I went to a lecture where the guest was a NASA physicist and he went through some crazy mathematical proof stating that you cant go at exactly the speed of light because of its asymptotic nature. Granted if you can get enough energy to even move a object at that speed, you can only go faster or slower than the speed of light.
It is incredible. GRB is an explosion of a Galaxy with duration of 20-40 sec. Is this thing on the video a real event or it is some kind of a simulation? Where and which is the Galaxy evaporated in a GRB?
If this was aimed at the Earth (as the video claims) the initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, micro and radio) - & we should have been already 'evaporated in plasma state'.
I saw an amazing Gamma Ray directed at Earth last night and I saw the Corona Borealis. I really want to see what the Corona Borealis looks like to confirm what I saw at 910pm - 10.15pm 1st May 2011.
What if one were able to change a particle with to a particle without mass so it may travel at c, then when the travel is over, the particle is once again given its mass again?
The gamma ray burst occurs at the point of Esciallary Junction. This is when effective transformation of a mass of inert quark "solid" (aka black hole materia) is energized via vibration, causing expansion of the quark solid into a resolutory neutron net. Because the quark materia, (defined as antemater) is of a composition in the inert state as to be similar to springs under compression, the expansion of the springs releases the full spetrum of measureable wavelengths. See The Megillah.
@fizaanTech where is your proof? no such thing, it is impossible to move faster than the speed of light relative to something else in a localized area.
@fizaanTech because in order to get something to the speed of light you have to give it an extremely large amount of energy, and when something hits that speed the atoms collapse and become photons, because upon hitting the speed of light the atom then is full of infinite amount of energy, either that or an amount too large to calculate. If you got a shit to that speed it would no longer be a ship, it would just be a bunch of photons that are impossible to slow down because of their 0 mass.
@OlCapitain Close, but not quite. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. To do so would require pumping an infinite amount of energy into it, which is not possible. Photons can be slowed down by forcing them to pass through a medium such as water or glass. And it is possible for particles to be accelerated faster than light through a medium because they would still be travelling at less than c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum. This is where Cerenkov radiation comes from.
@LordAmbitious Everything not moving at the speed of light has mass, everything that we know of. Reason I say it requires alot of energy, and not an infinite amount to get an object to the speed of light, is because we do not yet have a full understanding of the quantum world. Just because it seems and appears to need infinite energy to move that fast, in actuality it possibly just requires an amount far larger than we can measure. The speed of light limit i was refering to was in a vaccum btw.
@OlCapitain You can't just say "what if" there were a particle with mass that traveled at c. That's not science. there is nothing in the laws of physics that allow a particle with mass to travel at c, and nothing to allow a particle without mass to travel at less than c. By definition, a particle with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. This does not mean it can get from point a to point b faster than a photon, what with quantum tunneling and quantum weirdness.
@LordAmbitious Obviously you are not a quantum physicist, unlikely that you even took Quantum Physics 101. First thing you learn is that the quantum world is anything but absolute. Look up the double slit experiment. When it comes to really small things you can only say "what if". majority of the laws we know break down at the atomic and sub atomic level. Which makes no logical sense because they are laws. That means that we must be missing something, because laws are absolute, aren't they?
@LordAmbitious Thing is, if you go back a couple hundred years, the universe revolved around the sun. Before that it revolved around the earth. Before that the earth was flat. Go back 15 years and there was only one Universe. Now there is the Multiverse. You cannot say a 30 year formula is 100% correct. Even E=mc2 is being looked at for consistency issues. Unless you say "what if" you are not talking science, and you especially are not talking quantum theoretics.
@OlCapitain E=MC^2 has been verified experimentally. It is impossible for anything to accelerate to lightspeed. Such an acceleration would require an infinite amount of energy. Not to mention that relativistic effects take hold and that from the point of view of someone travelling at .9C the speed of a parallel light beam is still c. Einstein's theory of relativity has held up everywhere except the quantum level. Also relativistic motion and E=MC^2 are two different theories of relativity...
@LordAmbitious You missed the point. It is currently impossible. And it appears to require an infinite amount of energy. The math is solid, not saying otherwise. Math states you need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. However, math is reliant on known data. Until we know something we cannot put it into a math equation. We use to think more than one universe is impossible...math said so. However now math says it is possible. Get my meaning?
@Obsidian182 That's a truth with modifications. The speed is technically not measurable in a general way. Given 2 points, the speed those points are traveling from each other can be calculated. 2 different points (assuming a different distance) will yield a different speed. Therefore, the speed of light is technically not broken, since expansion is stretching and not velocity.
@LordAmbitious Actually, I correct my previous statement, technically, light can not be slowed down. What you are referring to is a complicated matter in which instead of slowing down light we just make light take longer to get to its destination, photons never slow down. Also, photons have 0 rest mass anyways, meaning they could still have mass. Rest mass refers to the photon at rest, and since photons are never not moving the speed of light their rest mass is 0.
@LordAmbitious Point is, the speed of light is the absolute speed limit in a localized area. I took lots of classes on this stuff trust me, at the moment we do not have the means of making something reach that speed. Points are A)Photons cannot be slowed. B)Photons may have mass C)Requires a lot of energy to move at the speed of light, whether it is infinite is debatable. D) My previous, and this comments, are just simplified and probably flawed explanations of the current theories.
@fizaanTech currently we cannot get something to that speed, even in the LHC it requires way too much energy and what is the point if the object can never be slowed down? and if it was it would no longer be anything recognizable?
@fizaanTech The more you accelerate an object, the more energy it has. Since matter and energy are equivalent (You can convert one into the other via E=Mc^2) the more energyou pump into a particle, the more massive it becomes, which means that it requires more energy to accelerate it by the same rate. As a particle is accelerated near the speed of light, it's mass begins to approach infinity, and to actually make it go lightspeed, it's mass would become infinite, and therefore require infinite E
USE simple deductive reasoning if there was something there it would be hidden from everyone and no one would know of there existance more less how it works. When there Scientiest and secrete societies are out of ideas on what to do with it they turn to the public in hopes someone will spark a brake through in which they take credit for. First particle accelerators were designed and built by the public early on which even in those times couldnt figure out what to do with it.
@Thelongmanable or maybe your reading more into this situation than i would be if i saw a death star shaped cloud outside my window and assumed it was a NWO death star disguised as a cloud...
I personaly think that these particle accelerators are a cover up for something alot mroe sinister or something else along the lines of New world orders doing a world wide massive shake down of wealthy people. Come on with all the billions of dollars dumped into particle accelerators not one thing has ever come from there existence that benefits man kind in any way. PARTICLE ACCELERATOR WORLD BIGGEST HUSTLE FORGET RELIGION WE GOD SCIENCE LEADER OF THE HUSTLING WORLD.
Nikola Tesla said E=MC2 was vague and miss leading yet if this formual enhanced man kind why is it shared with every walking human being. I will tell you its becuase no one person on earth has manage to do 1 thing productive with it other than selling it as a marketing took in advertisment. Nikola Tesla built americas and germany first power plants along with flourecent bulbs, AC motors, etc etc. When Nikola Tesla died his lab was confinscated by Jay edgar hoover for the us goverment.
@shimmyjamily since time slows down at high velocities wouldnt you go backward in time if you broke the speed of light? if that were the case you couldnt really go faster than light because then you would leave our version of the universe travelling backward throught the 4th dimension and end up in a parallel universe starting somewhere in the past.
Thank goodness these things are extremely distant.
Speaking of hawking radiation, it isn't actually anything emitted from the black hole. It's a result of pairs of virtual particles in situations where one virtual particle falls through the black hole and one does not. Obviously the antimatter pairs that escape don't last very long in a matter universe, but the matter does. Technically speaking, it doesn't come from the black hole.
@siroma80 GRB / Gamma Ray Bursts emitted mostly from Active Black Holes when the Black Holes devour Stellar Debris. Scientists had a hard time figure out what they were untill recently we came to know how they were formed =)
@sesshy34 Black Holes are Invisible so you can't see them and hence it appears like a beam of Light emitted from nowhere. Black Holes actually emit two of those beams in opposite directions in the shape of an Hour Glass when sucking up Stars and Stellar Matter. These Beams of Light fade upon reaching distant far edges of the universes and to us, i appears like Bursts of Intense Energy waves.
30 years ago, people suspected it were Aliens sending these signals to us, Now we know what they are.
@sesshy34 They aren't invisible. Well they are because they are entire stars collapsed into an immeasurable small point. The gravity is so intense near the "Particle" which contains the mass of the star, that photons of light that travel at 300,000km/s cant escape the field or get trapped in orbit. We can see because photons strike our eyes so black holes appear invisible.
The most visible aspects of black holes are the gravitational lensing its mass causes betraying its location and if there is matter near the often huge accretion disc swirling around it and radiation.Also black holes emit a lot of things the name black hole really doesn't fit how they behave.Light wont escape but other types of radiation do. They emit periodic jets and radiation and actually evaporate over time if starved.
@sesshy34 lol ok all of that's true except that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that even light can't escape it, so it has no color. So it isn't invisible, just that nothing is moving away from it so no light emits from them.
@MyDogPoo Not entirely true, they emit radiation, not visible light radiation but the name black hole because it "sucks everything" is a misnomer as Stephen Hawking showed in 1974, the escaping radiation is named after him as Hawking radiation. Black holes without anything to consume nearby any more will actually shrink and evaporate over time. Also black holes are very visible because of the accretion disk and gravitational lensing. GRB's are effects of a star collapsing into a BH.
@MyDogPoo Yeah, I guess my wording was a bit off. I meant that sense theres no color, it would appear invisible. But yes, the light waves that the black hole bends do make it possible to see.
@gopherhockeyfreak Short GRB's are fractions while Long GRB's can last seconds and the upwards of minutes, but have much less energy output in the matter of time.
WTF?! Nice animation but conspicuously absent is any kind of useful information. 30 secs wasted (even if it would only have been spent staring at the wall, but thats not the point...) Brrrr New scientistvideo!!!
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE HUMAN BEIGS HAVE NO EVEN STARTED TO LEARN THE SECRETS OF HOW PROTONS AND ENERGIES WORK NONE OF U CAN SA ITS POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING WE JUST DONT KNOW!!! And Im pretty sure light speed is possible or light wouldnt travel that fast either so think about that
@mfunke u cnt reach the speed of light cus u need an infinate amount of energy to move an infinately increasing mass and space time does distort at speeds v close to the speed of light it distorts time, time passes much slower for an object moving close to the speed of light,but thts only relative to the observers frame of reference and to the moving reference time passes faster for the stationary object, gotta luv einsteins special relativity
I see the people on this thread talking about e=mc^2 but you guys got to use a little bit more advanced math. Its obvious that your relative gravity will increase as you approach the speed of light but its not impossible. The only reason why we cant do it is because human technology is at its lower stages right now. And yes you can go faster than the speed of light. I will try to find the article that runs through the mathematical proof.
I mean, my physics teacher -with maybe 2-6 years exp- always said that it wouldn't work because it's relative to mass. For example, a gram of say, iron, would -according to E=MC^2- have the SAME amount of energy as a gram of fuel : /.
But on the other hand, pretty light beam creates flowers in space ^ ^!
@Ewixing As I've mentioned before, someone else was accidentally logged in as me when that was written. I have no knowledge about whatever this video is about.
9Someone thumb this up so people know the dealio.)
@shimmyjamily Agree Of course something can go more than the speed of light!!!
And i hate this comments that say "nothing can go faster!!" outside of our galaxy are billions of stars that traveling with 1.000.000 KM/S...of course there are invisible cuz light cant reach them!!!!
@shimmyjamily Yes it could be like when they fired atoms near the speed of light in that collier just that this time u have a really tough vehicle and at the end of it points to space making u leave earth near or at the speed of light.
@shimmyjamily Stating evidence from one article means nothing, same as stating you have 12 years experience in particle physics. Fact is that mathematically there is no way to go faster than the speed of light, it violates all of the known laws of the universe, only in "theory" can you do so. You can however theoretically cut through folds in space that are created by gravitational waves which have been proven to exist and are measured every single day. Experience: 38 years particle physics..not
@OlCapitain Look up quantum entanglement. Random information travelling instantaneously way faster then light happens as we speak. As for US travelling faster then light, no hope of creating that technology for a LONG time. But it is allowed by the laws of physics. I hate repeating it but I am a HUGE fan of the guy. Read up Michio Kakus books. The guy is essentially today's Einstein and discusses stuff I thought frankly impossible forever, but shows how its allowed by the laws of physics.
@shkotay It may be allowed by the laws of physics but i said "known laws" currently only theory allows us to go faster than the speed of light. And I know all about quantum entanglement, just as I know they have found evidence of QE in some specific plants at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, previously it was only able to be done at near absolute zero. Currently only in theory can we go faster than speed of light but eventually theory sometimes becomes laws, so I am not saying it is impossible.
@OlCapitain Theories NEVER become laws. God why do so many people think a theory is just a less proven law? Theory does NOT mean unproven law, theory just means explanation. A law is NOT an explanation. Therefore a theory can never become a law.
@9hello123 Technically you are correct but the reason people say that is because theories bring about laws. You cannot have a law without a theory first, and you can have a theory without having a law. Laws are created by theories which is why people say that theories become laws. Instead of explaining this every comment i make on the subject i just say theories become laws. In essence a law is a simplified theory, it explains what will happen in an instance a theory does explain why it happens.
@OlCapitain That is incorrect, the majority of cases the law comes before the theory and the theory is the explanation of the law (e.g. the law of gravity came before the theory of gravity)
@9hello123 You do know that it is not possible for a law to come before a theory. You cannot just state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, without some reasoning behind it. Just as scientists needed an explanation before they added in an 11th dimension, you cannot simply say that there are 11 dimensions without saying why, it defeats the purpose of science. A law* without an explanation is no better than saying helios drove the chariot of the sun across the sky every night. *Mythology*
@OlCapitain That is completely incorrect. A law is something that predicts what will happen based on observable events (e.g. the law of gravity predicts how the planets move.) a theory explains why this is so (the theory of gravity did not come until 100s of years after the law of gravity) the theory NEVER comes before the law.
@9hello123 You are incorrect, an idea cannot become a law unless the majority of the scientific community says it is so. No scientist will agree with a law if there is no explanation. What you are referring to is the now accepted theory of gravity, that was probably created sometime after the law. Before that though there were other theories, though now they are ignored. Scientists now state that our current theory of gravity is flawed and are trying to change it to a better one.
@9hello123 Look at it like this. In the scientific community things do not exist unless there is proof, I am not joking about this either. If there was no proof that the sun exists than according to science it would not, and it would be job suicide to say otherwise without proof, look at Galileo. There are quite a few laws out there that we have witnessed however until we provide a reasonable explanation they cannot become laws, period. Because the scientific community would not accept it.
@9hello123 I honestly do not know where you get your information from, however as one of the students of michio kaku and a striving particle/ quantum physicists, i get my information from very reliable sources. I am not discounting your sources, however if you still disagree please provide the source and not just say because i think thats how it should be pls.
Also I know about Michio Kaku and I do have major respect for him. I am currently a college student studying quantum physics mostly because it is frankly considered the science that makes no sense. It contradicts itself at every turn and I find that fascinating. Besides the point, trust me I believe moving faster than the speed of light is possible, especially since light is moving slower now than it was before. I'd hate to have a speed limit that keeps getting slower and slower haha.
@shkotay Good stuff. perhaps through 'quantum entanglement' we will not actually 'travel' anywhere but just appear there!!! Kinda like 'create' me on the other side of the universe and delete me where i am now?!?!
Fact is we don't know shit yet, but it's getting bloody exciting.
@mknomad5 In reply, I send my thanks to the Grammar Police Unit of Youtube. Perhaps they will forward you a card or a nice little cholate chip cookie for your efforts to curb imperfectly typed comments. Humanity forbid such errors occur :D
@Darthbelal I used to love him till I learned about critical thinking. Then I kind of lost all respect I had for him. He did accomplish stuff in his field as a physicist though, but he went off the chain with all his conspiracy ramblings. Cost him his credibility sadly :(
@shkotay You'll have to get a bit more specific than merely you learned critical thinking, then lost respect for Stanton. Mr Friedman is a meticulous researcher. EVERY single thing he says is backed up by fact. His message and viewpoints are absolutely consistent. If you're saying that because Stanton believes UFOs have visited earth and you don't believe in UFOs therefore Stanton is off the deep end, that is NOT critical thinking. You'll have to come up with examples of illogical....
@Darthbelal Reaaaally...so flying saucers are beyind a doubt real? They ARE indeed alien in origin? Majestic 12 is the real deal despite the FBI laughing it off and Friedman selling the 'secret document' for a small fee on his website? They seem to have been far less harsh on him then they were on Manning for instance by his alleged release of files. I admire his work in the field of physics, I do not admire his shoddy poorly put together arguments in defense of UFOs
@shkotay Yes, really. UFOs are real and are alien in origin. If you think you're going to shame me, you're in for a sad surprise. You're the one drinking the kool-aid, not me. Stating that because Friedman sells documents just isn't going to cut it. He also charges for his lectures, does that make him a phony? Lots of people charge for their lectures, does that make THEM phony?
@Darthbelal Well when you show the acedemic researchers of this world an alien being for examination, and then when they disseminate their findings to the world, I will believe in aliens. Right now they are merely a possibility out there in the universe. UFOs...the first word in there is "Unidentified" by the way. You claim to be able to identify them? Then provide hard proof for examination. If you cannot then you are in the same boat as Friedmann. The MJ12 documents thing...
@shkotay In science, police work and journalism (to name three professions) when something doesn't seem right, when something doesn't fit, when things and people start acting strangely one starts investigating, questioning, researching, hunting. The smart, inquisitive person begins finding ANSWERS. Find out WHY, not wait, debunk or dismiss. Sit with your comfortable delusions, drink your kool-aid. I'm curious. I'm researching, comparing stories. Something's going on.
@Darthbelal And please continue your research. BUT do it with integrity. Do not go the way of friedmann and merely propose stuff because it sounds logical, or cool. If one makes a claim, one must provide evidence for examination. Science, police work and journailsm (when done responsibly) all require evidence. Science in particular require evidence to be examined by peers and independent investigators to attempt to rule out alternative explanations. Nothing if UFOlogy follows this.
@shkotay Unfortunately for me, space here doesn't allow me to elaborate on my viewpoint. I'll research, if I get a hold of an alien spacecraft, I'll be sure to let you know, dammit.
@Darthbelal Learn about responsible research methods. I think the study of unidentified flying objects could have merit if it had more reserachers of integrity. Unfortunately the field is swamped by the credulous. Research UFOs but dont be without integrity while doing so, and practice sound sceptical/research skills. That way when you DO come up with something, ppl will have a far harder time challenging it. For the moment, its a hard field to get anywhere with.
@Darthbelal Well, to wrap up your job will be to find the fires if you can. Lots of ppl see smoke and thus infer fire. Best of luck with your endeavours. Try out those courses I suggested, good luck!
@Darthbelal so you will begin to see these are not delusions I have. I am not willing to accept just any answers. I will only accept evidence based claims where the evidence rules out other explanations of the claim made. Thats a high bar to cross, and investigators should settle for NO less.
@shkotay I could go into UFO case, after UFO case, after UFO case where the "official" explanations just don't add up. Oh, and I'm not impressed with your so-called mainstream academic researchers. Waiting for somebody to turn up with an alien spacecraft or an alien body isn't science, it's laziness, dammit.
This has been flagged as spam show
Schnäutzelbärtchen!
levin18081994 2 weeks ago
Crap! Please stop that stuff!
wseucan 1 month ago
Im a firin' ma' lazerrrrr!!!
settone03 1 month ago
@AI2flesh You had a birthday recently. My little boy is growing up. :)
a12flesh 1 month ago
My lips chapped but its OK i got some balm.
realfoe 2 months ago
GAMMA RAY BURST IN YO FACE
jimmyandclock 2 months ago
y cant i like ppls comments on this video? sum 1 please ( :
defiant18 2 months ago
it's like an old star took a piss on us
TreyLutrash 3 months ago 2
Lol earth will probably just explode in some weird way no ones expect and end human race. No drama.
tulp35000 3 months ago
sure shows up saiyan
20ZZ20 3 months ago
last i checked gamma ray bursts are not concentrated beams of light....
TheRaellz 3 months ago
Windmills do not work that way, good nite
Typho0n86 3 months ago
What a dumb video. Why is this on NewScientist? Did you guys just smoke a bunch of pot on this day or something?
mikemurko 4 months ago
@mikemurko pay more attention they where smoking mech not just any type of pot or bud.
racatacha 3 months ago
Captain There is a Shapeless, massless, entity of the starboard side. Fuck Off I'm Sleeping Number one
bunkmasterflex 4 months ago
it missed me!
gerrytaggart 4 months ago
seguramente esa luz para y que se deregia hacia la tierra para si el digimon evolucionar
1davidsuperkable 4 months ago
Comment removed
Connectrick13 4 months ago
Its an animation -_-
XharryhamsterX 4 months ago
holy shit i remember that i seen it when i was smoking pot XD
islandboiitsi 5 months ago 3
KA!!!!!!!!ME!!!!!!!!HA!!!!!!!!ME!!!!!!!HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Episode 2: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Episode 3: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
quechus13 5 months ago
Do you know how we survived?? JAEESSUUUSS!! Start repenting you fuckers!
DeadlyThrashViking 5 months ago
did we survive?
bjcandfriends 5 months ago 32
@bjcandfriends apparently!! : D
Epurope 5 months ago
@bjcandfriends Not sure ;p
BambooSamurai33 5 months ago
@bjcandfriends yes but unfortunately justin bieber survived too...
EyesOnYouTR 4 months ago 2
@bjcandfriends No. We all died.
counterclockwise123 3 months ago
@counterclockwise123 I knew IT!
bjcandfriends 3 months ago
@bjcandfriends lol i dont know?
charliebaron1 2 months ago
@bjcandfriends nope, we're currently uploading in heaven.
here's your sign
brotherbandit 1 month ago
Ooh...pretty.
beatleslover9 6 months ago
can you give us some background on this how and why etc.
creativeprojects720 6 months ago
GAAAALICCCKKKK GUUUUUUNNNNNNNN
TheCynicalCynic 6 months ago
dont worry, saiyan can counter that with kamehameha
superguko 6 months ago 33
@superguko saiyan is stupid japanese crap. The world doesn't care
Asiats1 5 months ago
@Asiats1 lol
superguko 5 months ago
Thank you for this incredibliy unhelpfull video.
Dexxxter7780 7 months ago
KAMEHAMEHAAAA :D
DarkneszYTB 7 months ago
I went to a lecture where the guest was a NASA physicist and he went through some crazy mathematical proof stating that you cant go at exactly the speed of light because of its asymptotic nature. Granted if you can get enough energy to even move a object at that speed, you can only go faster or slower than the speed of light.
smellslikecj 7 months ago
RE: 'The Gamma Ray Burst'
It is incredible. GRB is an explosion of a Galaxy with duration of 20-40 sec. Is this thing on the video a real event or it is some kind of a simulation? Where and which is the Galaxy evaporated in a GRB?
If this was aimed at the Earth (as the video claims) the initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, micro and radio) - & we should have been already 'evaporated in plasma state'.
U1T001 7 months ago
Wow man this is great footage...
daddyschlong14 8 months ago
I saw an amazing Gamma Ray directed at Earth last night and I saw the Corona Borealis. I really want to see what the Corona Borealis looks like to confirm what I saw at 910pm - 10.15pm 1st May 2011.
Pamela11389 9 months ago
What if one were able to change a particle with to a particle without mass so it may travel at c, then when the travel is over, the particle is once again given its mass again?
There's a nice what-if for you.
accountmaniac 9 months ago
@accountmaniac Even so we know of no material that would not be ripped apart by the force.
NintendoDSVampire 8 months ago
The gamma ray burst occurs at the point of Esciallary Junction. This is when effective transformation of a mass of inert quark "solid" (aka black hole materia) is energized via vibration, causing expansion of the quark solid into a resolutory neutron net. Because the quark materia, (defined as antemater) is of a composition in the inert state as to be similar to springs under compression, the expansion of the springs releases the full spetrum of measureable wavelengths. See The Megillah.
ETHIOLOGIST1 10 months ago
The Gamma Ray bursts from a quasar in a black hole have been recorded as travelling at 5 times the speed of light.
With modern technology, it's not possible
With future technology, it probably will be
fizaanTech 1 year ago
@fizaanTech where is your proof? no such thing, it is impossible to move faster than the speed of light relative to something else in a localized area.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain I'm going to be honest and say I don't have proof, somebody told me about that.
But what proves that it is impossible to move at the speed of light?
fizaanTech 1 year ago
@fizaanTech because in order to get something to the speed of light you have to give it an extremely large amount of energy, and when something hits that speed the atoms collapse and become photons, because upon hitting the speed of light the atom then is full of infinite amount of energy, either that or an amount too large to calculate. If you got a shit to that speed it would no longer be a ship, it would just be a bunch of photons that are impossible to slow down because of their 0 mass.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain Close, but not quite. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. To do so would require pumping an infinite amount of energy into it, which is not possible. Photons can be slowed down by forcing them to pass through a medium such as water or glass. And it is possible for particles to be accelerated faster than light through a medium because they would still be travelling at less than c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum. This is where Cerenkov radiation comes from.
LordAmbitious 11 months ago
@LordAmbitious Everything not moving at the speed of light has mass, everything that we know of. Reason I say it requires alot of energy, and not an infinite amount to get an object to the speed of light, is because we do not yet have a full understanding of the quantum world. Just because it seems and appears to need infinite energy to move that fast, in actuality it possibly just requires an amount far larger than we can measure. The speed of light limit i was refering to was in a vaccum btw.
OlCapitain 11 months ago
@OlCapitain You can't just say "what if" there were a particle with mass that traveled at c. That's not science. there is nothing in the laws of physics that allow a particle with mass to travel at c, and nothing to allow a particle without mass to travel at less than c. By definition, a particle with mass cannot travel at the speed of light. This does not mean it can get from point a to point b faster than a photon, what with quantum tunneling and quantum weirdness.
LordAmbitious 11 months ago
@LordAmbitious Obviously you are not a quantum physicist, unlikely that you even took Quantum Physics 101. First thing you learn is that the quantum world is anything but absolute. Look up the double slit experiment. When it comes to really small things you can only say "what if". majority of the laws we know break down at the atomic and sub atomic level. Which makes no logical sense because they are laws. That means that we must be missing something, because laws are absolute, aren't they?
OlCapitain 11 months ago
@LordAmbitious Thing is, if you go back a couple hundred years, the universe revolved around the sun. Before that it revolved around the earth. Before that the earth was flat. Go back 15 years and there was only one Universe. Now there is the Multiverse. You cannot say a 30 year formula is 100% correct. Even E=mc2 is being looked at for consistency issues. Unless you say "what if" you are not talking science, and you especially are not talking quantum theoretics.
OlCapitain 11 months ago
@OlCapitain E=MC^2 has been verified experimentally. It is impossible for anything to accelerate to lightspeed. Such an acceleration would require an infinite amount of energy. Not to mention that relativistic effects take hold and that from the point of view of someone travelling at .9C the speed of a parallel light beam is still c. Einstein's theory of relativity has held up everywhere except the quantum level. Also relativistic motion and E=MC^2 are two different theories of relativity...
LordAmbitious 10 months ago
@LordAmbitious You missed the point. It is currently impossible. And it appears to require an infinite amount of energy. The math is solid, not saying otherwise. Math states you need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. However, math is reliant on known data. Until we know something we cannot put it into a math equation. We use to think more than one universe is impossible...math said so. However now math says it is possible. Get my meaning?
OlCapitain 10 months ago
@LordAmbitious I was told once that the only thing faster than light is the expansion of space. Example: The Big Bang. Just something I heard.
Obsidian182 9 months ago
@Obsidian182 That's a truth with modifications. The speed is technically not measurable in a general way. Given 2 points, the speed those points are traveling from each other can be calculated. 2 different points (assuming a different distance) will yield a different speed. Therefore, the speed of light is technically not broken, since expansion is stretching and not velocity.
joembush 8 months ago
@LordAmbitious Actually, I correct my previous statement, technically, light can not be slowed down. What you are referring to is a complicated matter in which instead of slowing down light we just make light take longer to get to its destination, photons never slow down. Also, photons have 0 rest mass anyways, meaning they could still have mass. Rest mass refers to the photon at rest, and since photons are never not moving the speed of light their rest mass is 0.
OlCapitain 11 months ago
@LordAmbitious Point is, the speed of light is the absolute speed limit in a localized area. I took lots of classes on this stuff trust me, at the moment we do not have the means of making something reach that speed. Points are A)Photons cannot be slowed. B)Photons may have mass C)Requires a lot of energy to move at the speed of light, whether it is infinite is debatable. D) My previous, and this comments, are just simplified and probably flawed explanations of the current theories.
OlCapitain 11 months ago
@fizaanTech currently we cannot get something to that speed, even in the LHC it requires way too much energy and what is the point if the object can never be slowed down? and if it was it would no longer be anything recognizable?
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@fizaanTech The more you accelerate an object, the more energy it has. Since matter and energy are equivalent (You can convert one into the other via E=Mc^2) the more energyou pump into a particle, the more massive it becomes, which means that it requires more energy to accelerate it by the same rate. As a particle is accelerated near the speed of light, it's mass begins to approach infinity, and to actually make it go lightspeed, it's mass would become infinite, and therefore require infinite E
LordAmbitious 11 months ago
@fizaanTech nothing travels faster than c.
LordAmbitious 11 months ago
i guess someone is firing theh lazor?
GAMA3000 1 year ago
Oh, do they fit ion cannons on deathstars now?
ArtypNk 1 year ago
THUMBS DOWN THE LIES OF SHIMMYJAMILY
No idea wtf this video is..but her comment is false and her 'Experience' is made up
Emanusmell 1 year ago
did you guys check out Shimmyjamily(lier claiming 12 years particle physicist)
She is a fake and is not even 12 years out of COLLEGE
BUSTED
Emanusmell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try Naughty women and success your life mworld5.info
iimogenyu 1 year ago
man that is so like wtf that is not real
cdykes14 1 year ago
USE simple deductive reasoning if there was something there it would be hidden from everyone and no one would know of there existance more less how it works. When there Scientiest and secrete societies are out of ideas on what to do with it they turn to the public in hopes someone will spark a brake through in which they take credit for. First particle accelerators were designed and built by the public early on which even in those times couldnt figure out what to do with it.
Thelongmanable 1 year ago
@Thelongmanable or maybe your reading more into this situation than i would be if i saw a death star shaped cloud outside my window and assumed it was a NWO death star disguised as a cloud...
dave38x 1 year ago
I personaly think that these particle accelerators are a cover up for something alot mroe sinister or something else along the lines of New world orders doing a world wide massive shake down of wealthy people. Come on with all the billions of dollars dumped into particle accelerators not one thing has ever come from there existence that benefits man kind in any way. PARTICLE ACCELERATOR WORLD BIGGEST HUSTLE FORGET RELIGION WE GOD SCIENCE LEADER OF THE HUSTLING WORLD.
Thelongmanable 1 year ago
Nikola Tesla said E=MC2 was vague and miss leading yet if this formual enhanced man kind why is it shared with every walking human being. I will tell you its becuase no one person on earth has manage to do 1 thing productive with it other than selling it as a marketing took in advertisment. Nikola Tesla built americas and germany first power plants along with flourecent bulbs, AC motors, etc etc. When Nikola Tesla died his lab was confinscated by Jay edgar hoover for the us goverment.
Thelongmanable 1 year ago
wtf....giant space beam and no star wars comments?
simonswesea 1 year ago
I CALL HAXXXX
shiftri 1 year ago
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo
bladebot 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily since time slows down at high velocities wouldnt you go backward in time if you broke the speed of light? if that were the case you couldnt really go faster than light because then you would leave our version of the universe travelling backward throught the 4th dimension and end up in a parallel universe starting somewhere in the past.
Rayzersword 1 year ago
Star: whoa, that was a big load.
FugazStar 1 year ago
deswitch.. left and right hemisphere of the brain.. nothing more.
AI2flesh 1 year ago
let me go said old Tachyon
AI2flesh 1 year ago
IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR. Sorry I had to.
Iambenjoz 1 year ago 38
@Iambenjoz AHAHAHAHA YOU JUST MADE ME LAWL SO HARD.
Kennybearizawsome 1 year ago
HADOUKEN!
dantes1815 1 year ago
It's Dr.Evil!
Peter5k 1 year ago
Thank goodness these things are extremely distant.
Speaking of hawking radiation, it isn't actually anything emitted from the black hole. It's a result of pairs of virtual particles in situations where one virtual particle falls through the black hole and one does not. Obviously the antimatter pairs that escape don't last very long in a matter universe, but the matter does. Technically speaking, it doesn't come from the black hole.
Temporarily9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Temporarily9 1 year ago
WTF
leviathanathos 1 year ago
Holy shit its the eclipse canon! Eggman has done it again
SonicGamer1991 1 year ago
Kame-Hame-Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MaestroMajeFoX 1 year ago
Can please someone tell me... WHAT THE FUCK was that?!!!
I could draw that too in 3ds studio max or maya... and what THE JESUSBLOODYMARRY IS the "GRB" for?!!!
siroma80 1 year ago
@siroma80 GRB / Gamma Ray Bursts emitted mostly from Active Black Holes when the Black Holes devour Stellar Debris. Scientists had a hard time figure out what they were untill recently we came to know how they were formed =)
sesshy34 1 year ago
@sesshy34 Thank U!!!
siroma80 1 year ago
@sesshy34 Black Holes are Invisible so you can't see them and hence it appears like a beam of Light emitted from nowhere. Black Holes actually emit two of those beams in opposite directions in the shape of an Hour Glass when sucking up Stars and Stellar Matter. These Beams of Light fade upon reaching distant far edges of the universes and to us, i appears like Bursts of Intense Energy waves.
30 years ago, people suspected it were Aliens sending these signals to us, Now we know what they are.
sesshy34 1 year ago
@sesshy34 They aren't invisible. Well they are because they are entire stars collapsed into an immeasurable small point. The gravity is so intense near the "Particle" which contains the mass of the star, that photons of light that travel at 300,000km/s cant escape the field or get trapped in orbit. We can see because photons strike our eyes so black holes appear invisible.
RtGFuSiOn 1 year ago
The most visible aspects of black holes are the gravitational lensing its mass causes betraying its location and if there is matter near the often huge accretion disc swirling around it and radiation.Also black holes emit a lot of things the name black hole really doesn't fit how they behave.Light wont escape but other types of radiation do. They emit periodic jets and radiation and actually evaporate over time if starved.
InnSewerAnts 1 year ago
@sesshy34 lol ok all of that's true except that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that even light can't escape it, so it has no color. So it isn't invisible, just that nothing is moving away from it so no light emits from them.
MyDogPoo 1 year ago
@MyDogPoo Not entirely true, they emit radiation, not visible light radiation but the name black hole because it "sucks everything" is a misnomer as Stephen Hawking showed in 1974, the escaping radiation is named after him as Hawking radiation. Black holes without anything to consume nearby any more will actually shrink and evaporate over time. Also black holes are very visible because of the accretion disk and gravitational lensing. GRB's are effects of a star collapsing into a BH.
InnSewerAnts 1 year ago
@MyDogPoo Yeah, I guess my wording was a bit off. I meant that sense theres no color, it would appear invisible. But yes, the light waves that the black hole bends do make it possible to see.
MyDogPoo 1 year ago
shoop da whoop
Aqwert76 1 year ago
whats this switch do?
Cobracon 1 year ago
It's a conspiracy. Government is conspiring with aliens to kill us and turn over the planet to THEM!!!
Mausy5043 1 year ago
Falcon... PUNCH!!!
Exarian 1 year ago
fire the phasers!!!
b0utch 1 year ago
Final Flash!! ....... Naaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
timen1986 1 year ago
I was starting to panic, I thought it stood for - Great Ruddy Bollocks - aimed at the Earth. Certainly describes life down here anyway.
2JAMMY 1 year ago
KAMEHAMEHA!!!!!!!!
OkamiThunder 1 year ago
what is a GRB?
kellerr13 1 year ago
@kellerr13
Gamma Ray Burst
didjabringadidjalong 1 year ago
if its on youtube it must be true
vikingskippen 1 year ago
Arnt GRB a fraction of a second long? correct me if im wrong
gopherhockeyfreak 1 year ago
@gopherhockeyfreak
In the case of merging binary neutron stars for example the GRB can be as long as 4 second, perhaps longer.
LordTyrannus 1 year ago
@LordTyrannus Thanks man, im only 14 so i dont really understand most of this stuff but i think its just sooo cool.
gopherhockeyfreak 1 year ago
@gopherhockeyfreak Short GRB's are fractions while Long GRB's can last seconds and the upwards of minutes, but have much less energy output in the matter of time.
CaLL0fDuTy4 1 year ago
@CaLL0fDuTy4 thank you =)
gopherhockeyfreak 1 year ago
freakin' aliens we're still here! MISSED
losers xD
ZetoBlackproject 1 year ago
WTF?! Nice animation but conspicuously absent is any kind of useful information. 30 secs wasted (even if it would only have been spent staring at the wall, but thats not the point...) Brrrr New scientistvideo!!!
jeebersjumpincryst 1 year ago
No offense, but it looks like someone peeing purple pee...
revrunnertech2772 1 year ago
shields to maximum!
XxxBritishxxX 1 year ago 2
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE HUMAN BEIGS HAVE NO EVEN STARTED TO LEARN THE SECRETS OF HOW PROTONS AND ENERGIES WORK NONE OF U CAN SA ITS POSSIBLE OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING WE JUST DONT KNOW!!! And Im pretty sure light speed is possible or light wouldnt travel that fast either so think about that
LambOfGod452 1 year ago
Brain hurts soooo much after reading comments.
777irule 1 year ago
all the highest rated comments are 4chan memes! =P shits so cash
GGAlice1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stupid quantum physics ruinin' my fun
nealshireman 1 year ago
stupid quantum physics ruinin' my fun
nealshireman 1 year ago
stupid quantum physics
nealshireman 1 year ago
@mfunke u cnt reach the speed of light cus u need an infinate amount of energy to move an infinately increasing mass and space time does distort at speeds v close to the speed of light it distorts time, time passes much slower for an object moving close to the speed of light,but thts only relative to the observers frame of reference and to the moving reference time passes faster for the stationary object, gotta luv einsteins special relativity
DomhnallX50 1 year ago
@DomhnallX50 To say it simple, you can not be human if u travel faster then the speed of light. (Or your technology needs to be realy advanced.)
Eduardusz 1 year ago
special beam cannon
refill1234567 1 year ago 34
@refill1234567 it's makankosappo, dumbass :)
ThatFurryDude 1 year ago
@refill1234567 DBZ is not dead !!
connorbearne1993 1 year ago
I see the people on this thread talking about e=mc^2 but you guys got to use a little bit more advanced math. Its obvious that your relative gravity will increase as you approach the speed of light but its not impossible. The only reason why we cant do it is because human technology is at its lower stages right now. And yes you can go faster than the speed of light. I will try to find the article that runs through the mathematical proof.
Experience: 12 years particle physicist
shimmyjamily 1 year ago 16
being interested in particle physics doesn't make you a physicist. faggot.
..or maybe it actually does but not by the common definition. you're trying to decieve
capetorial 1 year ago
isn't E=MC^2 a fail anyway?
I mean, my physics teacher -with maybe 2-6 years exp- always said that it wouldn't work because it's relative to mass. For example, a gram of say, iron, would -according to E=MC^2- have the SAME amount of energy as a gram of fuel : /.
But on the other hand, pretty light beam creates flowers in space ^ ^!
Ophiguris 1 year ago
but if you do wont you expand infidently?[spell check]
if so couldnt you put a gravitational shield around your ship allowing the mass and gravity of your ship to remain normal
and why not just create a temorary sub dimention [spell check] in which the gravitational laws are of a different setting
/\
im not a particle manipulator i only know collision and acceloration [spell check] ut would those 3 theroys [spellcheck] work?
micprn 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily How can you be a 12 year particle physicist if your profile says yer 24.
betsingerb 1 year ago
@betsingerb Sorry, my roommate used my account accidentally signed in as me. This isn't his account.
shimmyjamily 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily this is on your about me:
I'm am no longer a college student (aka, just graduated). Noooooooooo! I majored in Human Development and Computing in the Arts.
Ewixing 1 year ago
@Ewixing As I've mentioned before, someone else was accidentally logged in as me when that was written. I have no knowledge about whatever this video is about.
9Someone thumb this up so people know the dealio.)
shimmyjamily 1 year ago 22
@Ewixing :))) good catch. You cannot exceed the speed of light. Unless you're going in a black hole :-?? i'm just saying
valiza123 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily medal
connorbearne1993 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily Agree Of course something can go more than the speed of light!!!
And i hate this comments that say "nothing can go faster!!" outside of our galaxy are billions of stars that traveling with 1.000.000 KM/S...of course there are invisible cuz light cant reach them!!!!
NukeBluff 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily Even Feynman's book "Strand theory of light and matter" says that light itself travels slower and faster than the speed of light.
ltzul2vi7l 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily Yes it could be like when they fired atoms near the speed of light in that collier just that this time u have a really tough vehicle and at the end of it points to space making u leave earth near or at the speed of light.
tufanyatta 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily all you have to do is say the speed of light is slower then it actually is then you can travel at the speed of light
redghost105 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily We are at the lower stage of technology so we will take the proof( our proof) as an argument that could be right or wrong.
frauMark 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily
Please send me that article? I would be very interested!
LolcanoStudios 1 year ago
@shimmyjamily Stating evidence from one article means nothing, same as stating you have 12 years experience in particle physics. Fact is that mathematically there is no way to go faster than the speed of light, it violates all of the known laws of the universe, only in "theory" can you do so. You can however theoretically cut through folds in space that are created by gravitational waves which have been proven to exist and are measured every single day. Experience: 38 years particle physics..not
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain Look up quantum entanglement. Random information travelling instantaneously way faster then light happens as we speak. As for US travelling faster then light, no hope of creating that technology for a LONG time. But it is allowed by the laws of physics. I hate repeating it but I am a HUGE fan of the guy. Read up Michio Kakus books. The guy is essentially today's Einstein and discusses stuff I thought frankly impossible forever, but shows how its allowed by the laws of physics.
shkotay 1 year ago 5
@shkotay It may be allowed by the laws of physics but i said "known laws" currently only theory allows us to go faster than the speed of light. And I know all about quantum entanglement, just as I know they have found evidence of QE in some specific plants at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, previously it was only able to be done at near absolute zero. Currently only in theory can we go faster than speed of light but eventually theory sometimes becomes laws, so I am not saying it is impossible.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain Theories NEVER become laws. God why do so many people think a theory is just a less proven law? Theory does NOT mean unproven law, theory just means explanation. A law is NOT an explanation. Therefore a theory can never become a law.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 Technically you are correct but the reason people say that is because theories bring about laws. You cannot have a law without a theory first, and you can have a theory without having a law. Laws are created by theories which is why people say that theories become laws. Instead of explaining this every comment i make on the subject i just say theories become laws. In essence a law is a simplified theory, it explains what will happen in an instance a theory does explain why it happens.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain That is incorrect, the majority of cases the law comes before the theory and the theory is the explanation of the law (e.g. the law of gravity came before the theory of gravity)
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 You do know that it is not possible for a law to come before a theory. You cannot just state that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, without some reasoning behind it. Just as scientists needed an explanation before they added in an 11th dimension, you cannot simply say that there are 11 dimensions without saying why, it defeats the purpose of science. A law* without an explanation is no better than saying helios drove the chariot of the sun across the sky every night. *Mythology*
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@OlCapitain That is completely incorrect. A law is something that predicts what will happen based on observable events (e.g. the law of gravity predicts how the planets move.) a theory explains why this is so (the theory of gravity did not come until 100s of years after the law of gravity) the theory NEVER comes before the law.
9hello123 1 year ago
@9hello123 You are incorrect, an idea cannot become a law unless the majority of the scientific community says it is so. No scientist will agree with a law if there is no explanation. What you are referring to is the now accepted theory of gravity, that was probably created sometime after the law. Before that though there were other theories, though now they are ignored. Scientists now state that our current theory of gravity is flawed and are trying to change it to a better one.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@9hello123 Look at it like this. In the scientific community things do not exist unless there is proof, I am not joking about this either. If there was no proof that the sun exists than according to science it would not, and it would be job suicide to say otherwise without proof, look at Galileo. There are quite a few laws out there that we have witnessed however until we provide a reasonable explanation they cannot become laws, period. Because the scientific community would not accept it.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@9hello123 I honestly do not know where you get your information from, however as one of the students of michio kaku and a striving particle/ quantum physicists, i get my information from very reliable sources. I am not discounting your sources, however if you still disagree please provide the source and not just say because i think thats how it should be pls.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@shkotay
Also I know about Michio Kaku and I do have major respect for him. I am currently a college student studying quantum physics mostly because it is frankly considered the science that makes no sense. It contradicts itself at every turn and I find that fascinating. Besides the point, trust me I believe moving faster than the speed of light is possible, especially since light is moving slower now than it was before. I'd hate to have a speed limit that keeps getting slower and slower haha.
OlCapitain 1 year ago
@shkotay Good stuff. perhaps through 'quantum entanglement' we will not actually 'travel' anywhere but just appear there!!! Kinda like 'create' me on the other side of the universe and delete me where i am now?!?!
Fact is we don't know shit yet, but it's getting bloody exciting.
Loader2k 5 months ago
@shkotay "As for US travelling faster then light..."
It's 'faster THAN light'.
mknomad5 5 months ago
@mknomad5 In reply, I send my thanks to the Grammar Police Unit of Youtube. Perhaps they will forward you a card or a nice little cholate chip cookie for your efforts to curb imperfectly typed comments. Humanity forbid such errors occur :D
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay I prefer Stanton Friedman, thanks.........
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal I used to love him till I learned about critical thinking. Then I kind of lost all respect I had for him. He did accomplish stuff in his field as a physicist though, but he went off the chain with all his conspiracy ramblings. Cost him his credibility sadly :(
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay You'll have to get a bit more specific than merely you learned critical thinking, then lost respect for Stanton. Mr Friedman is a meticulous researcher. EVERY single thing he says is backed up by fact. His message and viewpoints are absolutely consistent. If you're saying that because Stanton believes UFOs have visited earth and you don't believe in UFOs therefore Stanton is off the deep end, that is NOT critical thinking. You'll have to come up with examples of illogical....
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal Reaaaally...so flying saucers are beyind a doubt real? They ARE indeed alien in origin? Majestic 12 is the real deal despite the FBI laughing it off and Friedman selling the 'secret document' for a small fee on his website? They seem to have been far less harsh on him then they were on Manning for instance by his alleged release of files. I admire his work in the field of physics, I do not admire his shoddy poorly put together arguments in defense of UFOs
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay Yes, really. UFOs are real and are alien in origin. If you think you're going to shame me, you're in for a sad surprise. You're the one drinking the kool-aid, not me. Stating that because Friedman sells documents just isn't going to cut it. He also charges for his lectures, does that make him a phony? Lots of people charge for their lectures, does that make THEM phony?
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal Well when you show the acedemic researchers of this world an alien being for examination, and then when they disseminate their findings to the world, I will believe in aliens. Right now they are merely a possibility out there in the universe. UFOs...the first word in there is "Unidentified" by the way. You claim to be able to identify them? Then provide hard proof for examination. If you cannot then you are in the same boat as Friedmann. The MJ12 documents thing...
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay In science, police work and journalism (to name three professions) when something doesn't seem right, when something doesn't fit, when things and people start acting strangely one starts investigating, questioning, researching, hunting. The smart, inquisitive person begins finding ANSWERS. Find out WHY, not wait, debunk or dismiss. Sit with your comfortable delusions, drink your kool-aid. I'm curious. I'm researching, comparing stories. Something's going on.
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal And please continue your research. BUT do it with integrity. Do not go the way of friedmann and merely propose stuff because it sounds logical, or cool. If one makes a claim, one must provide evidence for examination. Science, police work and journailsm (when done responsibly) all require evidence. Science in particular require evidence to be examined by peers and independent investigators to attempt to rule out alternative explanations. Nothing if UFOlogy follows this.
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay Unfortunately for me, space here doesn't allow me to elaborate on my viewpoint. I'll research, if I get a hold of an alien spacecraft, I'll be sure to let you know, dammit.
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal Learn about responsible research methods. I think the study of unidentified flying objects could have merit if it had more reserachers of integrity. Unfortunately the field is swamped by the credulous. Research UFOs but dont be without integrity while doing so, and practice sound sceptical/research skills. That way when you DO come up with something, ppl will have a far harder time challenging it. For the moment, its a hard field to get anywhere with.
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay Like chasing smoke. I KNOW, there's a lot of BS out there.
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal Well, to wrap up your job will be to find the fires if you can. Lots of ppl see smoke and thus infer fire. Best of luck with your endeavours. Try out those courses I suggested, good luck!
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay thank you, keep looking up
Darthbelal 5 months ago
@Darthbelal so you will begin to see these are not delusions I have. I am not willing to accept just any answers. I will only accept evidence based claims where the evidence rules out other explanations of the claim made. Thats a high bar to cross, and investigators should settle for NO less.
shkotay 5 months ago
@shkotay I could go into UFO case, after UFO case, after UFO case where the "official" explanations just don't add up. Oh, and I'm not impressed with your so-called mainstream academic researchers. Waiting for somebody to turn up with an alien spacecraft or an alien body isn't science, it's laziness, dammit.
Darthbelal 5 months ago