SR3: The Light that will Win the Race - The Cosmic Speed Limit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2014
- Part 3 of the Special Relativity series
More videos on Relativity coming soon...
"Are You REALLY Standing Still?"
• SR0: Are You REALLY St...
"The Light that will Light the Spark - The Michelson-Morley Experiment"
• SR1: The Light that wi...
"The Light that will Lead the Way - Time Dilation"
• SR2: The Light that wi...
Explore more relativity (High school teachers, go to this site):
roberta.tevlin.ca/
Hubble Deep Field
from Drbogdan on Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Con...
(Thank you NASA)
Music in this video (downloaded from the UA-cam Audio Library):
Locally Sourced
Cancun
Retreat
All of your videos are extremely informative and completely logically laid out. One day I hope you will have enough exposure to rival Veritasium, Vsauce, and other science channels here on UA-cam. I share this channel with everybody that I know, because the concepts are so incredibly mind blowing, true, and yet aren't taught extensively until college level classes that most people either don't take or get lost in. Thank you for these videos, and I hope to see more in the future.
Wonderful series! A lot of people don’t explain (no derivations) and make everything overcomplicated, because they do not actually understand a concept themselves. Your series is very informative, fun, interesting and you give a great narrative!
"It's entire life lasts a marvellous instant, being everywhere it'll ever be at once. Because everywhere it'll ever be is right here"
Holy fuck... I think I actually TRULY understand. As in, I thought I had the general concept before but now it really all clicks. Also my mind is blown and I''m going to go stare at the ceiling for a while.
+Ampix0 My work here is done :P
This makes me want to discuss the similarities between physics and reverse engineering software. It is as if we are discovering the source code of the universe.
Maybe a video that compares the difference between one way functions (such as calculating an md5 hash) and your standard algebraic functions, of which are reversible! And show how that allows us to discover new things about our universe!
If you ever want to consider a collaboration you should message me! Or that idea is free to grab if it sparks your interest.
+Ampix0 That sounds interesting! I have played around with a similar idea, comparing how the laws of physics and the logic in computers are essentially different levels of abstraction in a larger system. It never really got anywhere, but I might return to it someday. I have a lot of other video topics I want to address, and unfortunately, time is an issue for me.
+Frame of Essence perhaps a video discussing how physics and code mirror each other. theoretically "prove" the universe may be some type of computer generated simulation. would make for a very interesting video. I'd love to do it myself, but I don't dare make a video that I don't 100% understand. I spent months researching electricity before I made an Ohms Law Video that's far too short. I don't know nearly enough of the math to create such a video. But if you ever need some assistance with a video like this and find the time, let me know. I can't wait for your next video.
+Ampix0 Thank you!
Respected sir.this is an eye-opener for me.I was very comfortable and I think I understood the concept...........greatyou are really blessed.thanks for all such great work
Just found this channel! Love it! =) Can't wait for more!
thanks for your awesome explanations! Will look forward to your channel when I have other problems related to physics!
I got confused,why is that Galaxy distances measured in light-years if light is traveling on short distance .🤯
You measured by photon/light, and they need to comeback, that mean you not the traveler at light(bus in the video) speed, youon the observer (friend) side
Length of the universe contracts to zero , when Photon moves from one end of the universe to the other is ever incredible
Great illustration and explanation..
Thanks a lot its very interesting,, Waiting for more
surely I am travelling at the speed of light relative to a light be fired at me?
yes, which is why everything is contracted to zero for a photon
Ohh shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No way!! Did just understand the CSL?!!!!
Amazing!
Man I really thank you!
Time to watch the video few more times.
Thank you!
I love your videos
I'd like to recommend some different ideas for lights characteristics for why any velocity/speed is possible in the universe and the reason a "faster" then light velocity is so difficult to obtain. My reason that any speed is possible is due to the fact that no matter what velocity you are going light always is going 186k miles a sec faster. So if u could keep accelerating your motion would never registered to the light waves of your own body. If light emitted from you is fixed then no matter what you accelerate to so any speed is possible. Faster the light velocitys are difficult to reach due to the departing speed limit of light. No such thrust can be shot away from you faster then light so no thrust pulpoltion method will work if the thrust can't push any faster then the speed of light so nothing can be pushed in the other direction faster then the thrust leaving. If there's a way to move one self around the universe without needing to shoot material away from you to do it then faster then light velocitys can be obtained.
I had another question, Frame of Essence. I don't understand how I should visualize a wave. Is it like a ray which goes back and forth in troughs and crests or like ripples in a pond? Its a blessing that you reply to the comments!
+soumer karki Those sound like the same thing to me. Are you thinking of the difference between longitudinal and transverse waves? Regardless, I think you should visualize it in any way that you think is more helpful.
Wish there were more! The coolest videos about relativity I've ever watched.
Thank you! And don't worry, there are more relativity videos coming. :)
I am having a doubt
consider an object is undergoing uniform oscillation with respect to an object. So according to the relativity according to the stationary object the length of the object will reduce ( irrespective of the direction of oscillation) and the time also should increase irrespective of the point of reference right?
then it should vanish???
or there wont be any uniform motion?
If that's not true the length contraction when travelling away from point of reference is compensated when it travels closer?
if that is the case then can an oscillating object travel faster than light?
or in the case of the particle accelerator if the reference point is at the center of the circle instead of a point on the circle will the particle go faster than c?
By these videos are awesome.
Keep up the good work
Arjun Sarath Well, the oscillating object would contract, but not enough to make it disappear. You remember the gamma factor? gamma = 1/(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) You can divide the length of an object by this factor to see precisely how much it contracts. Side note: time will dilate by this factor too. The only way to make it disappear (length contracting to zero) is if it was traveling at the speed of light, which takes an infinite amount of energy to do. So the oscillator isn't able to make this happen. Though, It would be cool if it were possible to make something disappear by pushing on it...
And thank you. :)
Frame of Essence But the basic derivation starts from a right angled triangle and for an oscillating object at its equilibrium position no triangle will will be formed right? . then at the equilibrium position there should not be any length contraction or time dilation right? so the whole processes must reset at the equilibrium position right?
Arjun Sarath Well, the fact that the oscillating object is not moving at constant velocity makes things a little trickier. Firstly, the actual size of the right angled triangle is ambiguous. WARNING CALCULUS AHEAD: if we take the limit as we shrink the triangle to a scale of 0, we still get the same value for gamma. We now effectively have an infinite number of infinitely small triangles at every point along the oscillating object's path. (because calculus :P ) Therefore, there is a bit of time dilation and length contraction at every point along the object's path. The actual amounts of time dilation and length contraction will vary at every point.
tl;dr version: the triangle can be made infinitely small, so there is some time dilation and length contraction along every point in the object's oscillation.
I have a question. It has to do with the inertial reference frame. The bus example in particular. Are the inertial references suppose to be identical? For instance the bus is a sealed, or appears in every example I have seen, to be sealed off, a separate and different environment than that of the observer. If the friend who was moving, was on a flatbed trailer, where all forces involved with moving through a medium were allowed to act on him, have the same application of physics.
Yep, your friend is still in his own inertial frame of reference even if the moving vehicle is not sealed off from its environment. It would also be a little windy, since the air is moving relative to him.
+Frame of Essence Will the light particle not go (inwards) the only way to see it go up and down will be to also to travel in a time that is perpendicular to our time? So from 0 s to 1i s to 2i s, and not 0 s 1 s 2 s.
Maybe? Everything kind of breaks when things travel faster than light. I was answering the question assuming the moving observer was traveling slower than light.
Frame of Essence The only thing I know is it is not possible to get to light speed, but it is possible to go beyond it. To go the light speed you need infinite energy. After speed of light you need less and less energy to go faster as you go away from speed of light (works in both directions, slower and faster). Faster then light particles do not effect our universe to our knowledge, so even if they are real our technology is no where near the level of finding them. The fun thing about such particles is that if you were hit by one going at 2c vs 10c, the 10c would do less damage as it will have less kinetic energy.
of course we have no idea how to skip a speed level, if we did once we go over c any other speed gets easier and easier to achieve. The problem is when your working with tachyon matter you need to deal with working on a timeline outside our own.
Good video. Relativity made easy.
What would happen if two objects moved away from eachother at 0.6c? one ship looking at the other would see it moving at 1.2c? obviously not, but i dont quite get why.
Awesome
so this leaves me with a question ...
(place several attempts trying to explain my logic here)
look, what i'm trying to ask is, can it be possible to "stop", relative to the speed of light? The speed of light is definite no matter what. so therefore from a photons perspective is it possible to "stop" relative to it and dialate time on an opposite direction so that time speeds up around you, to the point where it seems like you never existed in the first place, or became "frozen" in time relative to literally everything?
+lavastage Well stopping would imply that you were first moving, and then stopped. That requires time, and light doesn't experience time. Another way to think of it is that any object, no matter what speed it's going, is already at rest in its own frame of reference. Everything perceives itself to always be "stopped" in the first place.
lavastage I'd like to politely disagree to the statement that "light dosent experience time". I believe it dose but in a different way then we do, a light wave indeed does travel and experiences time but only in the direction that its traveling , in the direction the light wave is traveling away from time is at a stand still. As time passes in the direction of travel the wave can finally come to a stop when it runs into say a telescope 5 billion light years away. So the light wave went 5 billion years into the future in order to have colided with us from its starting point and had no time pass at all in the direction it came from showing us the object the light came from 5 billion years in the past.
Really cool video, altho i didn't quite get light's perspective right. For light itself travelling at c, it experiences no time. Shouldn't the outside observe see light to take infinite time to reach a point in space? But we see light to take 8 min to reach us from sun.
+Salman Mehmood The light also percieves the distance between the earth and Sun as contracted to zero. From its perspective, it doesn't need to travel at all. The light percieves its entire journey as happening all in the same place, all at once.
One thing I'm really having trouble wrapping my brain around. If you are in motion and time slows down for you but it speeds up for your friend outside. So basically you are leaping forward in time while in motion relative to your friend outside. Here's where it confuses me. The faster you go in a state of velocity does time speed up outside of your velocity or slow down. Einstein's Theory about time travel. In order to travel back in time you would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light therefore breaking a time barrier but it seems contradicting that the faster you move the slower your time seems to someone else not moving at your velocity.
Also you say that light doesn't pass through time because it is always constant. But light is moving and the only thing light cannot move through is a black hole due to it's tremendous gravitational pull. A couple weeks ago I went to see the movie interstellar and they were explaining relativity influenced by gravity for example the planet that was 125% earth gravity. For every hour spent on that planet 7 years passed on earth. They also talked about harnessing gravity. So in theory if you you harness negative gravity (which by my theory would push us away from the earth just like a broken magnet pushing it's broken pieces apart) would you be leaping backwards in time. And if not would harnessing negative gravity be the key to traveling faster than light?
TheMerdic
“The faster you go in a state of velocity does time speed up outside of your velocity or slow down. ”
Weirdly, the answer is “neither”. If we only consider observers moving at constant velocity, each observer will claim that the other’s time is moving slow. (It’s not supposed to make sense.) This was briefly covered in part 2: ua-cam.com/video/f-0taHjbs_Y/v-deo.htmlm21s
So, if both observers see the other’s time moving slow, who’s really "traveling through time"? Neither is really. Contrary to popular belief, time travel actually only happens when an observer accelerates (changes his/her speed) or if an observer is under the influence of gravity (like you mentioned happened in interstellar). In each of these cases, it’s sort of like traveling into the future. I plan to cover these topics some time in future videos.
As for traveling backwards in time by traveling faster than light, I unfortunately don’t have a good answer for you. I’ve honestly never come across a good explanation for it, probably because it’s impossible anyway. I suppose that if traveling near the speed of light makes time appear to slow for outside observers, we might get the vague idea that traveling faster than light will make you travel back in time? If we look at the math, when v is greater than c, gamma becomes a multiple of the square root of -1. So maybe going faster than light will cause you to travel through complex time? Maybe? Sorry, there’s just no clear answer. Though, I came across a webpage which goes into further detail: www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae283.cfm
Negative gravity? I’m not sure what that is but I would vaguely assume that it makes time speed up, since regular gravity makes time slow down. Speaking of which, when light is near a black hole (or any other strong gravitational feild), it still travels at c through space, but spacetime itself is being warped in such a way that the light doesn’t escape, so this goes slightly beyond the scope of the video. I haven’t seen interstellar, but I plan to see it soon. No spoilers please! :P
Question: If things contract more the faster they move...what kind of geometry do the photons have then? Does photon geometry differ significantly from our regular 3D perceptions of objects that have low speeds?
btw Great series, I enjoyed it! Regards and keep up the good work.
BoteAMVCreator Well, since a photon's speed is the same in any frame of reference, length contraction doesn't really apply to it. (Or rather, it's contracted by the same amount in every frame.) It's also a bit tricky to talk about a photon's geometry in SR since they are assumed to take up no volume in these thought experiments. However, since light has wave properties, it will have different frequencies in different frames due to the relativistic doppler effect. Realtivity's effects on time play a role here, but it's pretty similar to the nonrelativistic version.
And thank you :)
***** Yes, the concept of motion does break down, but only for the light. In other frames of reference, the universe has not contracted infinitely and time has not dilated infinitely, so we can see motion. The second question is gonna be a little difficult to explain. When we ask what the light's frame of reference is, we are pushing relativity to its limits. Time and space are not even distinguishable from each other for a beam of light. But that doesn't really make much intuitive sense, so how about we look at a part of the lorentz transformation?
t' = gamma*(t - (vx/c^2) ), where t' is the moving observer's reference time, t is the amount of time we perceive the moving observer to have, and x is our sense of space. In this equation, t' depends on x, which means that a moving observer will experience different times at different locations. For example, if a moving observer synchronizes two clocks and places one on their left and the other on their right, we would see the clocks reading different times (in addition to them running slow and being contracted). The clocks being synchronized for one observer does not mean they are synchronized for all observers. If we consider faster and faster moving observers, their clocks become more and more out of sync in our own frame of reference. For the speed of light, the clocks are so out of sync for us, that even though the light claims it stretches across the universe simultaneously, we do not observe it being everywhere at once, since the light's sense of time is out of sync at different locations for us.
Now, light can't actually place clocks to its left and right if it doesn't experience space, but what we're really doing here is taking the limit as we approach speed of light. It's kind of like looking at the decreasing sequence 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ... and asking what happens at zero. The sequence never actually reaches zero, but it always gets closer and closer to it, so we can infer what happens "at" zero. In our situation, we model an observer moving closer and closer to the speed of light, and ask what happens at c. The observer never actually reaches it but it always gets closer and closer, so we can infer what happens "at" speed c.
No problem :)
Could you explain the rocket problem to me once again, this time in more simpler terms. I had a hard time trying to understand it but still couldnt get the whole of it.
regards, :)
Don't forget the matter that this universe is expanding at a speed greater than light and at this circumstance how length contraction of universe is possible in lights perspective, , because speed of expansion of universe is very much higher than the speed of light
Very good.
Thank you :)
Think about this:
Ship1 at rest at top.
T--------------------N
N--------------------T
The moment when T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2 must be the same moment in both frames of reference because there is only 1 moment when this occurs. At this moment, for someone at N of ship1 to see T of ship2 they have to look in 2 different directions simultaneously. This is impossible. N of ship1 has simultaneously both passed and not passed T of ship2. This is impossible because it means that there was a point in time in the past when N of ship1 was lined up with T of ship2 for one ship but not for the other ship.
if we will move faster then speed of light then light will not be able to reach us and then we will not be able to see any thing but we will be moving faster then it
does it make sense what i just said !!!!!!!
please help out..
what if you make a Kugelblitz black hole out of light that is traveling in the same direction? would that make a light-speed black hole?
+Sam's Minecraft I don't know General Relativity, but something tells me that the black hole wouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light. The black hole has energy from the photons, and from the outside, that energy manifests as mass. And a massive object can't travel at the speed of light.
the ending really blew my mind
I wonder whether the universe stops expanding more than the speed of light and contracts to zero, when light travels
Why light needs different time for reaching earth from sun and proxima Centauri, why these time intervals becomes not equal
How much time will be dilated in the close vicinity of black holes
What about Bell's Theorem and local quantum theory? :P
OK ... but what happens when you get 2 people with light clocks moving in opposite directions at 99% c doesn't that also break the light clock. Also to a frame of reference in a single location on earths orbit wouldn't the particles in the particle accelerator be moving faster than light when the earth starts moving away from you? Finally how is speed measured on these objects from what perspective?
Firstly we need to establish that there are no fundamentally true speeds (except for light). If I assert that something is going at 99%c, that implies that I have already chosen some other arbitrary thing to be at rest for reference. I could have chosen something else to be at rest and get a different speed, and the claim would be just as true.
So back to the original question: If we person A going 99%c to the left, and person B going 99%c to the right, does the light clock break? It doesn't. Person A and person B's senses of space and time are different than our own. If we look at the world from person A's perspective, the time dilation and length contraction result in person B appearing to travel faster than 99%c, but still slower than 100%c.
+Frame of Essence wow thanks
+Keegan Grant No problem :)
I wonder whether cosmic speed limit is not applicable to the speed of expansion of the universe
How light reaches anywhere in this universe within no time and why it needs 4 light years for reaching earth from proxima Centauri, It is little bit confusing and I wonder whether it is an illusion 🤔
if light is c in a vaccum, is light c minus something out a vaccum?
But... if it is everywhere same time for it, and the light still stays at it's speed, when it's moving with me, it would still just go in my perspective at light speed, while it would stay at light speed for the one not moving, making it for him not moving as fast as i see it does. That means that light is not only a wave, but also a line which crosses itself but also stays next to it... How is this possible? It literally makes 2 out of 1...
And what if you are at the speed of light? It would always go at speed of light for your vision, so you go faster too?
Sounds more like a limitation programmed to prevent a bug
Wait, but what if you're travelling at 0.8c in one direction, and your friend is travelling at 0.8c in the opposite? That would mean that you and your friend would be travelling apart from each other at 1.6c in each of your frames of reference. It would also mean that time looks as if it is going backwards in the other frame of reference in each frame of reference. However, from an observer at rest, you both are still moving in each direction at the same speed, and time is moving forward.
Its not .8 + .8 ... Thats not how relative velocity works at any speed. You just don't notice that its wrong at every day speeds. In you case its 0.975609756097561C .... See 'Einstein Velocity Addition '
Speed of light is 0.
LMAOOOOOOOO
You are incorrect.
The speed of light is 0/0.
:p
saying "the speed of light is infinite" would be more accurate, but equally stupid.
Then, why light takes 500 seconds for reaching earth from sun, It is little bit confusing
So space and time doesn't exist for the most common particle in the universe.
What if I riding a light?
So if you hit C, your time would, relatively to the rest of the universe, be totally stationary, and you would reach your destination instantly?
Yep. And relative to you, the entire universe contracts to zero length. But this needs an infinite amount of energy so it can't happen.
@@frameofessence of course. but theoretically, if you somehow managed to, wouldnt you instantly reach the end of time or something?
If you don't collide with something, yes.
Wait...what about light speed??? If light is everywhere instantly, why does light take 8 mins to travel from our Sun?
that 8 mins is time measured from our perspective, but he's talking about the photons frame of reference. I guess it's the same idea about muons...
How this ever expanding universe's length contracts to zero if light travel very very large light years distance
wow
Tooo gud ...
ok, so, i go ona rocket near speed of light with my clock, and now mine is slow compared to an earthian clock observer.
BUT, the earth clock travelled fast from my equally vaild viewpoint, so the earth clock is now slower than mine. we meet again in the present.and each of our clocks is slower than the other.
not in my universe! lol
Yep, that's the twins paradox.
Why we cannot relate casuality , with speed of quantum entalgement, information transfer
4:19 *massless particles, ex. graviton
Tachyons are gonna dislike this
bueno este video si dio pena, sorry. no hay nada nuevo que no haya en otros. pero me gusto la animacion
4:30 guys, could you please explain that to me mathematically?
+Football Skillz A light-clock's period between ticks is its period as perceived in the moving frame times the factor gamma (t = gamma*t'), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1- (v/c)^2) .
Let's use ticking frequency instead of ticking period to avoid needing to do pre-calculus. (f=1/t and f'=1/t')
After a bunch of substitution, we get f = f' * sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) .
Since light travels at speed c, the speed of the moving frame v equals c. f = f' * sqrt(1 - (c/c)^2) = f' * sqrt(1 - 1) = f' * 0 = 0 .
So the rate at which the clock ticks is 0, meaning it doesn't ever tick in our frame.
Frame of Essence
thx4 the quick answer :)
no problem :)
Speed of light is only an induction rate. There are faster things like entanglement.
I've never seen it before.
But I suggest you see some interesting videos on SALEH THEORY-com about behaviors of photon.
Length contraction
Mind blown, is this how quantum physics work? The photon can be anywhere at anytime all at once being every quantum state possible because it is not bound by time. Lol my mind is too simple for this
so relative to earth's surface it takes light about 8 minutes to reach the sun yet relative to itself light takes no time at all to reach earth's surface from the sun? Great.
+Connor Smiley Physics FTW
1:58 That logic doesn't make sense. You state that everything must be going at C with respect to any frame of reference, but it was only shown that everything must be going at C with respect to any object going at the speed of Earth with respect the "Ether", as shown in the Michelson-Morley Experiment. The logic doesn't hold, since assumptions are being made that haven't been directly deduced, but rather assumed.
+Nicholas Pipitone Though the "Ether" can probably be shown to not exist in other ways, this reasoning appeared to be self-enclosed. If it was intended to be self-enclosed, then the assertion that C is constant with respect to all frames of reference wasn't sufficiently proven.
+Nicholas Pipitone That's true. Relativity is not a deductive result of the MM experiment. It out-competed the other explanations since they couldn't explain other observations as well.
+Nicholas Pipitone The thing is, SR doesn't actually disprove the existence of the aether, it only explains why MM and others failed to detect its drag/relative motion. Questions about the aether hung around well into the 20th century, and even then it wasn't really "disproved" so much as it was subsumed by quantum field theory and the malleable spacetime of GR.
Anyway , Time dilation for light is not a useful one for human beings, it is only applicable for light itself
There is a question, that bothers me.
Let's say You, and Your friend are 2 light-minutes away from each other and in no relative motion.
I am right in the middle and also in no relative motion. Now you decide to take out your laser and shoot a photon at
your friend, every minute. Obviously I'm in the way and all the photons end up
hitting me instead of Your friend.
So far so good. Let's now say, that I don't like being hit by photons and 30 seconds after
the last photon hit me, I move out of the way, so that the next photon (wich
has already traveled 30 light-seconds) actually makes it to your friend.
How would that photon experience it's journey? I mean, it lives in a 2-Dimensional
universe. From it's perspective there is no "behind" me, there is
also no time for me to move anywhere, because in the very moment the photon was
created, it has reached its target. So what is it's target? It can't be me,
because obviously it does not hit me, and it can't be your friend, because at
the moment it was created it was heading towards me...
I hope, you can shine a light on this situation (bad pun intended)
The issue comes up when saying the "moment the photon was created". Simultaneous events are relative, not universal. So if (for example) the 3 stationary observers clap at the same time, those events all occur at the same time relative to the stationary frame. Someone moving relative to them will perceive the stationary observers to clap at different times. So the photon's "everything right now" is contains different events than our "everything right now". TL;DR: Since we see the photon travel the full 2 light-minutes, the photon also experiences hitting the "farther" target.
Ok, i dont think I've got it just yet. Is'nt that like looking into the future? Or does that mean, that the photon "experiences" "being created" at the very moment Your friend experiences being hit by it?
Thanks for the reply by the way. :D
That's the thing. "At the very moment" doesn't apply to everybody. I can't really think of any good analogies besides that. The end of the photon's journey is "in the future" only for the 3 of us. It's more like "our future" than "the future". The universe doesn't really happen like a bunch of sequential, infinitely small time-steps, one after the other. It's more like there are a bunch of events that have some predetermined place and time, and each observer just perceives their own version of time. Some observer will see Thing A and Thing B happen at the same time, and then Thing C happens afterward. Another observer will see Thing B happen first, and then Thing A and Thing C at the same time. Which two things really happened at the same time? Depends on your frame of reference. That's how I think about it at least. Hope this helps.
This is realy hard to think about. There is some energy that has to be released from Point A and because energy can not be lost, it has to be transfered to somwhere else (Point B). From a universal standpoint this transfer happens instantly. But because (from our perspective) these events are seperated through time, we need something that "stores the energy" until the transfer is complete. - The photon.
Anywhere near?
Yeah, that kind of sounds like what I was going for.
the title of this video is highly incorrect....as it is not written anywhere that you cannot get ahead of light...so the matter of fact is that, uh, u can win in a race with light....high af :P :P
Light is already everywhere at all times, but the thing is, it is mostly covered by darkness. Lightspeed is constant because it doesn't move, therefore there is no real speed. What you can calculate is the speed of darkness, which is the time it takes for darkness to become invisible giving way to light. And darkness actually orbits each creature, that's why light seems relative, because it is actually the darkness which is relative, as every person is surrounded by a dark ethereal matter orbiting their miserable existence. That's why it is said that happiness and good things are "the light", because it's those little moments when evil dark matter becomes invisible and the light is able to shine in your soul.
First
Waw what an ego! :D
I call bs.Speed of light isnt infinite.
No one said the speed of light is infinite...
Frame of Essence at 4:31 the video says Light doesnt experience time.And that photon can travel from one end to the other end of the universe in 0 time.Both of those are wrong statements.And the speed of light needs to be infinite for those to be true
That's not true if you take special relativity into account. In the photon's reference frame, either end of the universe is literally the same position, so it takes 0 time to travel 0 distance. This is what happens in the math when you set v equal to c in the Lorentz transformation. Of course, in any observer's reference frame, either end of the universe is a different position and light travels at speed c between those two positions. As you can see, there's no infinite-speed light in this model.
unfortunatley, you used the theory youre trying to prove, as the proof for the theory.. lol but sad.
I'm not deriving the theory here though.
Time is an invention of man. It was invented to describe motion that is cyclical, like the earth revolving around the sun or spinning on it's axis. We make clocks that also repeat their motions and thus we can meet at the mall at the same 'time.'
Scientists did some experiments with their clocks and light, and couldn't explain why the numbers were off.
Along comes a nerd with electronic hair and finds a convient way to make the numbers add up: Just adjust the time value for one of the clocks and declare that time slowed down. He should have been an accountant. I once knew a traveling golf pro who spent weeks at night going back over his expense records to find why they were off by 1 cent.
god, i'm sad for you... (for twin paradoxe, it's about acceleration that cause time to slow down, general relativity)
Perhaps this video can make some more sense. ua-cam.com/video/CYv5GsXEf1o/v-deo.html
Even it doesnt still watch it.