วีดีโอ

you should get someone to read or present your contents

- We live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago and the cancer will go away - I have an explanation regarding the cause of the climate change and global warming, it is the travel of the universe to the deep past since May 10, 2010. Each day starting May 10, 2010 takes us 1000 years to the past of the universe. Today May 18, 2024 the state of our universe is the same as it was 5 million and 122 thousand years ago. On october 13, 2026 the state of our universe will be at the point 6 million years in the past. On june 04, 2051 the state of our universe will be at the point 15 million years in the past. On june 28, 2092 the state of our universe will be at the point 30 million years in the past. On april 02, 2147 the state of our universe will be at the point 50 million years in the past. The result is that the universe is heading back to the point where it started and today we live in the same climate as it was 5 million years ago. Anyone who does not believe that the climate changed for the reason I mentioned should wait for cancer to disappear very soon because of this reverse movement, I will explain: the human body's immune system will be stimulated, activated and stronger as a result of this reverse process, which results in the disappearance of the cancer. Mohamed BOUHAMIDA, teacher of mathematics and a researcher in number theory.

One problem to me is special relativity has no ability to describe interactions between objects that is moving close to speed of light or faster than speed of light such as those in the unobservable universe that is leaving us. But they should have the same physics and chemistry as us just we see them freeze in our telescopes. They are not freeze to a observer in between and we can see the middle man moving with responses to those freezing universe.

I think Dialect’s argument makes more sense than special relativity. With media, it is more reasonable to create a reference frame with media than assuming each observer is the rest media as special relativity assumes. Without media, it is more reasonable to assume the reference frame is the emitter not the observer. Either way isotopic speed of light is better to describe the simultaneity of events happening around us. Einstein assumes nothing travels faster than light thus even if it happens differently at time it is fine since the observer will never know but there is many body reaction that will project the causality to us even if we cannot observe something directly.

In your final calculation, where you find 'days' for the interaction, you appear to calculate gamma using (v/c) rather than (v/c)^2. Using the correct calculation should yield an interaction in 'moments' rather than 'days' (in the proton's timeframe). Otherwise, good perspective!

Could one not synchronise two clocks (and light sensors) in one place and then move each of them in opposite directions by a defined amount? Then one sends two light pulses at the same time, one to each clock, and finally compares the times at which the clocks received the time signals. Why wouldn't this enable a comparison of light speed in two different directions?

Lol, the lack of understanding of the lightspeed limit astounds me. Despite common scientific nonsense, the max speed from the point of relativity is not, I repeat NOT, lightspeed. If something is moving in the other direction, the speed differential can be as high as nearing 2c. Since you can take either of these relations as the point of origin of perspective, the max speed, based on relativity is factual 2c, with the third, standing still perspective telling you that one object is moving at near c one way, and the other nearing c the opposing direction. Speed max, relativity, is nearing 2c. Ofc, the LHC guys can't have their LHC moving at that speed and so for them nearing 1c max. Note: If the LHC is expanded with another ring in the opposing direction, they could slam two hadrons together at nearing 2c, but also easily reach a higher than c speed differential collision. Secondary, you can't accelerate anything faster than the field ur trying to push it with. If there would be a field that would exceed c, then you could push a proton past that speed, whether it would remain intact or not. I already once suggested to check particle cohesion at nearing c speeds, to see if they'd become more loose at that speed (easier to break). If that is true, then pushing any hadron past c would mean it losing cohesion and turning into separate quarks, if not sub-quark. If that would not make the hadron more loose it would mean that quark bindings are beyond lightspeed, and thus may have field effects that propagate faster than light, which in turn could allow FTL events on a very small scale.

Given that Gravity is not deemed a Force in Special Relativity, could someone please explain the following: Why does the “apple” have to fall towards the Earth because of the curvature of space near the Earth? Why does it not follow the curved space in the opposite direction, away from the Earth? All that the Apple has to do is travel on the curved path at constant velocity- the changing gradient of the curved path will create the acceleration that is observed. Additionally, why does the apple have to travel anywhere at all - why does it not just remain stationery in its inertial reference frame (I believe that is allowed)?

Moving clock, clock on top of Burj khalifa alla are problems of the clock not the time!!

Thanks

IMPOSSIBLE!!!...PROTONS ARE MASSIVE✌️

Particles don’t travel faster than this limit because that’s the universal law. They really don’t want to go to universal court to dispute a universal ticket. *I apologize in advance. It’s 10:49pm and well past my bedtime.

I havent even watched it yet, but CMB AGERY 😤😤😤😤

Is it only the CMB that contributes to the GZK limit? I would have thought radiation from stars would be more significant? Is that only true close to a Galaxy? Is "close to Galaxy" a very small part of space?

Cool, so the universe has a headwind.

Coldsore energy

So all we need to see if a proton can hit the broad side of .1 millibarn

They do owe just can see them

Okay, here is my veredict as someone with the capability to make things up haha. The scientific method is an inhuman one, it is a logical structure which we apply to convert mere data (messurements and records) into knowledge. However, the understanding of Reality is not done through logic but through intuition, it is this cognitive organ which converts knowledge into wisdom (AKA connection with Reality). As there is no method of intuition, this must be done individually, chosing whatever physical explanation of the observations makes more sense. I should look at Dialect's video again to decide which explenation is better (in my opinion) but both are equally valid, it is a matter if which makes, which is less of a strech. I'm sure that aether as a substance doesn't make sense, I would much rather believe in an absolute stillness rather than an undetectable substance.

Could you theoretically create a rest-frame situation for a high velocity object by removing everything else in the universe?

So because they bump into CMB?

Please, subtitle to portuguese. You gonna like the result

Fascinating! Thanks for the video!

Curvature is variable in GR. There is no container space. So GR cannot resolve the issue of what an absolute acceleration may be relative to, and it doesn't even claim to, it just appeals to the equivalence principle, but this only applies locally.

Also this video is just wrong, you can have faster protons than that. The limit only applies to distant intergalactic travel on the order of 160 million light-years or so. We've seen protons with higher energies than the GZK limit, such as the Oh My God particle with 3.12 x 10^20 eV. And where they come from is probably gamma ray bursts aimed at the Earth, magnetars, accretion disks of supermassive black holes, super- and hypernovas and such.

I'm interested in knowing how you can have a reference frame where the CMB is stationary

What’s a pion?

11:05 Remember the Michelson-Morley experiment trying to measure the aether?

Didnt Curie discover radiation, not the guy you said did?

I find it a bit disquieting that the CMB has its own rest frame.

Euclidian spacetime its just an example of a metric tensor, GR contains and extends Classical interpretation of space,time and plane Geometry

Perhaps I missed something, but it seems worth considering clocks synchronized at a mid point, then both clocks moved same distance in opposite directions, then recording time to receive a pulse sent simultaneously from the mid point to both clocks. Also, I'd like to know whether the following experiment would answer any question: ethicsblackhole.blogspot.com/2024/05/proposed-test-for-light-speed-symmetry.html

Good job. However, there's a point which everyone muddles. When B leaves Earth, does he accelerate from v= 0? Or does he start already at high speed ('born fast', so to speak)? These are two different scenarios. Same question for traveler C. Your video would be improved by clarifying these questions.

Light does not accelerate. The dot a laser creates on a far away object may travel across that object as you wave the laser around, but there is no physical acceleration involved on that object. Similar to that, a photon is a property of the space it travels through. There is nothing there to accelerate, which is why it can be a particle and a wave simiultaniously.

3:20 I don't think the generated current in the moving coil is exactly the same as the stationary coil. It's transverse to the motion, and is going to pick up a 1/gamma in the magnet's fame. Ofc, the ammeter will read the same, which means: moving ammeters don't work!

Dialect is full of 💩. Relativity is right, and if you contradict it, you are wrong… unless you’ve done a new experiment that is good. If you’re just thinking: Gtfo.

(1) +1 one for not saying "There is no paradox", when there is. There's just no contradiction. (2) +1 for not stopping at "there's no paradox because the acceleration breaks the symmetry between the twins." Duh! The paradox, as you point out, is that each twin observers the other's clock tick slower than theirs for both cruise legs of the trip, and the turnaround time t_A--> 0. (3) Regarding resorting to GR time-dilation. There's a problem. Suppose after the turn around, space twin says "no, I'm going back to the star system", reversing the turn-around...well....then Earth twin's clock has to run backwards. And no one likes that. (4) So in SR, the forward Earth clock jumps forward at turn-around, +1 for not calling that time dilation. The clock isn't even running as t_A-->0, rather, the clock needs a bias adjustment. It has nothing to do with how fast it's running, it just needs its lead/lag adjusted. That works well with (3). (5) So there is still a paradox: that at the turnaround event...in the same place, at the same time, the time on earth depends on which way the twin is traveling, and you can toggle back and forth by changing speed. Ofc, that's just The Andromeda Paradox, which is just weird, and will never not seem paradoxical (I guess seeming paradoxical _is_ paradoxical..just like ethics violations). Regarding the entire universe accelerating when you're in your rocket do so and claim to be stationary in a gravitational field: yes, the entire universe is accelerating, since ALL acceleration is just a bad choice of coordinates, and physics doesn't care about you coordinates. In the same vain: Earth is indeed stationary, and the universe revolves around is once every 23h 56h, with the Sun taking 24h, and the moon, around 25.

5:49 now you could have made the trip take 16 years, now we got all these decimals.

This is like bugs hitting your windshield of your car.

Query: if a proton is moving at the GZK limit, and you add energy, wouldn't the resulting combination of mass/energy result in a black hole?

Wonderful talk! But -- you said --- "Believe it or not there is a reference frame in which this CMB is stationary and therefore we can measure the speed relative to this CMB by measuring the frequency shift. If you're traveling towards the CMB then you will measure higher energy of the photons in the direction of motion... " What frame of reference? What does it mean to travel towards the CMB, since the CMB is measured as approximately equal in all directions from Earth? I can't make sense of this. Did you drink too many coffees?

So we just have to wait a very...very...very...very long time to go faster.

The OMG particle, I’m willing to bet that it either came from a quasar or pulsar with so much energy that even after multiple interactions it was still that high. Could also be a statistical anomaly. On average it interacts onece per 3 days, but that’s an average, so it could take thousands of years (protons frame) for an interaction, or it might interact 500 times in less than a second. improbable, but possible. Could also be it primarily passed through a lower energy part of the CMB, as it’s not homogeneous. The coolest parts of the CMB would allow higher velocities, and therefore a statistical anomaly of the OMG particle is a smaller fraction, and therefore more likely. On the more improbable side, could be a particle going past the speed of light. You can move above C, it just is impossible to reach C. 2 times C? Fine. 1.87? Sure. So if a particle starts past the speed of light, no issues (so the decay of a point particle in high gravity might do it). However, it takes more and more energy the more you decelerate it, so it approaches a limit of C, in this case slightly above (1.0001, 1.000000001…). However, maybe in the proper circumnstances, energy can be exchanged in such a way to “jump”, so it goes from 1.0001 to 99.999, without being at C. Since it was never at C, it’s fine. Such an interaction would most likely require either an intense magnetic field, or intense gravity. Say, passing near a black hole? Or the magnetic field of a Magnetar? There are both of those in our galaxy, so now there is only, at most, 1, maybe 2, collisions, which due to its extreme velocity still won’t lower it to that limit. Or, if the magnetic field of the sun is enough (the far reaches (I think it’s the heliosphere?)), then it has just over 1 light year after collision, which takes, as now slightly under C, a little over a year. Most likely no CMB interaction, not sure what solar radiation would do. Basically; the particle is originating from within our galaxy, or maybe even solar system, but transfered in another particle!

11:01 it's written "ly" so light years, a distance, but you say "years". Was this an intentional équivalence? Thank you for the great content!!

Wave equation(ripple) in free space since we can't isolate quanta transit as particle alone. The Unified Field logically is a periodic wave substrate and quanta transit behaviuor seperate from a static reference of any wave field.

It is somewhat counter intuitive to consider that going very fast could mean coming to rest for anything. But that's how it is for everything that has a constant speed.

Wonderful vid, excellent visualizations, you rock!!

This is the first time in a long time I learned something new about physics. I haven't been seeking out more knowledge how I used to and this makes me nostalgic.

Very nice video, both a lot of detail and easy explanations. Relativity declares that no rest frame has special rules of physics. But it's been mis-taught as "there is no universal rest frame," when for many purposes the CMB fits the bill. This also answers my anxiety-inducing thought experiment of "what's stopping near-light speed objects from coming from deep space and just absolutely annihilating us?" This at least puts a rough upper bound to what's possible.

Cool. Thanks for sharing.