that we have yet to have found though?
Sindoko12 5 months ago
I like big butts and i cannot lie
tiemo25 5 months ago
I have a Q...I'm having a hard time understanding what a "constant" is...would someone mind explaining that too me? :)
Deeredman4 5 months ago
Dude, I didn't understand ANYTHING. Haha
reanimated6 5 months ago
Talking head !!! in the speed of the sound
roffpoff 5 months ago
the relative mass of everything is expanding with space time,imposible to gauge it
jjmommy100 6 months ago
So surpassing the speed of light is traveling in the 4th dimension?
TamaNewb 6 months ago
I claim no more math or science background than Rob Bryanton. However, my impression is that he watched lots of Star Trek and other assorted scifi and just wrote a novel make money. It's just a matter of time when he starts talking about "static warp bubbles" and "tachyon beams".
PendejoBlanco 6 months ago
Quick question that isn't quite computing in my grey matter: If anti-matter is simply matter travelling in reverse time, how does one explain the use of positrons in Positron Emission Tomography scans as well as in some synchrotron electron/positron experiments? They would by definition, have to exist for longer periods than a Planck Time, thus (at least in my limited understanding) would exist in our current, mundane values of the 4th dimension and not in reverse time. Comments?
Thank you.
rogerdotlee 6 months ago
damnnn floating head
carcassofspirit 6 months ago
The whole crap about E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 is true, except that Dirac hypothesized it and not Michio Kaku, and true about the time-relation with antiparticle with respect to matter. But your talk about "observing wave-function" and the rate at which the universe is expanding are so inaccurate and absurd. This is a cult in the name of science, or science in disguise of cult. Whatever it is, you should get more accurate information.
Things2doBeforeIdie 6 months ago
@Things2doBeforeIdie
E^2=(pc)+(mc^2)^2
im sorry but you lost me there...
LightDarkNinja 6 months ago
@LightDarkNinja the equation is just dirac's equation mathematically manipulated to give general form of e=mc^2 except that the general form of it includes relativistic momentum of a moving body
Things2doBeforeIdie 6 months ago
The video says that the universe is expanding 1planck length at the speed of light. Which means the supposed hubble's constant would be c/lp, where c=speed of light, and lp= planck length, and c/lp equals to, (1.856*10^43)(m/s)/m and does not equal to the NASA's hubble constant of (2.60*10^-12)(m/s)/m (equivalent to 80km/s/Mpc)
Things2doBeforeIdie 6 months ago
Approximation of hubble's constant statistically found by NASA is about 80km/sec/Mpc which is about (2.60*10^-12)(m/s)/m. This means that the ratio of a galaxy's velocity to its distance from a point is always constant. So, in other words, the universe is approximately expanding 1Mpc, which is 3.09*10^22m, at 80km/s.
Things2doBeforeIdie 6 months ago
Comment removed
Things2doBeforeIdie 6 months ago
am i a nerd if i watched this entire video?
MrDOWNTOWNHO 6 months ago
the intro music: "pussy..pussy..pussy.. tits tits tits... lalalaaaaaa" LOL! good video btw! :)
TimothiusMartin 6 months ago 2
nice.. even i didnt understand a shit.
PanORotta 6 months ago
your high man...
gameman201 7 months ago
QUESTION: If time itself slows (relatively) the closer we get to the speed of light & light travels at 186,000 Miles Per "Second", how does this affect the distance traveled in relation to time relative to an Observer vs. Someone traveling at or close to the speed of light? In others words, will the time it takes to travel 186K miles be different relative to the observer & person traveling the speed of light???
BachRiff 7 months ago
how can time in general exist if it is truly an illusion. Time, when we trace it back, was created by humans to measure the day and night using sundials and clocks. That doesnt make sense to me how time plays a role in anything if it could possibly not be real
GayRepublicans69 7 months ago
I'm not a believer of the Big Band Theory so I ask this "How is the Universe still growing?" I personally believe universe is our dimension and nothing's happening to it. Even if it is growing what is it growing on? If universe is vacuum then it means we are growing nothing on nothing? Again then let's just say the dimension is getting bigger if everything is going to end up infinite then logically we are surpassing infinite...??
jackleesparrow 7 months ago
because jews said so and since they are god's chosen race, their word is as good as god's. you can tell this is true by how fast you will be punished if you question them.
oveid 7 months ago
If the only way to be constant (not moving) is to move at the speed of light, then wouldn't you be closer to constant still By moving at any speed?
hasteve101 7 months ago
I would recommend anyone to do a Google for the Michelson-Morley controversy, and read between the lines.
When Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in physics in 1907, the first American to receive that honor, it was for his measurements of the standard meter using his interferometer. The ether wind experiment was not mentioned. Why not? Presumably because many still had their doubts and concerns about tey way it was conducted. Einstein also stated that 'the result' had not influenced him.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
Evidence will always trump consensus, nevermind how many people blindly follow the mainstream.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
thank you for this very entertaining and informational lecture. I think you may have a future as a screenwriter or possibly as a science fiction writer. In the words of P.T. Barnum, "there is a fool born every minute", and I think string theory has the potential to break all previous sales records for video, ebooks, and multi-media applications because as they say, "the crazier the theory, the crazier the sales." With the right team, you are going to go far.
genogeno1234 7 months ago
I love your voice.
CheekyTaa 7 months ago
Dimensions arise based on the erroneous assumption that time is the fourth dimension. However, time is not a dimension, merely an arbitrary measure. The trouble is, when a further dimension is accepted beyond the three real dimsensions, then mathematical abstraction can take hold, and the fallacy is compounded by further imaginary dimensions. Warped space is utter mind-bending crap. Can empty space really be curved? No it can't! Get real people.
soupdragon42 8 months ago
Light is only the upper speed limit when working from the assumption (I say again, assumption) that space is empty. However, if we get back to classical physics (that is, real empirical science) which does not rely on mathematical abstraction, the situation changes.
Light is a ripple on the aether (hence the wave/particle duality issue), like a wave on a pond. It is therefore be possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but not to travel in time.
soupdragon42 8 months ago
I suppose the fact that your little hypothesis falls apart without the aether means nothing to you?
What, was the aether being disproved all a big conspiracy?
1RadicalOne 8 months ago
@1RadicalOne It was never disproved. It's time to get back to classical (evidential) physics, and move away from the obsession with mathematical abstraction, which is going nowhere.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
"It was never disproved."
So the Michelson–Morley experiment just...what? Never happened? Part of the conspiracy?
1RadicalOne 7 months ago
@1RadicalOne The result is open to interpretation. It was a null result at best. No conspiracy required. I would recommend doing some further research, as evidence will always trump convenient consensus, eventually.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
A null result. Exactly. That is why is disproved the aether.
1RadicalOne 7 months ago
@1RadicalOne The result was meaningless and unsatisfactory, and certainly did not justify changing the direction of science away from the empirical / evidential approach.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
Oh, how convenient. That is exactly the kind of thing creationists, or flat-earthers, or conspiracy theorists say when an experiment proves them wrong.
That does not reflect well on you.
1RadicalOne 7 months ago
@1RadicalOne I am merely pointing out that the experiment in general, and the result in particular, was not satisfactory. Many eminent scientists have said as mush. Do some research. It does not help when you resort to mud slinging.
soupdragon42 7 months ago
"Many eminent scientists have said as mush. [sic]"
Give me some names of scientists in relevant fields - not someone in say, biology, who is no authority on the matter. And I will respond with a list of scientists who back up my position.
And I rather suspect it will be like climate change, evolution, or similar: ~99% in favor of the "mainstream" view, ~1% siding with you.
1RadicalOne 7 months ago
@soupdragon42 thank you soupdragon for stating what needs to be said again and again. Science is devolving into a circus sideshow, and I for one find it disturbing. It is as if the screenwriters for Star Trek all got together and took over the science world. Not that I don't like Star Trek, and not that I don't like looking at new ways to solve old problems, but in the words of William Shatner, "It was a television show! It was cancelled early. Get a life!".
genogeno1234 7 months ago
Dude...did I just listen to a talking head?
-Average Joe.
Fadeddreams5 8 months ago
And what are the evidences for all of this fantastic nonsense? The answer would be: because since the Universe is "expanding" at such speed (c), one cannot exceed it; one cannot accelerate faster than what s/he exist 'In'. Off course, it is all nonsense since there are no evidence for such trash other than an autistic mathematical moron with a delusional brain, vivid imagination, pen, paper, time and public money to waste.
Pissoffyowpunk 8 months ago
I really enjoy your presentation of how dimensions work, but the universe is shown capable of expanding faster than light speed. As far as I get it, light speed is just another way of saying 'timelessness'. So though an object traveling at light speed ceases to be an object relative to itself, the mass embodied universe can still witness the 'object' at a 'limited speed of light', because mass and time are synonymous. Still, the universe can expand faster than 'the speed of light'.
unifiedreality 8 months ago
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. It creates that problem of the observable horizon at extreme range.
unifiedreality 8 months ago
Science isn't a democracy people get to vote on 10thdim. And what you do isn't even Science my boy.
bigboy45454545 9 months ago
Maybe light is no matter at all. :D
CODEROE120 9 months ago
I've been told by many physicists on tv that space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light.
thedeitsch 9 months ago
How to calc how many planct lenght per sec?
I tried but the numbers became unreasonable
Weenstie 9 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 9 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I think you should google Planck length. You will find that it's defined by the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.
Thanks for writing,
Rob
10thdim 9 months ago 11
@10thdim I think he means that there's no reason Planck length should be the limit of physical movement, just because it's the same number as light speed.
smunp 9 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse what an ignorant statement.
ajthrax1 7 months ago 6
@ajthrax1 What i said is the truth. The `Planck length` is nothing more than a juggling around of certain fundamental constants with result having units of length.
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Since one of those "certain fundamental constants" is the speed of light, how can your statement that the "planck length" and the speed of light are unrelated quantities be in any way, shape, or form "the truth"???
socratesrock 7 months ago
@socratesrock The context implied in the clip, "why is it impossible to exceed the speed light?".
As far as `Planck length` is concerned, `c` serves ONLY to supply the (SI) units m/s. This is what i mean by unrelated.
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
and wouldn't it be possible to go faster then the speed of light by somehow jumping or skipping plancks? (not sure if this would increase your velocity or not, hell for I know maybe increasing your velocity is how you skip plancks :\ lol)
Deeredman4 5 months ago
@Deeredman4 The question, "Why is the Speed of Light the Limit?" cannot be answered by taking a poll about a misunderstood unit of length. Furthermore, the universe is not one dimensional. The universe grows in volume not length.
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
I haven't read up on this in a while, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But I didn't think speeds faster then the speed of light have been ruled out via any theory yet. The only thing ruled out is that, shown in the mass equation of Special Relativity, you can't "approach the speed of light" because the mass goes to infinity as you approach the speed of light, so the force to move it would also go to infinity (F=ma).
So while going faster has not been shown, it has not been ruled out.
muchadoaboutnoting 9 months ago
What happens to the photons leaving the sun in opposite directions? Each is travelling at twice the speed of light relative to the other, isn't it? What am I missing?
fsmtdaler 9 months ago
@fsmtdaler Exactly. And if you had two cars traveling at the posted speed limit in opposite directions on a road, they would be moving apart from each other at twice the speed limit even though neither of them was breaking the law.
So those photons are not breaking nature's speed limit either. And in fact, because the universe's expansion is accelerating, physicists say in the distant future we will see fewer and fewer stars, because of the same phenomenon you're describing.
Rob
10thdim 9 months ago
@10thdim Thank you. Now if we had a flashlight, or headlights, on a really fast car, one going the speed of light one way, and another the other way, what happens?
Would it be like the sonic boom effect of the speed of sound?
(Don't wanna mess up the universe, you know.)
and would the light not shine out from the headlights cause the cars going to fast, or would they shine at the speed of light ahead of the car.
Then the same effect from the other car.
This would make 4 times light speed
fsmtdaler 9 months ago
@fsmtdaler Right, this is the hard part to wrap our heads around. Whether a car is stationary, or traveling at a very high speed, the light coming out of its headlights is still only traveling at the speed of light... no matter how fast you imagine that car is traveling! But for the car to actually travel at the speed of light its mass would become infinite, so that can't happen. Light has no mass, that's why it can travel at the speed of light.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 9 months ago
@10thdim OK... (This is fun and I do appreciate your time) So galaxies are moving apart, like speeding cars, issuing forth light in opposite directions (both, actually), which should prove that relative to one imaginary point, photons are shining out at well past twice the speed of light, right?
And the cars (space ships) issuing forth from their planets still have their headlights on but, what? No light beams! Nawww ... ;-)
It seems kind of earthocentric, doesn't it?
fsmtdaler 9 months ago
@fsmtdaler Yes, some people do have trouble with one. Are you familiar with what's called the Cosmic Horizon? No matter what direction you look , there's a microwave background that is a remnant of the beginnings of our universe, and it's more or less equally strong in every direction. Does that mean we're at the center of the observed universe? Yes it does. But if we were circling a star 10 billion light years from here, we'd see the same thing - we'd still be at the very center.
Rob
10thdim 9 months ago
@10thdim Right, Rob! So like they used to say: Wherever you are, there you are... ;-) And with the Hubble images, it continues to infinity, which just doesn't fit in the human brain - at least not mine, without a fuse blowing. Arghhh as Charlie Brown used to say. Yes, the Cosmic Horizon noise seems sort of like a sign of an eternity which confounds the mind, too. "Before" the Big Bang, what?! So there is a "beginning which hath no beginning and an end which knoweth no end."
fsmtdaler 9 months ago
@10thdim - Um... wait. Light has no mass? Einstein said that mass is energy, and that energy is mass, and it's well known that light itself actually can impart a pressure. As a medium that has the characteristics of both particles and waves, light itself possesss enough 'mass' that some two kilos of sunlight strikes the Earth every day Otherwise, the most massless particles I'm aware of is nutrinos, but however slight, nutrinos impart a mass-effect also, though very, very infrequently.
Kavalino 9 months ago
@Kavalino Just google "photon mass" and you'll see the scientific consensus. Here's a quote from the NASA website: "photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc^2."
You're right, we do get energy from the sun, not mass, but the energy would be equivalent to 2 kilos/second!
10thdim 9 months ago
@Kavalino Just google "photon mass" and you'll see the scientific consensus. Here's a quote from the NASA website: "photons do not have mass, but they do have momentum. The proper, general equation to use is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 So in the case of a photon, m=0 so E = pc or p = E/c. On the other hand, for a particle with mass m at rest (i.e., p = 0), you get back the famous E = mc^2."
You're right, we do get energy from the sun, not mass, but the energy would be equivalent to 2 kilos/second!
10thdim 9 months ago
@10thdim - Like many others struggling with the mind-bending concepts in higher physics, I too struggle to grasp as much as possible. Not being a physicist myself by any stretch of the imagination, I rely on folks like yourself to give us mental weaklings an understandable picture of what's happening in our universe. Now... on hearing that light possesses no mass, but it still has momentum, simply bafles me. Massless momentum? Is this different form energy 'potential'? If so- how is that so?
Kavalino 9 months ago
@Kavalino I'm no physicist but I took modern physics in engineering school. So forgive me if my understanding of this is sophomoric, but I don't believe E=mc**2 says that energy IS mass and mass IS energy. It says that mass has an equivalent energy it can be converted to. Yes, light has characteristics of a wave and a particle, but that does not mean the same thing as what you're proposing...I don't think.
muchadoaboutnoting 9 months ago
@muchadoaboutnoting - It has always been my understanding that E=mc2 clearly defined, among other things, the interchangeability of matter and energy, defining both as being largely the same, if not equal, but existing merely in two different 'states' or conditions, and convertable by whatever means back and forth between the two, the conversion of matter-to-energy being the 'easier' of the two processes. If I'm way off in my understanding, clarification by someone who knows will indeed help :-)
Kavalino 9 months ago
Beautiful videos man, keep up the good work i enjoy listening.
ardentmilo 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun For something to travel above the speed of light it would have the mass of 0.
FloppyCat1990 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun lol,
I haven't read the paper (I can't because as we speak I have exams, also note that I'm an economist by training so I accept that I could very well be wrong).
It seems to me that waves are an exception to einstein postulate since they can't gain 'weight'. So the energy can still be translated to speed (or they could have instead 'spawned' bosons). But special relativity would still hold.
Also, I don't agree with most of 10thdim's views, would be great to chat to him though.
PhilipTheDuke 9 months ago
What if the 10th dimension is really not a straight line, but a curved line, connecting the point to itself?
Gyohdon 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun Just because the waves travelled faster than light to the experimenter, it doesn't mean that the wave itself was travellign faster than light relative to itself
PhilipTheDuke 9 months ago
i cant wait for duke nukem on my pc
DuckingNDiving 9 months ago
If no matter how fast we go, the speed of light remains constant, then how do you explain redshifts and blueshifts?
RedSandStudios 9 months ago
is it possible too go though the black hole by going faster then speed of light, I like too know, please reply, thanks,
Larry198s 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun :)
XtasicRider 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun swearing is for ignorant people :]
XtasicRider 9 months ago
Aaahhhh.. a talking head...
Blooper1980 9 months ago
@Mrsheytun Took me a while to find what you're referring to. You can find his entry in wikipedia but you have to make sure you spell his last name correctly: Günter Nimtz.
I'm all for discussing leading edge research, but it looks like from this article and also the article on "faster-than-light" that most other physicists say that Dr. Nimtz is misinterpreting the results of his experiment, and the speed of light is not being violated. Can you point me to any articles supporting his work?
Rob
10thdim 9 months ago
rule #1 - Never listen to a floating head!
Drewdoggg1 9 months ago
@Drewdoggg1 lol
strawberry5999 9 months ago
E=Mc*2 according to Albert but at 3:20 to 3:40 you say the more correct version is E=+-Mc*2. That is simply impossible as everyone in the 4th grade and higher knows whether you have a positive number or a negitive number when squared it becomes a positive number. I.E. 9 x 9 = 81 and OMG -9 x -9 = 81. Ima have to stay with Albert on this matter then you sir.
AlliAnder42 10 months ago
@AlliAnder42 looool , i think u should go back to 4th grade and restudy math...
RadeMacedon 10 months ago
@AlliAnder42 As I say in the video, the formula E=+-Mc^2 comes from physicist Michio Kaku's writing. This is not some crazy idea I made up by myself, this comes from one of the recognized experts in the field.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 10 months ago 9
@10thdim It is also worth mentioning that the formula squares C not M and therefore the squaring of a negative to a positive argument does not apply. If you really want to stretch you imagination it is possible that spacetime exists as a complex plane with the alternate dimension for time not being the opposite as in negative time.. but at a perpendicular to time as in imaginary time. The square of i is indeed -1.
RealEstateRonFL 9 months ago
@AlliAnder42 However, I this this variation of Einstein's equation attempts to take antimatter into account. it has nothing to do with the speed of light, but rather the distinction between matter and antimatter
MrLumpybiscuits 9 months ago
And what happens when you square i, the square root of -1?
otakucode 9 months ago
@otakucode you then get -1.
edeldoe 9 months ago
@otakucode From what I've heard , you would reach the 11th dimension : anything that is impossible.
XtasicRider 9 months ago
@AlliAnder42 couldn't it be E= +/-(MC*2) due to the fact that the +/- is relative to the direction in time you are moving? I mean it's still E=Mc*2 either way, only when comparing to the other direction is negative needed to describe it?? Of course i could be completely wrong here..lol...
bibbyboi 9 months ago
@AlliAnder42 E=MC^2 is only vaild if an object has rest mass. E^2=M^2C^4P^2C^2 is the more widely used version.
I'd like to see Kaku's work on E=+-Mc^2. It dosen't make sence.... to me anyway.
meloveoasis 9 months ago
@meloveoasis For a particle at rest P=0 so E^e = M^2C^4 + P^2C^4 goes to E^2 = M^2C^4. Square root it to get E=+-MC^2
FindleOfLoathing 9 months ago
@AlliAnder42 It came from E^2 = M^2*C^4 + M^2*P^4 I do believe. So you square root it to get +-MC^2
FindleOfLoathing 9 months ago
i believe that the way we perceive lightspeed, is because we have our own gravitational field. i believe that light does indeed need a transport medium (not gas or water) and the only one every object has, is gravitation. So the gravitational waves / field around an object will slow down light to the exact speed of light (as we perceive it) - in one or another direction.
this is just a little idea i created to understand why the speed of light is always the same :) ... and probably very wrong!
Cult1022 10 months ago
No really friend im not intimidated,its just an observation........
phihaley 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is it when arrogant scientists dont have the knowledge or cant explain
certain things, say it cant be done i strongley disagree......
phihaley 10 months ago
Why is it when arrogant scientists dont have the knowledge or cant explain
certain things, say it cant be done i strongley disagree
phihaley 10 months ago
@phihaley You say arrogant, I say you're intimidated.
DocWyoming 10 months ago
@phihaley should sufficient evidence arise (which it could) they would say otherwise, but a scientist would always rather say impossible than maybe without evidence, it's the safer conclusion.
UglynessIsASin 10 months ago
OHHH the evidence will most certainly arise, and very soon me thinks!!!
phihaley 10 months ago
Why do religious people find science so threatening? I don't get it. Scientists just want to be left alone to study what they can find to explain the world. Religious people seem like they just want to have a monopoly on all of the answers. If the religious were genuinely curious about the natural world. The world their God apparently created, you would think they would take SOME interest in the creation itself instead of their own personal needs from a "PERFECT FATHER FIGURE" Psychology 101
Cosmodot256 10 months ago
Einstein POSTULATED (SR) that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for all inertial frames, and in every direction. What does `Planck length` have anything to do with this??
LeconsdAnalyse 10 months ago