Faster than the Speed of Light - Could the laws of physics change?

[kylewakeh]

What I think happens is that when the particle is accelerated to C (light speed) it breaks through time and space, it vanishes into hyperspace. It will then skip over a portion of time and space and reappear at a further location instantly. Making it seem like it traveled faster then light. It's an illusion, an object can surpass light but only at the cost of leaving our observable universe. Einstein was right. Matter can not travel faster then light, it must teleport in order to surpass it.

[dlstb]

@kylewakeh If the universe is expanding at a speed and light travels the same speed in all directions, they by default, isn't it traveling faster away from the center of the observable universe or in other words, faster than the speed of light? The speed of light is no barrier at all. Matter can go faster, we just haven't really tried to do it because it would take alot of energy to make even a small capsule go that fast.

[kylewakeh]

@dlstb No, the speed of light is a barrier. Einstein didn't just say this he prouved it with logic. The more energy you put into matter the heavier it becomes, the particle can always accelerate more, but it will accelerate at a decreasing rate. It will never reach light speed, even if you use more energy a larger and larger portion of it always goes into it as mass, and the rest causes more acceleration, but the closer to light speed it gets, the less energy is converted into speed.

[kylewakeh]

@dlstb Also, you say that light will travel faster from the center of the universe. I understand you're logic, but you must understand the nature of light. If two light waves traveled away from each other, you would conclude that in relative to one waves, the other is traveling at double C (double the speed of light) right? This is wrong, the other light beam would appear to travel away from you at C. Time stops at C, it moves backwards when you exceed C. It's complicated but makes total sense.

[kylewakeh]

@kylewakeh Light speed is like reaching the velocity brick wall of the universe. The universe, time and space itself, is expanding at light speed. Therefor if you go faster then spacetime, you break free from it.

[HighCardWins]

There must be laws above laws. Some process occurred that gave rise to the our universe.

So that event was following some rule before there were our laws of nature.

[HighCardWins]

Do colors exist?

[pixelsword]

@HighCardWins

It depends how you see...

[spite519]

thanks for uploading. id suggest recording at least some of the slides next time tho

[FUZFUZZZ]

today after a lot of study i came to conclude a theory!!

There is no existence of invisibility!! everything is visible but there is something more faster than light that we can't see invisibility!!!

to uncover secrets of universe find that thing to see invisibility to reveal concept of the universe!

Hence in last God is great and there is no seeing him!!!

[FUZFUZZZ]

I have a theory as well. There is no existence of invisibility!! everything is visible but there something more faster than light that we can't see invisibility!!!

[FUZFUZZZ]

I want to ask a question if i am right i heard sun is 8 light min far from us right? and how come our eye can see stars more faster than light???? there is something connecting our eye with star?? or what?? can anyone explain it?

[llparasitell]

@FUZFUZZZ lmao what the hell are you talking about..the light we see from the sun is 8 minutes in the past,

the light you see from a star is many many light YEARS in the past.

the star you see today is how they were many thousands or millions of years ago.

The sun you see right now is how the sun was 8 minutes ago.

[dlstb]

@FUZFUZZZ You are seriously retarded. Please take some classes in language arts and come back when you can form a complete and coherent thought into a sentence.

[islandbuoy4]

ELegance is in mr. speaker...not only ELegance but poetry and heART. The universe is a palette that uses RGB light and RYB pigment.

dude give up being a cosmologist...your ideas are far too 'ugly'

[islandbuoy4]

physicists stay away from SOUND (music of the spheres) and they also shy away from moving bodies.

sure they can tell you about two moving bodies, i.e. earth and moon but a symphony of moving bodies that can be connected in one formula?

FAIL

physicists sound like babbling fools when they try to put into a formula more than 3 moving bodies.

[islandbuoy4]

gravity is connected to SOUND...dude....like a loud hum, an exploding star, like a supernova etc.

we have fields going BOOM, SUCK, HISS, HUM etc....duh where in physics is SOUND accounted for?

geesh

OM duh AUM ignorant science twats should check out the 'ineffable names' that a physicist obviously is clueless about.

duh duh SOUND is the clue that is lost on wankers who think 'space is a vacuum' who are still using Einsteins theories that ignored ASYMMETRY...and SOUND!!!

[islandbuoy4]

Nothing special about 137?

Just wait another 10 billion years and 138 would become special.

I guess the fact the universe is 13.7 billion years old and we are focused on 137 is lost on you?

I guess the fact the Knights Templar were rounded up in 13o7 and put to death in a pi year 1314 or 3.141 is lost on you and Paul Dirac?

Why is my problem you are dead/oblivious to the creation?

Mr. speaker you are proving yourself to be a young punk physicist who is smart but rather blind to the obvious....

[islandbuoy4]

IF I went near a black hole, I bet I would hear a loud hum, like OMMMMMMMMMMMM

And dude you are WRONG about Wolfgang Pauli, he did NOT request to be put in room 137.

You obviously have not read any of his memoirs.

[islandbuoy4]

next time please do a two camera shoot, one camera on the speaker, one camera on the screen, and edit them together?

[islandbuoy4]

1905 Einstein publishes his blah blah blah based on the 4 forces being SYMMETRICAL.

1955 Einstein died.

1956 the 4 forces of physics are determined to be ASYMMETRIC.

2005 this paper is published >>>>

How Einstein Made Asymmetry Disappear: Symmetry and Relativity in 1905

myoops. org/twocw/nctu/upload/fourier/­supplement/Einstein_symmetry.p­df

[islandbuoy4]

obviously many of the folks leaving comments have not read the recent work of Thomas Valone...who suggests the FSC was 1/128.5 long ago.

[islandbuoy4]

the speaker said the universe is making things up as it goes along?

oy vey how low can the ego go?

duh I would think man makes things up as he goes along and the universe humbles the ignorant wanker is more like it dude....

[Keadin84]

We'll see if that discovery with the FTL neutrinos they discovered at CERN holds up to scrutiny. If it does we should be open to the possibility that the speed of light may vary, or may have varied, dramatically.

Big "if" though.

[QuadniverousBeast]

Hmmm, what about the Princeton University scientists who seem to have made light travel 310 times faster than "C" through a path of cesium? Did they REALLY break "C", or is it quantum entanglement (which also confused Einstein with its instantaneousness ["spooky action at a distance", I believe he called it, transfer of info FAR faster than light]) at work? Perhaps the cesium atoms at the front of the path are entangled with the whole path, especially those atoms at the end.

[86coffeemaker]

i dont understand why people are so closed to the idea of faster than light travel.humans observe the universe using light, if somthing travels faster than light we are unable to observe it unless we build instruments like the LHC to do so.we also have the math that states its possible.its foolish to assume we know everything about the universe and that there is nothing new to be learned.

[shika0000]

Thanks for uploading. Is there other version where we can see the slides ?

[xiTKxix]

This is crazy. Thanks for the video

[joeglimmix]

speed of light is slower on Sunday...by about 10 mph

[QuadniverousBeast]

@joeglimmix Actually it's quite a bit slower than that through a sodium cloud cooled almost to absolute zero.

[assafwo]

Is this talk in response to the neutrinos going faster then the speed of light?

[Stevejt88]

@assafwo No, the speed of light news came out in September of 2011, this vid was posted in April 2011, but this guy has been around talking about a possible varying-speed-of-light theory for a while now, seem him on the science channel occasionally. Quite interesting that we might be on the verge of new understanding ( not that I understand it, lol), I hope he may be on the right track with his theory.

[TaylerKnox]

So we are to assume a varying 'speed' of interaction. What is varying speed then? A varying set of observations. Or set of varying observations. Or a varying set of varying observations. Now we have to consider the role of the varying observer. Don't we? Or Do we? Think. This seems to describe a fuzzy reality.

[Weeaboo4channer]

I like to believe laws are nonexistant, more fun

[jamaicanification]

they just have been changed

[reksub10]

i would say ,no the laws of physics cant be changed but i will concede that humans dont know all of the laws of physics....imo ,the laws of physics that we do know of doesnt exist in dreams ,and thought are probarly in the form of meme's are probarly the only thing we know of yet that is faster than light

[beastbubblegum]

einstein's wrong since his description is just a mere tool used with mathematics. Even he tried to assume the existence of an static universe. And also he is trying like other scientist to find a determination into the laws of the universe. Joao is great for telling us this what if the speed of light is not constant. Finally the pilars of science but this science is yet not even close to reality even if "the Machines" work, or seem to work. whoever builds one knows that even precision is ilusion

[universalcosmos]

@beastbubblegum "Joao is great for telling us this what if the speed of light is not constant."

Small issue, though. So far there is no empirical support for his thesis.

[islandbuoy4]

@universalcosmos

U R obviously are not current with the latest evidence.

[dlstb]

@universalcosmos Yes there is. One of the basic tenants of physics is frames of reference. If the universe is expanding, then by definition, the speed with which light travels varies in absolute speed. All of the "science" that supports the theory that the speed of light is a constant and that gravity bends space time is bunk. gravity may well bend a beam of light, but not space or time.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb "gravity may well bend a beam of light, but not space or time. " Unfortunately it does. As has been proven in the Pound-Rebka-Experiment and in the Hafele–Keating experiment. BTW the light is deflected exactly because the gravitational field changes the metric and thus the geodesic on which the light moves. The bending of light *is* proof of the bending of space and time itself.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn So you really believe an experiment that claims altering the gravity on a nuclear clock by changing its altitude shows that space and time bends and the lynch pin in their theory is that the speed of nuclear decay is a constant. Basically, you believe people that just willy nilly claim that certain processes or speeds are constant. Modern science no longer has an open mind. Scientists will perform any test and distort the results to support their hypothesis without question.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb Nuclear decay constant? The lynch pin? Sorry? What? Let me guess, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[dlstb]

@TomFynn They used clocks that depended upon nuclear decay rates to measure the difference in time as gravity varies at different altitudes on the basis that the nuclear clocks are constant. If it were true and the clocks came out of sync, then they would have experienced different time. I don't believe that that is sound logic. Neither was Einstein's observation of a star behind the sun during an eclipse a sound bit of logic.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb "If it were true and the clocks came out of sync, then they would have experienced different time"

Yes. That. Is. The Point.

Oh, and the deflection of the star light passing close to the sun during an eclipse was *predicted* by Einstein an measured 1919 by Eddington. In good agreement with the prediction. As already one for the Mercury perihelion.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn Answer me this, if differing rates of gravity bend space and time, then how can a nuclear clock be considered a constant? This experiment proved one thing, that nuclear decay is affected by gravity. Also, if two particles are flying from a single point in a purely ballistic trajectory and one hit a star while the other goes by the star, what happens to the one that passes by the star? I think its trajectory curves toward the massive gravity!

[TomFynn]

@dlstb "if differing rates of gravity bend space and time, then how can a nuclear clock be considered a constant" Again, that is the fucking point.

"nuclear decay is affected by gravity" and how exactly influenced the extremely weak gravitational force the energetic setup of the nucleus (determined by the strong force) and thus he decay rates?

"I think its trajectory curves toward the massive gravity!" No shit, Sherlock.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn Okay, let's make something clear. Saying that gravity has an affect upon the rate of nuclear decay is one thing, saying that the change in the rate of nuclear decay means that all of space and time is bending around gravity is an entirely different point. Also, did you not get how Einstein's model had light bending AROUND gravity wells instead of just towards them? That is also an enormous difference.

I want you to really think about this before you get back to me.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb I'm sorry, I cannot think about white noise. You are speaking complete and utter nonsense.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn It is pretty simple. Either you believe that light can bend both away from and toward gravity simultaneously, or you don't.

Also, if changing the rate of nuclear decay by changing altitude slows down physical time, then please tell me why we aren't committing our time to measuring the life spans of thousands of rats all held in identical conditions except for gravitational field strength and then seeing which live longer?

BTW, truth is never nonsense.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb "light can bend both away from and toward gravity simultaneously"" WTF?

Because the change in time in earths gravitational field is so slow that you need high precision clocks to detect it *at all*?

You really *do* have no idea what you talking about, don't you?

[dlstb]

@TomFynn Exactly, WTF? That is what Einstein's theory states. The star behind the sun was visible because he said that the light bent outward from the sun and then back towards it on the other side. The classic bowl shaped bending of space and time that Einstein theorized.

Further, we do have the ability to send things to space and put them in high enough orbit for a noticeable difference to be observable. Maybe this should be one of the 1st experiments when we colonize the moon.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb "The star behind the sun was visible because he said that the light bent outward from the sun and then back towards it on the other side" You DO not know what you are talking about. Go to some very basic website on GR and inform yourself.

Again: The effect is *too* small to notice anywhere in earths gravitational field by monitoring biological organisms.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn What about at a la grange point where the earth and moon's gravity effectively cancel out? would that make you happy?

[TomFynn]

@dlstb Even if you had only the earth in the entire universe and established your experiment at *infinity* it would not matter. the curvature is proportional to the energy density and thus the matter density. And for earth this is just not sufficient to detect in biological organisms. As you'd knew, if you'd knew the first thing about GR.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn That sounds all good an well, but if a theory cannot be properly tested, then it is void. face it, time is a human invention that we use to describe our world. it is not something that can be affected by nuclear forces. In fact, if time is based upon nuclear and chemical reaction rates, then temperature and pressure would have just as much effect on time as gravity does.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb What kind of a fucking retard are you? GR *has* been tested. Fucking read up on the experiments. Oh, and while you're at it, read up on the what GR actually says. A basic course in physics would also not come amiss. Start slowly. I suggest Kindergarten.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn Getting a little testy when someone questions your belief in the magic show portion of physics are you? BTW, I am an engineer, so I have taken a couple physics classes in my time. You can keep drinking the kool-aid if you want, just don't offer me a glass.

[TomFynn]

@dlstb Wasn't there a law that engineers are more likely to believe in crackpot theories? Anyway, whatever money you paid for your courses, demand your money back.

[dlstb]

@TomFynn A star emits light wave in ALL directions. If you can see the light from a star behind our sun, that is proof that light waves/particles are affected by gravity and the light you see is from a beam adjacent to the one that is normally visible from earth. How can you supposedly smart people be so stupid?

[JuanRoVlogs]

You should add subtitles to your videos

Please.

[universalcosmos]

@JuanRoVlogs Too busy :(

[thcci]

@universalcosmos it would be great hough:)

[brandonjdean]

@universalcosmos he is not that hard to understand.