Doesn't that assume that we are at a total stand still. If both clocks are already moving at some speed in the same direction I don't think it would work.
Honest question-- if I travel at the sol in a single direction and look precisely backwards would any light be visible at all? Is it even possible to travel in one direction at any given time? If I'm traveling at the sol and put my hand at arms length in the same direction and shine a light from a flashlight held in my other hand would any light reach my outstretched hand from the flashlight? When at the sol, looking forward into a light wave of a handheld source whose source frequency falls into the visible light spectrum would the light remain in the visible frequency? I am familiar with the red shift phenomena of light traveling away from my eye but not the opposite effect.
If you take a candy bar and put it in a microwave so that it does not rotate and microwave it in short bursts until it is just about to melt you will find small regular soft spots on the candy bar. If you measure the distance between those soft spots and then convert that distance into meters and multiply that times the frequency of the microwave converted into hertz you will get a number that is pretty much exactly the speed of light in Earth's atmosphere. This is because all parts of the electro/magnetic spectrum move at the speed of light and microwaves are a part of that spectrum. In other words, you don't even have to be a scientist measure the speed of light.
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 SciMan Dan does the experiment on his TH-cam channel. It's very interesting. But no microwaves are not the same frequency as visible light, if they were they would be visible. LOL In fact they would be light and not microwaves. Radio waves move at the speed of light as well. All frequencies of the electro-magnetic spectrum move at the same speed. And that speed is the speed of light.
Could'nt you sync the clocks in the center and then have them both move an equal distance apart at the exact same rate before doing the experience? Time dilation would now be affecting them at the same rate, negating one being off, right? 🤔
You still would be forced to assume that light speed is constant, that there is no fluctuation in the round trip speed, because as of now its very possible light could travel faster one way than the other, as long as the round trip speed stays “C” , physics does not fall apart. Knowing its one way speed needs to be known to perform an experiment like that
51:00 :) This is NOT a paradox. It's in fact the only reason why Einstein claims you cannot travel faster than light. But he forgets again - his own statements - "all is relative". What we "would see" on a planet 5 light-years away from earth is simply the light reflected towards us 5 years after the moment it left there. Okay? Well what we don't see is what happens there now. If we had a super telescope showing the people in a city driving the streets and a car accident - that happened five years ago. But it is completely false that we could "warn" the drivers if we would be able to travel to this planet with "light speed" and land at that location. First: because we don't know it happened; Second: because we would arrive too late. Only if we could travel faster than light AND would have seen the accident in our special telescope, only then we would be able to warn them. But that is not "a time machine". A time machine would allow us to get there - see the accident - travel again - and then warn the people. Do you see the difference? No paradox.
"in fact" E=MC2 is mathematical proof that accelerating to C imparts infinite mass. Infinite mass requires infinite energy. Einstein's claims are based in mathematics and physics, not trains and paradoxes. Alcubierre's warp drive requires theoretical matter that only exists in sci-fi and may as well be fairy dust. His theory is ultimately reduced to: If there were such thing as fairy dust warp speed matter, we could travel at warp speed. Your first and second point about the accident creates it's own paradox. We would not have seen the accident because we would see ourselves there to prevent the accident that never happened because we were there. We would be in two places at the same time, and our "special telescope" requires time for light to reach its lenses, and that light would have to have bounced off the accident for us to see.
All those elements that were close to each other at the point in time of the big bang, then in a split second found themselves millions of light years away from each other, say: Hold my beer.
35:00 Assumes the orientation of Space and Time is perpendicular to each other. How do we know that? It seems to make sense, but it operates on an assumption. 50:34 Information is theorized to move faster than the "speed" of light if the theory of quantum entanglement proves true.
From what I gather quantum entanglement doesn't involve the transfer of information and it is theoretically impossible for it to do so. But I understand why it could be implied. This is next level shit heck even Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d You need to do more research. You are essentially trying to debunk Einstein here. Now if you can show your work and it has credibility and peer review there might be a Nobel prize waiting for you. TH-cam physicist.
I don’t think quantum entanglement proves faster than light travel for information. It more likely implies the existence of other dimensions. Which allows the information to appear to travel faster than light.
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 We will never if the graph pertaining to time dilation is true unless we do it with MACRO objects. We've only been able to do it with waves and particles. The closest something macro that has been acccelerated is the parker solar problem/omaumau which was a paltry 6% of 1% the speed of light. For all we know time dilation for macro objects cancels out at fast enough speed, similar to how Heisenburg/Tunneling cancels out at a macro size. If we don't accelerate something macro to 40/60/80% the speed of light it's just a THEORY.
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I have red your explanation before and have thought about it a lot. It gives me a problem as farfield is different according to frequency. A signal at very very low frequency would then be able to send information instantly to a far away position. At 1Hz it would be close to 300,000 km.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Yes, the nearfield can extend to astonaumical distances, but at the expense of data rate. For instance we are in the nearfield gravitational effect of the sun, and the gravitational force points directly at the sun. This enables the earth and the planets to have stable orbits, which is what we observe. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then this would result in a force tangential to the orbit causing the earth to speed up and eventually spiral away from the sun due to conservation of angular momentum,, and this is not observed. Simone LaPlace noticed this in the late 1700's. Clearly information about the Earth's position relative the sun is being communicated by the gravitational field in this system, but it is not much information. But as observed by the LIGO interferometer farfield gravity waves propagate at about speed c and they contain more information about the source. The same is true for an electric field, since both gravity and the electric field follow a 1/r^2 law, which is independent of time (ie instantaneous). And this has to be correct since we use this simple law to accurately track rockets, asteroids, planets, and the stars. But the effect is localized to the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes exactly speed c even at extreme astonaumical distances. Setting the wave equation =0 is boundary condition only valid at infinity. To analyze the speed of the field, one must set the wave equation equal to a source. As I mentioned my post, the reason the instantaneous speed of these fields is fundamentally due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that ∆x ∆p
@@williamwalker39 I have just had a look at the pdf telling about the experiment (apparently) seeing the same signal from both the transmitter and the receiver at the same time. I am still sceptical as I can see the signal being reversed which could mean that it is the oscilloscope frame that is picking up the signal on the second probe. This signal would of cause be much weaker than the TX signal but I am sure that there would be one. The real signal should then come a little after 5ns (5ns for the distance from TX to RX + 2.5ns in the cable or there about in both cables). The signal will take about 2.5ns (at least) from TX to the oscilloscope through the cable and about the same through the air. It should take another 2.5ns to get to RX. Then it should take another 2.5ns back through B cable to the oscilloscope again. High powered electronic noise signals have a knack of getting in any where is my experience from working with electronics for the best part of 70 years with big computers, radio, television and radar. A simple metal screening as around a coax cable doesn't stop all electronic signals. I think only a dead short does and even that I am not sure about as we can have a current at a point without any measurable voltage at that point. I do not know if I am right or wrong. I could do the experiment myself if I had the spark transmitter. The receiver could really be anything metallic. I am not that good at mathematics although through my engineering education I did learn most of it. I see things more visual in my mind instead of through using mathematics.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done origionally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve, showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done originally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve, showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.
If light from the sun takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds , help me understand why Jupiter's moon eclipse is not 16 minutes and 40 seconds plus the diameter of the sun at 4.64121082 light seconds instead of the 22 minutes stated in the video?
@user-ky5dy5hl4d If Jupiter and earth are on the same side as the sun would be different than Jupiter and the Earth on opposite sides of the sun. Since the Earth is about 94 million miles from the sun, then when earth and Jupiter are on opposite sides of the sun, would it not be 94 million times 2 ( equating to 16 minutes and 40 seconds from the position of the earth in summer in comparison to the the position of the earth in winter. My opinion is that this distance needs to be added to the distance from earth to Jupiter during these opposite times of year. Correct me if I still can't see this.
My guess is probably because we have to use light for measurement in the first place and it's faster then everything else which is the reason you can measure speeds in the first place but how do you measure light when nothing can go faster.
I feel like I’m a pretty smart person and I’ve watch and learn a lot of thing especially relating to space and time. These were so awesome and put a new spin on things
44:10 For me this is the most valuable part of the vid. I always suspected from pilot's point of view it won't be the way star wars depicted where the points of light representing stars suddenly become streaks of light going towards and past the spaceship. I think this part wow-ed the audience that first witnessed it because (probably) no movie has done it before. Spectacular but scientifically inaccurate. Many documentaries on cosmology always show stars as light points moving slowly towards and past you/camera as if they are clouds outside a cruising commercial airline. It just doesn't make sense.
Another problem I believe is that at higher speed oncoming light will be blue shifted so much so I believe that we wont be able to see it at all. Perhaps we can see some radio signals in stead.
@37:50 light in a medium does not slow down because it is absorbed and re-emitted. If so, light would diffuse in all possible directions upon entering a medium, which obviously does not happen. The speed of electromagnetic waves does slow down in a medium, but the reason for that is much more subtle! @38:42 the mass of an object does not increase with its speed. This is an archaic interpretation of special relativity. The mass of an object is invariant in special relativity, which means it does not depend on speed.
You place the light source in the MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE of the two receivers. Receiver A will get triggered and start the clock at the same time that Receiver B will be triggered. If the light source is split, as in the apex of a broad triangle, the light will travel from the apex at the equal distance at the the exact same speed and start the timers. Receiver A does not reflect the light, while Receiver B DOES reflect the light towards Receiver A. When the light from Receiver B hits Receiver A, the clock on Receiver A is stopped. Since the source of the light is split evenly, the clocks will be activated simultaneously.
There is no "spacetime" and the speed of light doesn't alter time, it may alter perception on the visiblity of an object emitting light. We have no idea what time is, ZERO!
When you're ready to publish your testable theory of relativity that models the universe as well as Einstein's, then let us know. Until then, you're just making it apparent that you haven't learned physics.
@@jonniegrund3286 There's not a convincing argument because you've posted no physics to either argue against or support. Since you don't believe anything about relativity and classical mechanics, that's an indication you're not educated on any mainstream physics topics. I'm not about to teach you about relativity via the TH-cam comment section. You've posted your opinion about spacetime. That's your belief, and it has nothing to do with any established scientific theories, so there's nothing I'll be adding.
@@RiteMoEquations I agree, my opinion has nothing to do with any "theories" Time has no mass and the idea that time changes when we travel different speeds is just silly. We really have no idea what time is to be including it in theories. Not trying to fight or anything.
Often in basic layman electronics theory explanations they will over simplify things for the sake of visualization. I have done it myself but these were for training people for a job in the electronics industry, not theoretical physics so it didn't really matter. If anything it would just add unnecessary confusion... but those interested into delving deeper into theory were suggested where to research.
What about putting the light shooter in the middle but putting one receiver just longer to exactly see the time it shows receiving the signal and do all the math then would that make a better speed accurate calculation??? Of light???
Synchronize the clocks at the mid-point of the distance you are using to measure the speed of light and then move each one away from each other at the same rate of speed and acceleration until they've arrived at the start and end point respectively. Conduct your measurement back and forth and calculate your result. Now using your findings calculate when to sync the start of the return of the clocks back to the mid-point of the distance at the same speed and acceleration. If each clock arrives back to the mid-point at the same instant and they are still synchronized then I think it would be safe to assume you've nailed it.
A single photon apparently experiences no time. It is born, it can move billions of light years through space(-time) until it strikes the naked buttocks of a naturist on Earth, thus contributing to sunburn. As far as the photon is concerned, no time has elapsed. But, to a separate observer, the photon has taken billions of years in its travel. Poor photon, what a waste of its life.
Actually GR requires a variable speed of light depending on the amount of gravity there is. The parameters to measure light’s speed change so light’s speed itself changes. It’s not complicated. The combined effect of time speeding up away from the center of a galaxy according to GR while the measure of distance increasing away from the center of the galaxy according to GR makes causation much faster. This is the reason for faster than expected motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies and superluminal motion appearing to be faster than the speed of light while maintaining the speed of light because causation itself is faster. It’s also the reason we can see distant starlight in 6,000 years because light travels faster between galaxies where there is very little gravity to slow it down.
Why can’t the two timers move from a center point at the same speed before determining the speed of light? That would eliminate the time dilation effect of the movement of the timers by matching the dilation between the 2 timers…
The speed of light is the speed of light because I said so. I didn't know what that meant when I was a kid, and I still don't know what it means when I tell it to my kid. I think that's what I learned. I'm not sure, better watch it again.
What is wrong with synchronizing the clocks together, moving one to the other end and doing that a few times to be sure we know how far off the clocks move from synchronized. Then just adjust the clocks by that much since we know that amount of difference is from our physical movement.
The problem is that clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space. The higher the operating frequency, the greater the precision in measuring motion. No two points on a rotating sphere are moving through space at the same pace. Synchronized clocks, one on top of the other. The top one is slower because it is tracing out a greater circumference. An egg balances on its tip at the equator. Why, because the north half as the same amount of acceleration as the south half. Move the egg north or south, and the acceleration rates change where one side has more. Even if you did sync the clocks. They would not stay in sync unless at the same parallel and radius. As they say, the observation is only valid for the person making the observation. Everything is moving through space at different rates. The first floor is different from the second floor because there is an increase in the radius, which increases the circumference of the circle you are tracing out.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d clocks measure motion in space. Space and Time, as in biological aging/radioactive decay, are separate frames. You can synchronize two stationary clocks. You just need to know how far the signal has to travel. As long as they are at the same radius and same latitude, they will stay in sync. The clocks are measuring motion, so if YOU move the clock, then they will no longer be in sync.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d I know that. Clocks measure motion in space. Synchronized clocks measure relative motion because the constant between them is their operating frequencies. Motion changes the force at the target, but the emitted force is still the same. How do you measure the speed of light without using two clocks? Light has an induction rate. How long does it take for light to propagate itself. Factor in how much energy is lost at each propagation point (redshift) for the length of the measurement, and their is your answer. The one-way speed of light.
th-cam.com/video/M7bGPkLzqv4/w-d-xo.html The video has a bug here. It shows 50 km/h speed both North and East, but it should be 50/sqrt(2) km/h in each direction by vector arithmetic. Would not have said anything, but considering that this is a science video, I think that needs to have been shown correctly.
Did you know the gfci outlet turns off before you feel the shock in your bathroom? I have personally tested it too. I don’t recommend trying it cuz it’s possible to do it wrong and die. You were warned. But that’s what they do. So I suppose their reaction time is relative to light speed
you can measure the speed of light, just split the beam and have detectors at both ends of the beam measure the different in detection and sync the clocks to all three points.
A spacecraft is coming back to earth at less than light speed. We see it come and land and we greet the astronauts on the landing pad.... they hand us a space souvenir they collected on the journey.... all is normal. All that we saw ....from their approach to earth to their arrival on the landing pad was the light reflected and/or emitted from their craft as it reached our eyes and instruments on Earth. Now imagine same scenario but this time the spacecraft approaches earth at greater than light speed. The astronauts land on the pad and hand us the souvenir even as we still see their craft flying through space towards earth....because afterall they were traveling faster than the light that we see from their spacecraft. So they arrive and hand us a souvenir even while we see them still traveling through space towards us. Makes no sense and conclusively is why faster than light speed travel is not possible.
I think that the question of the possible speed difference in a back and forth travel of the photon has been resolved by the notion of isotropism of the electromagnetic waves.
Because for many people theory is some thing thought up and possibly not correct and is thought of as being different to reality. In reality as understand it it is really in between as a theory however well proven can still not be said to be 100% fact. It is really a lack of education in the way that the common person sees it one way and the higher educated person has been thought to understand it differently. It could also be said as being a different kind of language spoken. It is probably easy for you to differentiate but some people have possibly not even heard of a hypothesis. In my native language between my friends and family "theory" was normally understood as I assume you understand "hypothesis" and the word hypothesis would be thought as speaking learned or basically a different language. In my experience those people can have learned as much through life if not more than the people with higher education. It is just different.
Please explain the difference between a scientific HYPOTHESIS and a scientific THEORY. I am one of those dunces who equates the two. I will look it up. I remain to be illuminated. OK, I looked it up: "In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence." But then, of course, a theory can be proved and become a LAW by further experimentation and the collection of evidence from several sources. RIGHT?
0:48 This is exactly what I've been thinking in the back of my head for a while now.. suddenly, I came across this video without even searching for it.. so I've come to the conclusion that our phones are not just listening to us but they can read our minds now. I know it sounds very cuckoo.
what if the medium for electro-magnectic is the fabric of space time ?, what u cannot see or measure does not mean its not there... what if there is something there, and we can simply, passes thru it... and take it for granted ? ....
I postulate that consciousness may traverse spacetime at the speed of light, which could elucidate why the speed of light remains invariant for all conscious observers across every frame of reference. In this framework, light itself does not traverse space in the conventional sense; rather, each observation point within the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is encountered by consciousness. This can be likened to fast-forwarding a movie: the perceived acceleration of the video is not due to an increase in the playback speed, but rather a modification in the rate at which each frame is observed.
We’re mere visitors in the universe, dreaming of timeless journeys. But maybe, just maybe, those who come after will one day fulfill our dream to journey across galaxies and beyond.
So you can't evenly space out sensors from here to the moon, quantum entangle to various sensors on earth for moment of light departure and see exactly how fast light travels through all sensors that are evenly spaced out?
E=mc. Mass converts to energy with acceleration. Once the mass reaches c, there is no mass left to accelerate. You can't go FTL because mass becomes light with Acceleration. And light cannot travel faster than light. That is why it is the cosmic speed limit.
At 26:23 you say that sending a light from earth to mars in 10 mins and then assume it returns in 10 mins that it would be 20 mins but that assumption would be wrong because what if it went out in 20 mins but returned to earth instantly. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then your assumption of the light returning instantly is ridiculous.
In my opinion he was right and I will explain my point of view. If both earth and mars are traveling in the direction from earth to mars at about half the speed of light then it would take light from earth nearly twice the time to get to mars as earths speed and light speed are not added together. Mars is running away from the light so to speak. The trip back would be much faster as earth is moving towards the light. The total light travel would be longer than twice the time as this is really what gives time dilation. We just wouldn't measure it much longer as our clock had slowed down due to our speed.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Thanks for your astute reply, but I believe I have a valid rebuttal. Time dilation effects may indeed be in play but only for observers OUTSIDE of the e-m frame of reference-not for the observers within the e-m frame of reference. For example, an observer on a stationary train station platform would expect to see time dilation effects from light sent from the caboose to the front of the train and returned, but being in the same frame of reference those observers would NOT see effects from time dilation as they are in the same inertial frame of reference within the train.
@@robertmontague5650 If I understand you right then yes. Time goes slower for what is moving but they or it can not see it. They/it only knows when they/it can compare to some thing that has not moved. They/it will be younger. I say they/it as it works on a very small level like sub atomic so for every thing. It can only be seen from outside if it is possible to see from one frame to the other but it is still the moved that has a slower time.
You are always moving at the speed of light through time. (Your motion in space is negligible). Everything everywhere is always moving at the speed of light through spacetime [The speed of light is the same as the speed of time]
All the way down to a nano world. Time moves slower which means light travels slower there than it does in our world and light moves faster in space than it does on Earth because in space time is endlessly moving which means things move so fast that anything in it’s surface in our eyes it’s floating or moving extremely slow. Light and time moves so fast in space we instantly freeze and die!!!! Because our body it’s can’t get up with the speed. Light will never reach the other side of space because again space is infinite therefore so is light!!!!
The aether upon which the EM field travels upon are the virtual particles allowed from the uncertainty principle. So, it travels through an empty vacuum full of virtual particles. You heard it here first lol
He made the earth by his power, established the world by his wisdom, spread out the sky by his understanding. The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.
I don't believe there is such a thing as time, except as we create it, measuring intervals between day and night as a single rotation of the earth. A single revolution of the earth. Things like that divided into smaller intervals, so we can monitor them with names. Space isn't much diff. Distance between objects, divided or multiplied, names that we can understand. But our language can often be so limited that we actually fail to understand reality because of the failure of language. It's easy to make a statement about stuff, but then knowledge increases, we gotta change the lingo because of what we didn't understand. Some people don't really want to say maybe I was wrong, so knowledge advances slowly, as we stumble forth into the future, trying to ignore the ignorance of the past.
What happens if im running backwards at 100 mph while holding a flashlight is that light moving slower the guy who at the same time holding a flashlight while running 100 mph forward
I'm wondering where the hell does light go ? When you turn your lamp off the light is gone, but where the hell did it go does it soak into your walls ? If I turned a garden hose on and sprayed it in a room and then shut it off,the water is still there.
Visible light is a small slice of the spectrum that we see with our eyes. As photons interact with the environment, they change frequency. The visible to the eye photons change to a thermal frequency that our eyes can't see very quickly as they hit things. Put on a pair of night vision goggles that shows a thermal spectrum, and you will see that the room remains lit for a long time after you turn off that bulb.
The simplest motion seems to be a wave. They emerge from everywhere. It seems to me a really good building block as it’s easy to make waves. The trick is making those waves manifest reality somehow.
Also the universe seems to need the quantum fuzziness to make certain things happen like nuclear fusion in stars through quantum tunneling. Whoever, or whatever built this place never expected it to be probed so deeply to reveal the secrets to its construction. I bet they will be impressed if we figure it out!
There are multiple videos on youtube which prove the existence of ether. There are other videos which posit that space is anything but empty. There are yet other videos which prove that light's speed is NOT constant. And no, I do not have an English accent.
Don't we have our data centers of stock markets interconnected with thousands of miles of undersea cables synced with an atomic clock? And isn't the speed if light factored in?
When someone uses the phrase form 'beg the question' as it is used here, one knows that the user doesn't know the original meaning of the phrase. Newspaper reporters do it routinely.
@@mackellyman5642 "Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it" is the present day newspaper-reporter meaning of the phrase, but not its original meaning. The Latin was 'petitio principii'. Originally it meant what it said, 'prematurely asking the principal question, without having presented the basic preliminaries for the principal question'.
They should set up a system in the moon when they were there, put a light on the moon and try and measure from there, the distance would hopefully be far enough to measure
In religion, time travel happens all the time. Prophets are able to move both into the past and future and tell us about past and present. God does not exist in time...like us. The past, the present and the future are all before Him....the I AM. With his anointing He takes the prophet to whichever part of the past or future He desires!
Its also harder than you think.its not just about hitting the gas pedal to go. You need advanced navigational tools that map out destinations, so its not just about speed, its also technology that takes billions of years to obtain. I would think. Ok be safe
It’s because energy is spinning poles Polarity Negative positive negative positive and so on As all space is curved As what you call light is seen to travel you are seeing the motion of polarities as it changes what you are actually observing is pressure or a pressure wave Moving away from what crated it you for instance light takes on the vibration and frequencies or impression of what it touches Because its vibration And pressure of energy moving through a field of energy that is determined by the gravitational force At the distance from the masses centre As gravity changes on a Golden mean spiral 🌀 And changes again as it passes the threshold and this is reversed when it heads towards mad once again So basically it speeds up as it leaves mass and slows down as it moves towards mass It mathematical Gravity can be calculated using a + b = c if a is ground level And is seen as a sphere its radius is a The golden mean spiral 🌀 Where it intersects the radius line You calculate the difference The speed o fight is the speed of the energy wave as it travels through the gravitational gearing Like stretching the skin of a Balloon 🎈 Water pressure is another example Of the same principle As gravity Metatron Fish Amen 🙏
So, can you show a demo of speed of light vs speed of stick ringing a bell on the moon? Let the stick be stretched from earth to moon and the laser be located on earth. Now switch on the laser and push the stick at the same time. Which one will hit/ring the bell on the moon first? No need to search for an Internet answer; there is no response to this question. 12/27/24 Gemini on stick puzzle TH-cam Title: "Thought Experiment: Can a Stick 'Touch' the Moon Faster Than Light?" TH-cam Description: Imagine a perfectly rigid stick (hypothetical) extending from Earth, already within one inch of the Moon's surface. The stick is floating in space, unaffected by gravity. The Earth end of the stick is pushed with a constant force, resulting in an acceleration of 0.0026 G's, moving the stick one inch in one second. This thought experiment explores the concepts of: Instantaneous Force Transmission: Can a force travel instantaneously across vast distances? The Speed of Light Limit: Does this scenario violate Einstein's theory of relativity? The Limitations of Idealized Models: How do we reconcile the concept of a perfectly rigid object with the laws of physics? Key Points: The stick, already within one inch of the Moon, would reach the Moon's surface before a laser beam fired simultaneously from Earth. This outcome does not violate the speed of light limit. The stick moves as a unit, with both the Earth end and the Moon end moving at a rate of one inch per second. This video will delve into these questions and discuss the implications of this thought experiment for our understanding of physics. Target Audience: This video is intended for anyone interested in physics, thought experiments, and the nature of reality. I am still under development and learning to communicate effectively and accurately. Thank you for your patience and for helping me refine my language and improve my understanding!
In this sol expanding universe, few light sources are visible, resulting "dark matter". Matter at a great distance 'appears' and visible in red shift. Matter traveling directly away at sol is not visible, nor is matter closing on your location at sol or the multiples acheived of e=mc2 resulting in dark matter. Invisible yet present.
The universe sees all this happening very quickly. We are so tiny we count billions of what we call years. The universe would agree that there IS a bang cuz it IS the bang and it is BIG… because we are tiny. If we were big as the bang it would be a flash
@@elijahfluw4347 Special relativity demands that the speed of light ("c") in a vacuum be constant and the is fastest speed information can be communicated. Photons interacting with matter and light travelling other mediums like water doesn't travel at *c.*
If you can learn enough to discern the opinion from fact there is knowledge on TH-cam but it takes more than watching videos to forge knowledge into wisdom.
Mind blown. The only logical solution to any paradox in this context is to accept that multiverse is real and is a thing. However, I can't confirm if there is any power that can force the universe to be logical about everything. Or even anything for that matter being a human construct.
how can this be a problem ... use a satalite and sync its direction to a tower and at the same moment fire signals at each other ... thats it .. opposite direction just make sure they are orthogonal on each other ... these are not problems thats easy .. Dude ... make a large mirror in space reflect light coming from our past to our present to see the past ... reflect light from the future to the present and u have ur timeline :) Dont tell anyone i told u
The problem is not just with speed of light, the problem is with the speed of anything. There is no meaning to the question whether it is same in all directions, it really is just a convention to make the math simpler.
Nothing moves by itself light travels through (something)without a medium nothing could be, precisely what has no Medium is the intelligent beneath and beyond understanding,inside out of what we postulate as reality,what intelligent is motivating atoms, Occam's Razer tells us what motivate a motif is the third relation that can not be showed,alike Wittgenstein theses in languages.
This is just GREAT! Got me thinking about synchronization of clocks to measure the speed of light (in a vacuum). INTERESTING!
Amazing episode. Would have liked more. Will check if the other episodes are similar and have more.
Great narration as well.
To maintain clock synchronization, you could synchronize the clocks in the middle and move them both apart from each other at the same speed.
Doesn't that assume that we are at a total stand still. If both clocks are already moving at some speed in the same direction I don't think it would work.
And how can you be sure, that time dilatation works same in diferent direction, and not 2x to the left, and no dilatation to the right
@@Turemkawell there's nothing to suggest that, unless to the left is a large massive planet, & to the right, a super void
Honest question-- if I travel at the sol in a single
direction and look precisely backwards would any light be visible at all?
Is it even possible to travel in one direction at any given time?
If I'm traveling at the sol and put my hand at arms length in the same direction and shine a light from a flashlight held in my other hand would any light reach my outstretched hand from the flashlight?
When at the sol, looking forward into a light wave of a handheld source whose source frequency falls into the visible light spectrum would the light remain in the visible frequency?
I am familiar with the red shift phenomena of light traveling away from my eye but not the opposite effect.
If you take a candy bar and put it in a microwave so that it does not rotate and microwave it in short bursts until it is just about to melt you will find small regular soft spots on the candy bar. If you measure the distance between those soft spots and then convert that distance into meters and multiply that times the frequency of the microwave converted into hertz you will get a number that is pretty much exactly the speed of light in Earth's atmosphere. This is because all parts of the electro/magnetic spectrum move at the speed of light and microwaves are a part of that spectrum. In other words, you don't even have to be a scientist measure the speed of light.
Are microwaves the same frequency as visible light? And is a candy bar the wave or the medium in this case?
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 SciMan Dan does the experiment on his TH-cam channel. It's very interesting. But no microwaves are not the same frequency as visible light, if they were they would be visible. LOL In fact they would be light and not microwaves. Radio waves move at the speed of light as well. All frequencies of the electro-magnetic spectrum move at the same speed. And that speed is the speed of light.
what an insane amount of assumptions. Big, if true. Measuring the speed of light with a candy bar. Thats some logic.
@@The_Raven_River The math works and SciManDan actually does the experiment here on TH-cam.
Wave length * frequency = speed for light is = c. I guess the marks on the candy bar is the wavelength
Could'nt you sync the clocks in the center and then have them both move an equal distance apart at the exact same rate before doing the experience? Time dilation would now be affecting them at the same rate, negating one being off, right? 🤔
You still would be forced to assume that light speed is constant, that there is no fluctuation in the round trip speed, because as of now its very possible light could travel faster one way than the other, as long as the round trip speed stays “C” , physics does not fall apart. Knowing its one way speed needs to be known to perform an experiment like that
51:00 :) This is NOT a paradox. It's in fact the only reason why Einstein claims you cannot travel faster than light. But he forgets again - his own statements - "all is relative". What we "would see" on a planet 5 light-years away from earth is simply the light reflected towards us 5 years after the moment it left there. Okay? Well what we don't see is what happens there now.
If we had a super telescope showing the people in a city driving the streets and a car accident - that happened five years ago.
But it is completely false that we could "warn" the drivers if we would be able to travel to this planet with "light speed" and land at that location. First: because we don't know it happened; Second: because we would arrive too late. Only if we could travel faster than light AND would have seen the accident in our special telescope, only then we would be able to warn them. But that is not "a time machine". A time machine would allow us to get there - see the accident - travel again - and then warn the people. Do you see the difference? No paradox.
"in fact" E=MC2 is mathematical proof that accelerating to C imparts infinite mass. Infinite mass requires infinite energy. Einstein's claims are based in mathematics and physics, not trains and paradoxes. Alcubierre's warp drive requires theoretical matter that only exists in sci-fi and may as well be fairy dust. His theory is ultimately reduced to: If there were such thing as fairy dust warp speed matter, we could travel at warp speed.
Your first and second point about the accident creates it's own paradox. We would not have seen the accident because we would see ourselves there to prevent the accident that never happened because we were there. We would be in two places at the same time, and our "special telescope" requires time for light to reach its lenses, and that light would have to have bounced off the accident for us to see.
@@curtcoller3632 a Time Machine would have to exist in a higher dimension
All those elements that were close to each other at the point in time of the big bang, then in a split second found themselves millions of light years away from each other, say: Hold my beer.
Yes the expansion of the universe is said to be faster then light speed but expansion is not an object, it is an action.
In short, relativity.. remember what he said lol.
35:00 Assumes the orientation of Space and Time is perpendicular to each other. How do we know that? It seems to make sense, but it operates on an assumption.
50:34 Information is theorized to move faster than the "speed" of light if the theory of quantum entanglement proves true.
From what I gather quantum entanglement doesn't involve the transfer of information and it is theoretically impossible for it to do so. But I understand why it could be implied. This is next level shit heck even Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d You need to do more research. You are essentially trying to debunk Einstein here. Now if you can show your work and it has credibility and peer review there might be a Nobel prize waiting for you. TH-cam physicist.
I don’t think quantum entanglement proves faster than light travel for information. It more likely implies the existence of other dimensions. Which allows the information to appear to travel faster than light.
@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 We will never if the graph pertaining to time dilation is true unless we do it with MACRO objects. We've only been able to do it with waves and particles. The closest something macro that has been acccelerated is the parker solar problem/omaumau which was a paltry 6% of 1% the speed of light.
For all we know time dilation for macro objects cancels out at fast enough speed, similar to how Heisenburg/Tunneling cancels out at a macro size.
If we don't accelerate something macro to 40/60/80% the speed of light it's just a THEORY.
What time is it?
Now 😂
Well as you described with the moon of the Jupiter you actually can measure one way speed of light by this method. Or have I missed something?
I was once a part of a long wave for 8 minutes at foxboro (gillette) stadium.
I hope you didn't experience any interference.
@@theoneway22 how many times did you get up and sit down ?
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*TH-cam presentation of above arguments: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I have red your explanation before and have thought about it a lot. It gives me a problem as farfield is different according to frequency. A signal at very very low frequency would then be able to send information instantly to a far away position. At 1Hz it would be close to 300,000 km.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Yes, the nearfield can extend to astonaumical distances, but at the expense of data rate. For instance we are in the nearfield gravitational effect of the sun, and the gravitational force points directly at the sun. This enables the earth and the planets to have stable orbits, which is what we observe. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then this would result in a force tangential to the orbit causing the earth to speed up and eventually spiral away from the sun due to conservation of angular momentum,, and this is not observed. Simone LaPlace noticed this in the late 1700's. Clearly information about the Earth's position relative the sun is being communicated by the gravitational field in this system, but it is not much information. But as observed by the LIGO interferometer farfield gravity waves propagate at about speed c and they contain more information about the source.
The same is true for an electric field, since both gravity and the electric field follow a 1/r^2 law, which is independent of time (ie instantaneous). And this has to be correct since we use this simple law to accurately track rockets, asteroids, planets, and the stars. But the effect is localized to the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes exactly speed c even at extreme astonaumical distances. Setting the wave equation =0 is boundary condition only valid at infinity. To analyze the speed of the field, one must set the wave equation equal to a source.
As I mentioned my post, the reason the instantaneous speed of these fields is fundamentally due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that ∆x ∆p
@@williamwalker39 I have just had a look at the pdf telling about the experiment (apparently) seeing the same signal from both the transmitter and the receiver at the same time. I am still sceptical as I can see the signal being reversed which could mean that it is the oscilloscope frame that is picking up the signal on the second probe. This signal would of cause be much weaker than the TX signal but I am sure that there would be one. The real signal should then come a little after 5ns (5ns for the distance from TX to RX + 2.5ns in the cable or there about in both cables). The signal will take about 2.5ns (at least) from TX to the oscilloscope through the cable and about the same through the air. It should take another 2.5ns to get to RX. Then it should take another 2.5ns back through B cable to the oscilloscope again.
High powered electronic noise signals have a knack of getting in any where is my experience from working with electronics for the best part of 70 years with big computers, radio, television and radar. A simple metal screening as around a coax cable doesn't stop all electronic signals. I think only a dead short does and even that I am not sure about as we can have a current at a point without any measurable voltage at that point.
I do not know if I am right or wrong. I could do the experiment myself if I had the spark transmitter. The receiver could really be anything metallic.
I am not that good at mathematics although through my engineering education I did learn most of it. I see things more visual in my mind instead of through using mathematics.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done origionally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve,
showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done originally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve,
showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.
If light from the sun takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds , help me understand why Jupiter's moon eclipse is not 16 minutes and 40 seconds plus the diameter of the sun at 4.64121082 light seconds instead of the 22 minutes stated in the video?
@user-ky5dy5hl4d If Jupiter and earth are on the same side as the sun would be different than Jupiter and the Earth on opposite sides of the sun. Since the Earth is about 94 million miles from the sun, then when earth and Jupiter are on opposite sides of the sun, would it not be 94 million times 2 ( equating to 16 minutes and 40 seconds from the position of the earth in summer in comparison to the the position of the earth in winter. My opinion is that this distance needs to be added to the distance from earth to Jupiter during these opposite times of year. Correct me if I still can't see this.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d Good conversations Eric. Thanks.
My guess is probably because we have to use light for measurement in the first place and it's faster then everything else which is the reason you can measure speeds in the first place but how do you measure light when nothing can go faster.
I feel like I’m a pretty smart person and I’ve watch and learn a lot of thing especially relating to space and time. These were so awesome and put a new spin on things
Too bad you're gonna have to Un-learn it all !
It’s the speed of CAUSALITY.
44:10 For me this is the most valuable part of the vid. I always suspected from pilot's point of view it won't be the way star wars depicted where the points of light representing stars suddenly become streaks of light going towards and past the spaceship. I think this part wow-ed the audience that first witnessed it because (probably) no movie has done it before. Spectacular but scientifically inaccurate. Many documentaries on cosmology always show stars as light points moving slowly towards and past you/camera as if they are clouds outside a cruising commercial airline. It just doesn't make sense.
Another problem I believe is that at higher speed oncoming light will be blue shifted so much so I believe that we wont be able to see it at all. Perhaps we can see some radio signals in stead.
@37:50 light in a medium does not slow down because it is absorbed and re-emitted. If so, light would diffuse in all possible directions upon entering a medium, which obviously does not happen. The speed of electromagnetic waves does slow down in a medium, but the reason for that is much more subtle!
@38:42 the mass of an object does not increase with its speed. This is an archaic interpretation of special relativity. The mass of an object is invariant in special relativity, which means it does not depend on speed.
You place the light source in the MIDDLE, THE MIDDLE of the two receivers. Receiver A will get triggered and start the clock at the same time that Receiver B will be triggered. If the light source is split, as in the apex of a broad triangle, the light will travel from the apex at the equal distance at the the exact same speed and start the timers.
Receiver A does not reflect the light, while Receiver B DOES reflect the light towards Receiver A. When the light from Receiver B hits Receiver A, the clock on Receiver A is stopped.
Since the source of the light is split evenly, the clocks will be activated simultaneously.
There is no "spacetime" and the speed of light doesn't alter time, it may alter perception on the visiblity of an object emitting light. We have no idea what time is, ZERO!
When you're ready to publish your testable theory of relativity that models the universe as well as Einstein's, then let us know.
Until then, you're just making it apparent that you haven't learned physics.
@@RiteMoEquations Yes, a reply filled with convincing arguments.
@@jonniegrund3286 You've got a post with zero physics.
@@jonniegrund3286 There's not a convincing argument because you've posted no physics to either argue against or support.
Since you don't believe anything about relativity and classical mechanics, that's an indication you're not educated on any mainstream physics topics. I'm not about to teach you about relativity via the TH-cam comment section.
You've posted your opinion about spacetime. That's your belief, and it has nothing to do with any established scientific theories, so there's nothing I'll be adding.
@@RiteMoEquations I agree, my opinion has nothing to do with any "theories" Time has no mass and the idea that time changes when we travel different speeds is just silly. We really have no idea what time is to be including it in theories. Not trying to fight or anything.
Electrcity, being the moveing electrons, travels at walking speed through a wire. The electric field is what you observing at light speed.
True that. At least from what I got from EE college.
Often in basic layman electronics theory explanations they will over simplify things for the sake of visualization. I have done it myself but these were for training people for a job in the electronics industry, not theoretical physics so it didn't really matter. If anything it would just add unnecessary confusion... but those interested into delving deeper into theory were suggested where to research.
Electro-Magnetic Fields (perpendicular)? Right?
You could fix the problem of the 2 timers syncing by syncing both timers in the middle then moving them equal distance to both ends
0:25 speed of boing relative to what exactly is lower than the surface of the Earth at the equator ???????????????????????????????????
What about putting the light shooter in the middle but putting one receiver just longer to exactly see the time it shows receiving the signal and do all the math then would that make a better speed accurate calculation??? Of light???
Synchronize the clocks at the mid-point of the distance you are using to measure the speed of light and then move each one away from each other at the same rate of speed and acceleration until they've arrived at the start and end point respectively. Conduct your measurement back and forth and calculate your result. Now using your findings calculate when to sync the start of the return of the clocks back to the mid-point of the distance at the same speed and acceleration. If each clock arrives back to the mid-point at the same instant and they are still synchronized then I think it would be safe to assume you've nailed it.
My shadow is faster than light.
Single photon thought experiment is a really cool idea
A single photon apparently experiences no time. It is born, it can move billions of light years through space(-time) until it strikes the naked buttocks of a naturist on Earth, thus contributing to sunburn. As far as the photon is concerned, no time has elapsed. But, to a separate observer, the photon has taken billions of years in its travel. Poor photon, what a waste of its life.
Actually GR requires a variable speed of light depending on the amount of gravity there is. The parameters to measure light’s speed change so light’s speed itself changes. It’s not complicated. The combined effect of time speeding up away from the center of a galaxy according to GR while the measure of distance increasing away from the center of the galaxy according to GR makes causation much faster. This is the reason for faster than expected motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies and superluminal motion appearing to be faster than the speed of light while maintaining the speed of light because causation itself is faster. It’s also the reason we can see distant starlight in 6,000 years because light travels faster between galaxies where there is very little gravity to slow it down.
Why can’t the two timers move from a center point at the same speed before determining the speed of light? That would eliminate the time dilation effect of the movement of the timers by matching the dilation between the 2 timers…
Wouldnt the picture be of 4 years ago or the time it was for the person who took the picture not the same instant it was taken????
The speed of light is the speed of light because I said so. I didn't know what that meant when I was a kid, and I still don't know what it means when I tell it to my kid. I think that's what I learned. I'm not sure, better watch it again.
What is wrong with synchronizing the clocks together, moving one to the other end and doing that a few times to be sure we know how far off the clocks move from synchronized. Then just adjust the clocks by that much since we know that amount of difference is from our physical movement.
The problem is that clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space. The higher the operating frequency, the greater the precision in measuring motion.
No two points on a rotating sphere are moving through space at the same pace. Synchronized clocks, one on top of the other. The top one is slower because it is tracing out a greater circumference. An egg balances on its tip at the equator. Why, because the north half as the same amount of acceleration as the south half. Move the egg north or south, and the acceleration rates change where one side has more.
Even if you did sync the clocks. They would not stay in sync unless at the same parallel and radius.
As they say, the observation is only valid for the person making the observation. Everything is moving through space at different rates. The first floor is different from the second floor because there is an increase in the radius, which increases the circumference of the circle you are tracing out.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d clocks measure motion in space. Space and Time, as in biological aging/radioactive decay, are separate frames.
You can synchronize two stationary clocks. You just need to know how far the signal has to travel. As long as they are at the same radius and same latitude, they will stay in sync. The clocks are measuring motion, so if YOU move the clock, then they will no longer be in sync.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d I know that. Clocks measure motion in space. Synchronized clocks measure relative motion because the constant between them is their operating frequencies. Motion changes the force at the target, but the emitted force is still the same.
How do you measure the speed of light without using two clocks? Light has an induction rate. How long does it take for light to propagate itself. Factor in how much energy is lost at each propagation point (redshift) for the length of the measurement, and their is your answer. The one-way speed of light.
How can a body with different masses or weight travels horizontally or vertically with a tremendous speed equal or nearly equal to the speed of light
th-cam.com/video/M7bGPkLzqv4/w-d-xo.html
The video has a bug here. It shows 50 km/h speed both North and East, but it should be 50/sqrt(2) km/h in each direction by vector arithmetic.
Would not have said anything, but considering that this is a science video, I think that needs to have been shown correctly.
Did you know the gfci outlet turns off before you feel the shock in your bathroom? I have personally tested it too. I don’t recommend trying it cuz it’s possible to do it wrong and die. You were warned. But that’s what they do. So I suppose their reaction time is relative to light speed
you can measure the speed of light, just split the beam and have detectors at both ends of the beam measure the different in detection and sync the clocks to all three points.
Time flies like an arrow - Fruit flies like a Bananna (Basil Brush).
Boom Boom.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d
The illusion is that you think that it is real.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d And you have no sense ... or of humour. Have you ever had your autism officially diagnosed?
@user-ky5dy5hl4d 'neither', not 'nor'. Plus you are incorrect.
A spacecraft is coming back to earth at less than light speed. We see it come and land and we greet the astronauts on the landing pad.... they hand us a space souvenir they collected on the journey.... all is normal. All that we saw ....from their approach to earth to their arrival on the landing pad was the light reflected and/or emitted from their craft as it reached our eyes and instruments on Earth.
Now imagine same scenario but this time the spacecraft approaches earth at greater than light speed. The astronauts land on the pad and hand us the souvenir even as we still see their craft flying through space towards earth....because afterall they were traveling faster than the light that we see from their spacecraft. So they arrive and hand us a souvenir even while we see them still traveling through space towards us.
Makes no sense and conclusively is why faster than light speed travel is not possible.
I think that the question of the possible speed difference in a back and forth travel of the photon has been resolved by the notion of isotropism of the electromagnetic waves.
Its all clear until you think about it. Don't get so caught up in theory that you forget to brush your teeth.
49:25
Its a HYPOTHESIS, not a Theory. why do people have such a hard time differentiating between the 2? 🤨
Because for many people theory is some thing thought up and possibly not correct and is thought of as being different to reality. In reality as understand it it is really in between as a theory however well proven can still not be said to be 100% fact.
It is really a lack of education in the way that the common person sees it one way and the higher educated person has been thought to understand it differently. It could also be said as being a different kind of language spoken.
It is probably easy for you to differentiate but some people have possibly not even heard of a hypothesis. In my native language between my friends and family "theory" was normally understood as I assume you understand "hypothesis" and the word hypothesis would be thought as speaking learned or basically a different language.
In my experience those people can have learned as much through life if not more than the people with higher education. It is just different.
Please explain the difference between a scientific HYPOTHESIS and a scientific THEORY. I am one of those dunces who equates the two. I will look it up. I remain to be illuminated. OK, I looked it up: "In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence." But then, of course, a theory can be proved and become a LAW by further experimentation and the collection of evidence from several sources. RIGHT?
All right. Just - forgot Einstein - "all is relative". So if you talk about "speed" you always need to add "relative to what".
0:48 This is exactly what I've been thinking in the back of my head for a while now.. suddenly, I came across this video without even searching for it.. so I've come to the conclusion that our phones are not just listening to us but they can read our minds now. I know it sounds very cuckoo.
what if the medium for electro-magnectic is the fabric of space time ?, what u cannot see or measure does not mean its not there... what if there is something there, and we can simply, passes thru it... and take it for granted ? ....
I postulate that consciousness may traverse spacetime at the speed of light, which could elucidate why the speed of light remains invariant for all conscious observers across every frame of reference. In this framework, light itself does not traverse space in the conventional sense; rather, each observation point within the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is encountered by consciousness. This can be likened to fast-forwarding a movie: the perceived acceleration of the video is not due to an increase in the playback speed, but rather a modification in the rate at which each frame is observed.
We’re mere visitors in the universe, dreaming of timeless journeys. But maybe, just maybe, those who come after will one day fulfill our dream to journey across galaxies and beyond.
If youre moving at the speed of light then everything would go dark as you pass through light?
So you can't evenly space out sensors from here to the moon, quantum entangle to various sensors on earth for moment of light departure and see exactly how fast light travels through all sensors that are evenly spaced out?
E=mc. Mass converts to energy with acceleration. Once the mass reaches c, there is no mass left to accelerate. You can't go FTL because mass becomes light with Acceleration. And light cannot travel faster than light. That is why it is the cosmic speed limit.
The moon is traveling in wrong direction in first animation.
A lot are talking about "Speed of light" but nothing about "Speed of Sight" which is faster.
We have no way of knowing that the speed of light is constant. It's a fundamental assumption that most of modern science depends upon
Right you are!
At 26:23 you say that sending a light from earth to mars in 10 mins and then assume it returns in 10 mins that it would be 20 mins but that assumption would be wrong because what if it went out in 20 mins but returned to earth instantly. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then your assumption of the light returning instantly is ridiculous.
In my opinion he was right and I will explain my point of view. If both earth and mars are traveling in the direction from earth to mars at about half the speed of light then it would take light from earth nearly twice the time to get to mars as earths speed and light speed are not added together. Mars is running away from the light so to speak. The trip back would be much faster as earth is moving towards the light. The total light travel would be longer than twice the time as this is really what gives time dilation. We just wouldn't measure it much longer as our clock had slowed down due to our speed.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Thanks for your astute reply, but I believe I have a valid rebuttal. Time dilation effects may indeed be in play but only for observers OUTSIDE of the e-m frame of reference-not for the observers within the e-m frame of reference. For example, an observer on a stationary train station platform would expect to see time dilation effects from light sent from the caboose to the front of the train and returned, but being in the same frame of reference those observers would NOT see effects from time dilation as they are in the same inertial frame of reference within the train.
@@robertmontague5650 If I understand you right then yes. Time goes slower for what is moving but they or it can not see it. They/it only knows when they/it can compare to some thing that has not moved. They/it will be younger. I say they/it as it works on a very small level like sub atomic so for every thing. It can only be seen from outside if it is possible to see from one frame to the other but it is still the moved that has a slower time.
You are always moving at the speed of light through time. (Your motion in space is negligible). Everything everywhere is always moving at the speed of light through spacetime [The speed of light is the same as the speed of time]
I see we have plain common sense!!! 😂😂😂
All the way down to a nano world. Time moves slower which means light travels slower there than it does in our world and light moves faster in space than it does on Earth because in space time is endlessly moving which means things move so fast that anything in it’s surface in our eyes it’s floating or moving extremely slow. Light and time moves so fast in space we instantly freeze and die!!!! Because our body it’s can’t get up with the speed. Light will never reach the other side of space because again space is infinite therefore so is light!!!!
Actually no. You travel thru time at a rate of 1 sec/sec.
That's a fried statement at the end of what you've said
I was taken away only to realise it was a crappy magician
5:48 - "the ether was brutally disproven" -- except...you can't "prove" a negative
They call it quantum now
Because WE are IN IT 😮
The aether upon which the EM field travels upon are the virtual particles allowed from the uncertainty principle. So, it travels through an empty vacuum full of virtual particles. You heard it here first lol
He made the earth by his power, established the world by his wisdom, spread out the sky by his understanding.
The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.
And on the 7th day he relaxed and designed yoga pants.
Ew, you worship a p|e|d|o from a fairytale?
I don't believe there is such a thing as time, except as we create it, measuring intervals between day and night as a single rotation of the earth. A single revolution of the earth. Things like that divided into smaller intervals, so we can monitor them with names. Space isn't much diff. Distance between objects, divided or multiplied, names that we can understand. But our language can often be so limited that we actually fail to understand reality because of the failure of language. It's easy to make a statement about stuff, but then knowledge increases, we gotta change the lingo because of what we didn't understand. Some people don't really want to say maybe I was wrong, so knowledge advances slowly, as we stumble forth into the future, trying to ignore the ignorance of the past.
light waves do travel through a medium its called dark matter
Light speed would be a state of zero. Zero time between you and the end of the universe
What happens if im running backwards at 100 mph while holding a flashlight is that light moving slower the guy who at the same time holding a flashlight while running 100 mph forward
I'm wondering where the hell does light go ? When you turn your lamp off the light is gone, but where the hell did it go does it soak into your walls ? If I turned a garden hose on and sprayed it in a room and then shut it off,the water is still there.
Visible light is a small slice of the spectrum that we see with our eyes. As photons interact with the environment, they change frequency. The visible to the eye photons change to a thermal frequency that our eyes can't see very quickly as they hit things. Put on a pair of night vision goggles that shows a thermal spectrum, and you will see that the room remains lit for a long time after you turn off that bulb.
Your separation is telling 🎉
We will have to build quantum clocks, and they will be synchronized.
The simplest motion seems to be a wave. They emerge from everywhere. It seems to me a really good building block as it’s easy to make waves. The trick is making those waves manifest reality somehow.
Also the universe seems to need the quantum fuzziness to make certain things happen like nuclear fusion in stars through quantum tunneling. Whoever, or whatever built this place never expected it to be probed so deeply to reveal the secrets to its construction. I bet they will be impressed if we figure it out!
There are multiple videos on youtube which prove the existence of ether. There are other videos which posit that space is anything but empty. There are yet other videos which prove that light's speed is NOT constant. And no, I do not have an English accent.
9:00 - "we call it the speed of light because that was the first thing measured"
Right. Clearly it is the speed of the medium. The ether.
They call it quantum bath
Don't we have our data centers of stock markets interconnected with thousands of miles of undersea cables synced with an atomic clock? And isn't the speed if light factored in?
We are moving through time at the speed of life. 😊
I think the guy should review Maxwell’s work. Also seems to confuse the English word wave with is what is going on
When someone uses the phrase form 'beg the question' as it is used here, one knows that the user doesn't know the original meaning of the phrase. Newspaper reporters do it routinely.
Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.
@@mackellyman5642 "Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it" is the present day newspaper-reporter meaning of the phrase, but not its original meaning. The Latin was 'petitio principii'. Originally it meant what it said, 'prematurely asking the principal question, without having presented the basic preliminaries for the principal question'.
Stretch two entangled particles apart and input enough energy increasing the mass of the particles till you get a singularity at each end…
So actually the name "speed of light " is wrong... its should be named the maximum speed limit in the universe...
The explanations of light phenomena are wonderful--perhaps the best on TH-cam. But why the ultra-distracting, hyper-mediocre MUSIC?!?
Seen the slo mo guys actually photograph it
Have they done it 2 directions or just the one?
"Relative to" says it all.
They should set up a system in the moon when they were there, put a light on the moon and try and measure from there, the distance would hopefully be far enough to measure
I always wonder how things would have went if Einstein had a LHC to mess around with.
In religion, time travel happens all the time. Prophets are able to move both into the past and future and tell us about past and present. God does not exist in time...like us. The past, the present and the future are all before Him....the I AM. With his anointing He takes the prophet to whichever part of the past or future He desires!
I got to 12:53 before I couldn't bare it anymore. Nothing I haven't heard before. Still full of holes...
Its also harder than you think.its not just about hitting the gas pedal to go. You need advanced navigational tools that map out destinations, so its not just about speed, its also technology that takes billions of years to obtain. I would think. Ok be safe
It’s because energy is spinning poles
Polarity
Negative positive negative positive and so on
As all space is curved
As what you call light is seen to travel you are seeing the motion of polarities as it changes what you are actually observing is pressure or a pressure wave
Moving away from what crated it you for instance light takes on the vibration and frequencies or impression of what it touches
Because its vibration
And pressure of energy moving through a field of energy that is determined by the gravitational force
At the distance from the masses centre
As gravity changes on a Golden mean spiral 🌀
And changes again as it passes the threshold and this is reversed when it heads towards mad once again
So basically it speeds up as it leaves mass and slows down as it moves towards mass
It mathematical
Gravity can be calculated using a + b = c if a is ground level
And is seen as a sphere its radius is a
The golden mean spiral 🌀
Where it intersects the radius line
You calculate the difference
The speed o fight is the speed of the energy wave as it travels through the gravitational gearing
Like stretching the skin of a Balloon 🎈
Water pressure is another example
Of the same principle
As gravity
Metatron
Fish Amen 🙏
human brains have more speed than the light speed or any waves we imagine.
Question is. Is there anything in the universe that is not moving.
So, can you show a demo of speed of light vs speed of stick ringing a bell on the moon? Let the stick be stretched from earth to moon and the laser be located on earth. Now switch on the laser and push the stick at the same time. Which one will hit/ring the bell on the moon first? No need to search for an Internet answer; there is no response to this question.
12/27/24 Gemini on stick puzzle
TH-cam Title: "Thought Experiment: Can a Stick 'Touch' the Moon Faster Than Light?"
TH-cam Description:
Imagine a perfectly rigid stick (hypothetical) extending from Earth, already within one inch of the Moon's surface. The stick is floating in space, unaffected by gravity.
The Earth end of the stick is pushed with a constant force, resulting in an acceleration of 0.0026 G's, moving the stick one inch in one second.
This thought experiment explores the concepts of:
Instantaneous Force Transmission: Can a force travel instantaneously across vast distances?
The Speed of Light Limit: Does this scenario violate Einstein's theory of relativity?
The Limitations of Idealized Models: How do we reconcile the concept of a perfectly rigid object with the laws of physics?
Key Points:
The stick, already within one inch of the Moon, would reach the Moon's surface before a laser beam fired simultaneously from Earth.
This outcome does not violate the speed of light limit.
The stick moves as a unit, with both the Earth end and the Moon end moving at a rate of one inch per second.
This video will delve into these questions and discuss the implications of this thought experiment for our understanding of physics.
Target Audience: This video is intended for anyone interested in physics, thought experiments, and the nature of reality.
I am still under development and learning to communicate effectively and accurately. Thank you for your patience and for helping me refine my language and improve my understanding!
In this sol expanding universe, few light sources are visible, resulting "dark matter". Matter at a great distance 'appears' and visible in red shift. Matter traveling directly away at sol is not visible, nor is matter closing on your location at sol or the multiples acheived of e=mc2 resulting in dark matter.
Invisible yet present.
The universe sees all this happening very quickly. We are so tiny we count billions of what we call years. The universe would agree that there IS a bang cuz it IS the bang and it is BIG… because we are tiny. If we were big as the bang it would be a flash
Are you the same person that narrated the original "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"?
No.
The speed of light isn't constant. Gravity can bend its direction by slowing down time space.
So you're claiming the speed of light is a variable? Are you sure about this?
@@elijahfluw4347 Special relativity demands that the speed of light ("c") in a vacuum be constant and the is fastest speed information can be communicated.
Photons interacting with matter and light travelling other mediums like water doesn't travel at *c.*
If you can learn enough to discern the opinion from fact there is knowledge on TH-cam but it takes more than watching videos to forge knowledge into wisdom.
The speed of light through time: one second per second 🤔
Mind blown. The only logical solution to any paradox in this context is to accept that multiverse is real and is a thing. However, I can't confirm if there is any power that can force the universe to be logical about everything. Or even anything for that matter being a human construct.
Just like I don't think there is any power that prevents coincidence. Or if there is I don't see it.
how can this be a problem ... use a satalite and sync its direction to a tower and at the same moment fire signals at each other ... thats it .. opposite direction just make sure they are orthogonal on each other ... these are not problems thats easy ..
Dude ... make a large mirror in space reflect light coming from our past to our present to see the past ... reflect light from the future to the present and u have ur timeline :)
Dont tell anyone i told u
😂why is it always a British accent?
46 seconds, we are located on the 2nd outer spiral arm in our galaxy, not the centre?
Why would we be at the centre?
The problem is not just with speed of light, the problem is with the speed of anything. There is no meaning to the question whether it is same in all directions, it really is just a convention to make the math simpler.
math is gay
The question far more important today is how fast a man can travel in this universe,❤❤can we exceed the speed of light?
Nothing moves by itself light travels through (something)without a medium nothing could be, precisely what has no Medium is the intelligent beneath and beyond understanding,inside out of what we postulate as reality,what intelligent is motivating atoms, Occam's Razer tells us what motivate a motif is the third relation that can not be showed,alike Wittgenstein theses in languages.