Faster than Light?

How was the speed of light first measured? Albert Einstein deduced it was the speed limit for everything in the universe. Is it possible to go faster?
A lecture by Katherine Blundell OBE, Gresham Professor of Astronomy
02 October 2019 1PM BST
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
The speed of light has fundamental significance. This talk will explain how the speed of light was first measured, and how an obscure but brilliant patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland by the name of Albert Einstein deduced that the speed of light is the upper speed limit for everything in the Universe. It is even possible for things to be measured as travelling faster than the speed of light and I will explain how that is permissible and understandable in an Einsteinian worldview.
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
#GreshamLectures #Astronomy #Lightspeed #Science #Space #Light #Universe

[@rodfaragini7110]

I'm hooked on this lady, such interesting topics and a wonderful speaking voice

[@scottiusnevious5143]

"The sad thing about being faster than light, you can only travel in darkness". -Sonic 2004

[@johnnycharisma162]

Scottius Nevious and you leave before you depart and arrive when you are already there.

[@johnnycharisma162]

David of Yorkshire even though you may arrive at a destination faster than the speed of light, your image would not. You would be invisible until the light got there. I think🧐

[@damienwins6185]

@@johnnycharisma162 What if light was already there? 🧐 If you travel faster than light, you would be passing it by all the time. But, if you travel the same speed as light, would that mean you could observe a photon as if it were stopped? Brain pop!

[@HighestRank]

Sega does what nintenDon’t.

[@Williamb612]

Maybe not…darkness is the absence of light, but light is not the absence of darkness. Who is to say that on the other side of light there is darkness…there maybe something that is neither dark nor light…something incomprehensible

[@edysinsimon8646]

I recently came across this Gresham lecture series and absolutely adore these lectures! Thank you for expanding my mind a bit more!

[@kevincasson9848]

She"s very nervous though! Either that or she has asthma!

[@edysinsimon8646]

@@kevincasson9848 Ever know and then she "swallows" her, obviously dry mouth and its most apparent! Still, I give her props on pushing thru her own struggle.

[@kevincasson9848]

@@edysinsimon8646 ??

[@edysinsimon8646]

@@kevincasson9848 If you don't ever listen to or ever heard her lecture series you would not understand what I've mentioned here.

[@kevincasson9848]

@@edysinsimon8646 Are you English? Your grammaticle prose, makes no sense whatsoever!!

[@alanblight9233]

Fantastic . Always enthralling , the professor Fs the ineffable again . Thank you .

[@WildBillCox13]

Great lecture. Liked and linked., I was already subscribed. About air commuting at lightspeed. 1/15 second . . . followed by an hour, waiting for a runway to land, and then three hours in traffic holding pattern when trying to leave the airport. ;-)

[@parlabaneisback]

Good stuff - looking forward to the other lectures. Many thanks.

[@jkaryskycoo]

I, for one, typically find Katherine's lectures a bit slow-paced, perhaps designed for a different audience than just me and myself, I tend to think the basics are covered a bit slowly and in a bit too much detail. I do watch them all and find them interesting, though. Thank you, Katherine.

[@sprinkdesign7170]

Gresham lectures are always fascinating. I particularly enjoy Katherine Blundell's lectures - she has a wonderful skill in making understandable the complex and sometimes almost unbelievable realities of our universe.

[@rodfaragini7110]

I too have recently discovered this lecture series. So interesting and makes ones mind work lol. I'm hooked.

[@frank327]

What a brilliant woman. Astonishing intellect, accessibly delivered. Great lecture.

[@i20010]

Excellent lecture, thank you!

[@1SpudderR]

To itai bachar ...It is inferred that as mass....goes faster...the weight? Of that mass increases! She mentioned that the Galaxy’s “spread” was Five Sixth’s Of The Speed Of Light! Then the mass...weight must Have increased dramatically? This requires More Energy to move the “spread” of the galaxies’ mass! Where does that increased Energy to push the Galaxy faster...and faster? Come from? It has been noted by general scientific reading that “The Space between Galaxies is increasing at faster than light speed! Wow..There is a dramatic impasse between how the lecturer is emphatic that “Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum!” and what is really going on in a vacuum with Galaxy separations! RDR

[@WildBillCox13]

Liked and shared. Was already subscribed. Thanks, Gresham!

[@WildBillCox13]

My rule of thumb is: sound travels a mile in five seconds. Light travels roughly 200,000 (186,000) miles on one second. I usually time thunder at 1mi/5 sec to guesstimate the near edge of the displacement/detonation.

[@WildBillCox13]

When one says the effective parallax parameter represents "fine" resolution, can anyone tell me what the triangle is? 'Cause that's an insignificant baseline for observing details at thousands of light year ranges. More of a statistical anomaly at that proportion, isn't it? I should imagine that a thousand miles wide lens trying to better resolve objects and phenomena at thousands, or millions, or billions, of light years distance, cannot resolve anything in "fine" detail. Indeed, at that level of resolution, I doubt that the distance measurements are accurate. No offense intended. I understand that much of physics is counterintuitive.

[@jengleheimerschmitt7941]

@@WildBillCox13 William Cox the bottom of the triangle can be the earth on one side of the sun and again six months later. If you use the full six months you have effectively a 186-million-mile-diameter lense. 😉 For her example here though a thousand miles at the bottom of the triangle going to Jupiter isn't too bad if you have a stop watches that can keep time to the femtosecond. Now that I think about it, the GPS system basically uses those same triangles. The trick is to have insanely fine-resolution clocks. I remember reading about labs that have to recalibrate their clocks periodically due to the relativistic time dialation due to the difference in gravity of the clocks on different floors of the building. The clock upstairs runs slightly faster due to being farther from earth. ...but that definitely does get lost in the noise when they forget about the goddam signal goddamn lag time in the goddamn com cable 😆

[@tnewanz]

I got clickbaited, but I'm OK with it. Brilliant lecture.

[@edysinsimon8646]

The whole concept of dark energy and its ability to measure the speed between these galaxies which travel/appear faster than light speed? Incredible to be sure!

[@4tee2]

Basic information to the average scientist....but...so well done! Clearly spoken, clearly explained. Excellent.

[@CandideSchmyles]

A recent study by John Hakilla and Robert Nemiroff recently proposed that superluminal speeds "are" achieved within the plasma jets of black holes and is not in violation of special relativity as these jets are a medium and not vacuum. The medium obviously has a density greater than vacuum and the very early universe also must have been dense and give some supporting evidence for the mechanism of inflationary theory, not in the work of the above but by my ignorant speculation.

[@yuotwob3091]

To compliment your speculation with another, the capacitance of glass drops the pulse frequency of light (which is always a minimum in the most longitudinal ray) and increases the intensity of the pulse. Light is 'faster' in denser media if it has any velocity at all, in line with Descartes thinking. Light travels through the glass pane (if it travels) and is 'emitted' and then must wait for the next pulse out of the less dense medium. A bit like typing comments on KZbin :)

[@CandideSchmyles]

@@yuotwob3091 A dense medium is a person who genuinely believes themselves to be clairvoyant?

[@ispeeeaaakeeewhaaaleee]

Very distant galaxies move away from us faster than the speed of light, because of the space inbetween expanding at a greater rate than the speed of light.

[@paulchristian8261]

I have a question ; If the material in the ejection jet from the quazer is travelling as she said at 5/6 the speed of light and the speed of the jet on the other side of the quazer is also travelling at 5/6 the speed of light then isn't the relative speed between the jets 1.66 times the speed of light?

[@1SpudderR]

Paul Christian NO....That is one thing she was correct about...as understood now! But.. Hmm.....It is inferred that as mass....goes faster...the weight? Of that mass increases! She mentioned that the Galaxy’s “spread” was Five Sixth’s Of The Speed Of Light! Then the mass...weight must Have increased dramatically? This requires More Energy to move the “spread” of the galaxies’ mass! Where does that increased Energy to push the Galaxy faster...and faster? Come from? It has been noted by general scientific reading that “The Space between Galaxies is increasing at faster than light speed! Wow..There is a dramatic impasse between how the lecturer is emphatic that “Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum!” and what is really going on in a vacuum with Galaxy separations! RDR

[@paulchristian8261]

@@1SpudderR If the answer is No then what is the relative speed and how do you calculate it?

[@1SpudderR]

To Paul Christian....Make it simple....Your car? Is doing 30 mph..and the car coming towards you is doing 30 mph....Because you are going towards the other car your speed does not increase...nor the other car.....So each car is closing the gap at 30 mph...and with the speed of light according to Einstein the speed is relative to each observer ie 30mph.....ie in the speed of light example each observer is closing the gap at light speed....there is no breaking the speed of light here then! But breaking the speed of light on Other circumstances is circumspect to individual hypothesis.....But..Up for debate, if Humanity chooses to move on and become a Spacefaring Species, And Who is not Up for that....progress is seeking solutions by not being stuck in the Light Speed conundrum! Mars and the Universe here we come...or my ancestors..and they had better get cracking.....Star Trekkers is waiting? RDR

[@paulchristian8261]

@@1SpudderR But surely to the people in the cars the 'relative' speed to the other car is 60 mph, and every speed of any thing in the universe is relative, and therefore if you can accelerate any thing to more than 1/2 the speed of light you can potentially demonstrate relative velocity in excess of the speed of light. Maxwell is correct the speed of light is just a number relative to the medium it is travelling through, not a speed limit. I also had trouble with her justification of why observed Super luminal velocities are not real, My reasoning being ; if the ejection jets of quasers are perpendicular to the line of sight of the observer and the observer is along way away then the speed light has only a tiny affect on the measurement of the ejection jet velocities.So under these conditions what you see is what it is as near as damn it and certainly not off by an order of magnitude.

[@marquisdemoo1792]

Hmm, cable lengths and the speed of light. In the leadup to the British Army drawdown in HK in 1992 I was given the task of writing a report condemning a directional HF antenna that did not work so it could be dismantled. The antenna consisted of a series of 8 or so hoops laid out in a straight line connected in such a way that the signal from the desired angle was additive. The concept was that the signal from the hoops at the desired wave-front leading edge was delayed by longer cable lengths until it was exactly in phase with the signal from the trailing edge which had shorter cables. However different cable types have different propagation speeds and it seems the installation team decided to improve on the design specified URM 67 by installing the much more expensive LDF4-50 but cut to the same lengths as had been specified for URM67. I was not popular when I suggested I could repair the antenna by adjusting the cable lengths as my report was intended to justify its removal.

[@Gruuvin1]

And?

[@marquisdemoo1792]

@@Gruuvin1 It was dismantled regardless.

[@Gruuvin1]

Bureaucrats

[@joecordani2806]

very interesting......she is brilliant.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Great, I have been reading about the speed of light since I started reading SF in grade school. I just learned it was first measured with the Moons of Jupiter 20 years ago. This is the first time I have seen an explanation of how it was done. Is this supposed to be a big secret?

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

You don't have to know how to measure the speed of light to use the speed of light in calculations.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@oysteinsoreide4323 But how it was first measured when they did not have electronics and atomic clocks is very interesting.

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

@@psikeyhackr6914 They had very accurate clocks. And because of the short time to measure, just some hours, one or two seconds wrong doesn't matter much for the result.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@oysteinsoreide4323 But *I* didn't know WHAT they were measuring so I was commenting on THAT!!!

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

@@psikeyhackr6914 But I thought that was obvious. She said measuring time. And she showed the geometry of the solar system etc. Far enough to deduce the rest.

[@coreybray9834]

What if light is like the double slit experiment and only moves at v = c when we measure it?

[@chasingdragons5288]

The double slit experiment must be refined to include the inherent rotational nature of light. Much like the double slit experiment the polarized effect of placing two polarized lenses 180 degrees apart limits the transmission of light to nearly zero. Add a third filter between them at a slightly different angle and light will be transmitted through the third filter. The rotation of light is the reason.

[@TheRainHarvester]

I'll release a spooky Halloween video: the actual, physical reason, why time slows down at the speed of light...Stay tuned! You may really like it!

[@chasingdragons5288]

Time is a human construct or rate of pertubation in the Ether. Constrict the electro-magnetic fields and time appears to slow down. The constriction limits the rate of movement within a field. This is why time 'seems' to slow down towards a null point in space.

[@seabud6408]

I wish she had explained why magnetic fields only propagate at speed c through space. Apparently the concept of space time is coming under attack in physics. Does this mean that the concept of the aether is returning? Is the speed of light the speed of induction of energy through the medium of the vacuum field/aether. We are told non stop in these sorts of lectures that space isn’t empty. Yet people who mention .... the Aether are usually patronised/ laughed at.

[@MaxBrix]

Are you asking why it is the same speed in all reference frames or why it is that number?

[@parityviolation968]

There is no "vacuum field"! There are several fields (that we know of) as a *property of spacetime.* Each point in spacetime has a corresponding value for each field, scalar or vector. Classical Fields in vacuum would simply have a fixed value, for example zero. However, when we quantize these fields, they become vacuum expectation values around which they fluctuate. That is, for very brief moments (as long as allowed by the uncertainty principle) non-zero values can occur. This is different from an aether concept wherein space has some fixed "classical stuff" in it that defines its grid.

[@seabud6408]

MaxBrix Apologies I ramble on a bit here. No. I’m asking this in relation to what are viewed as crank theories about the nature of reality which seem to address anomalies in physics. Eg there is a theory which suggests that gravity is so astronomically weak because it is nothing other than the very weak magnetism of the unaligned atoms of standard matter. The Earth is a massive mainly unmagnetised ball of non magnetic material ... surrounding an iron core. Gravity is so weak because say ... the spinning atomic tops are not aligned as in a magnetised iron bar but as they are in silicon oxide/stone. If every atom in the Earth was silicon dioxide only. There would be no directional magnetic field but a very small electro magnetic field effect from the mini magnetic atomic tops in trillions of tons of unaligned matter. Difference between a 5 watt laser and a 5 watt standard light bulb. ( search KZbin for the angry photographer, ...he’s also a scholar..,.expert on magnetism.... for more on his take re this) I’ve heard physicists claim that it is the only discipline which can and will “understand”, map, measure explain every last aspect of the nature of the Universe/reality (within scientific materialism).... when clearly that is impossible. I love science. However. No one has even begun to understand what consciousness IS ... of itself. How chemistry comes to life. What life IS of itself. What “energy” IS . Question .... Why is energy not viewed as being alive, ( at its system level) in standard physics. Why are consciousness and life not seen in a systems theory sense ... as qualities of energy. There is no dead energy sitting in a beaker somewhere. The Universe is obviously an organism at its system level. As above so below How else could plasma become me typing this( after doing nothing but cooling/ differentiating for 14. billion years), if the Big Bang was not also both a womb and an embryo. The chicken and the egg. Wombiverse. Conscious human beings were a potential in that plasma and physics has NOTHING to say about it. I’m going on about this because scientific materialism devoid of the above understanding/ sensitivity to life and consciousness is responsible along with every human for the climate catastrophe we are in. Science industry money power running off of its own agenda .... not nature’s . No balance. Consciousness is viewed as a delusion / illusion by prof Dan Dennett except all delusion exists in consciousness. The brain is a receiver/ transducer it doesn’t excrete consciousness.

[@CandidDate]

@@seabud6408 we see what we see.

[@jean-pierredevent970]

Some like Barbour, Mach ... suppose time is the result of change. No change anywhere = no time. And so since the light speed is also the maximum speed at which changes can take place this all somehow must mean that the light speed is very closely linked to the underlying invisible structure of the universe. Why this value and no other???

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm...for changes to take place? For changes to take place? Place...place.place take changes? There must be A before, Now, and After....Implying That Something other than Light is taking the place before light. And before that something was taking the place of before the light was taking place..Mirror mirror on the wall one reflection tells all? Is there a Mirror to all this place?

[@johnnycharisma162]

She gets better in her delivery when she stops reading from that lap top

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

_"In the endeavour of the scientific research, the answers aren't in the back of the book. But it's worse than that : the questions aren't even in the front of the book."_ It's even worse than that : there's no book at all...

[@techman2553]

Click Settings, click Playback Speed, click 1.25 or 1.5. You're welcome.

[@pirateJimOu812]

Thank you... I was happy at 2.

[@HighestRank]

pirateJimOu812 click apostrophe after u, & You’re* welcome.

[@techman2553]

@@HighestRank Your right, my mistake, I followed you're advice and updated my post. Thanks.

[@kevincasson9848]

She has Iona movin around Jupiter, in a clockwise direction. Shouldn't it be anti- clockwise?

[@wesjones565]

Good lecture! I already like her better than Professor Silk.

[@CandideSchmyles]

Me too. But she has a ways to go to match Caroline Crawford.

[@physicstheoryofmetinaridasir]

I SUGGEST HAVING A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF MY THEORY AND MY FIRST FORMULA WHICH DETERMINES A LINEAR VELOCITY OF...6.3 TIMES GREATER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, ETC. AND I TOLD WHERE OUR MEASURED CONSTANTS ARE ROOTED IN. We need to change the concept of matter that makes us imprisoned by all kinds of impressions and especially by accepting the vacuum illusion which it has been sitting comfortably in it

[@seazenbones6945]

Brilliant 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@kylorenkardashian5518]

I think I created a theoretical experiment that can demonstrate faster than light communication & explain spooky action at a distance while proving correct loop quantum theory. I am in Los Angeles area, I would like to present my theory

[@realcygnus]

Who's Stopping you ? I'd love to hear/see it. text/slides/pdf ?

[@kylorenkardashian5518]

@@realcygnus you're right, I can make a small model that should be able to express my idea. it really is a simple solution, so simple Im scared its probably wrong

[@realcygnus]

@@kylorenkardashian5518 Ahh go for it......I've seen/heard a few big ideas & interesting speculations right here on youtube over the years. If it's wrong hopefully someone will quickly explain or demonstrate how/why, then we can just move on. If its correct, you'll have a permanent public record.

[@Doppe1ganger]

hahahahahaha, ok

[@metategra9798]

Ok...present it to me please..

[@keramidasnicolas2079]

_"The scientific endeaver is international and self-correcting..."_ 😂 😂 😂

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

while the speed of light is a constant everywhere, the speed of space itself it infinite. Thus if you can move space/time itself then you have no limit. that is what happens with electric fields as a dynamic structure in between thunderheads. The electric field builds up, and space/time itself is altered and can cause a space/time structural functional change due to the warp-age of space/time itself. This will be calculated in the future, as at this time, the methods of measurement will be insolvent. without the correct addendum to space/time electric field distortion in formula.

[@colingeorgejenkins2885]

Paublus Americanus AMERICANUS what came first the speed of light or the speed of sound

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

@@colingeorgejenkins2885 for man the speed of sound came first, but for nature the speed of light was first. The speed of light was ascertained after mankind had lightning to compare and contrast the two fundamental speeds here on earth. In the universe relativity has always played out at larger distances. Thus fundamental light speed. Just observing the moon's phases for even pre-Greek in sumeria got the fundamentals of the moon's phases correctly even the wobble of the moon to return after 21,000 years to return to the same state. not gravity but phases and repetitions of those phases and was displayed in the anti-kithera device probably theorized by Archemedis.

[@colingeorgejenkins2885]

So if relativity works like that on large scales do you mean that newtons straight line be he intensionly mixed the speed of thought ( light) with the alchemical Big Bang that they felt in the silence

[@Doppe1ganger]

There is no such thing as infinite, and what is "speed of space", and in relation to what, unspace?

[@Doppe1ganger]

@vctjkhme This is not how science works. How do you know a cup of tea isn't orbiting saturn? Infact it's even worse than making a silly claim like that, since there's nothing in physics or logics that prevents a cup of tea to be orbiting saturn, because you haven't even shown that infinity is possible in theory, let alone that it exists in reality. And ofcourse i can't comprehend it, a brain the size of the universe couldn't comprehend it, since infinity doesn't exist and isn't possible.

[@chasingdragons5288]

Light travels at the specific speed of the medium it is in. As does all electo-magnetic radiation. Longitudinal motion through the Aether as described by Tesla is magnitudes of magnitudes faster.

[@metategra9798]

What do you mean longitudinal motion through the ether described by Tesla is faster that light ? Just wonderin.

[@metategra9798]

Guess the aether is a real concept.Ions in the aether.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm...What is hidden in the darkness of the collision between two colliding .......”Speeds Of Light” ? More Light...is it brighter or lesser light.....Where does this energy go or come from for Billions Of years...EU Brexit....Brexit EU.....WELL only 3 and a Half years....!

[@HighestRank]

Meta Tegra *Æther

[@1SpudderR]

Rýán Túçk ...Hmm..mmH Angam retrac....ignium mesrtucaz.......emod ainellim...! Rednu....In’t...Ttiwt giB....A!

[@megamillionfreak]

8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, 4 x Pi x 10^-7 H/m

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

Problem is : what if light _is not_ made of particules ?

[@Tom_Quixote]

They realised that 300 years ago...

[@garybarbourii8274]

If you're still watching this, fast forward to 40min to get to the point

[@KMeeks]

An iffy one at that. What a brief and uniforming conclusion from this speaker. Red/Blue shift for both quasar jets need to be shown to balance out if this is true

[@rainaldkoch9093]

Ole Rømer didn't measure the speed of light, because the size of Earth's orbit wasn't known at his time.

[@zerozero7even]

The speed of thought is instant though!

[@kevincasson9848]

You can hear the nervousness in ger voice! She"ll learn to over come it though!

[@clintford6716]

If you could travel faster than light would you be invisible? If so how could we measure what we cannot see. I personally would rule nothing out. The possibilities are as endless as space itself.

[@ThuannguyenN-gp2vp]

You must create a sub-particle craft to prevent atomic react with the skin of object or its body.

[@colingeorgejenkins2885]

Words are sound light is thought

[@scottiusnevious5143]

Lol, then word are just sounds. Also thoughts that are precieved cause we have the ability to do it. Dont try to simplify the matter.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

those are words

[@danieldamitio1350]

@@scottiusnevious5143 they're both frequencies and have reciprocal wavelengths both are forms of potential energy there's work required to put an object into its original position or configuration yes an object's potential energy is it it's a gravity field that can be calculated by multiplying acceleration due to gravity by the height of the mass words or sound pressure levels which are logarithmic calculations quadratics the inverse of distance squared it is hard to compare light energy to sound but I can see the amplitude on an electric field decreasing with through anything other than a vacuum.

[@gypsycruiser]

Thing becomes Think! .. lightning.. lightnink..

[@jarlpetersen1982]

Where is the part faster then light ?

[@altosack]

31:20

[@PrivateSi]

The only way I can 'see' spooky action at a distance between entrangled particles happening in real 3D space is with a physical link between them that acts as one unit no matter how long it is, even if it is made of separate but fully contiguous particles. moving this perfectly rigid quantum rod forwards or backwards or rotating it acts on the entire rod at once in one instant, transfering force between the entangle particles instantly.... Imagine a very long rod of Planck sized balls touching each other, when rods cross the incoming rod takes a !Planck Ball! away from the crossed rod and leaves one in its place. at 30:00 she states that if travelling at near C, trying to catch up a photon the pursuer will measure the photon at C 'relative to him'.... Confusing wording... If using the the Earth-Jupiter example the photon would absolutely be travelling a little bit quicker than the pursuer.. Lets not use a photon as the example here (even though only light can travel at light speed in observed reality so far) as a photon cannot be viewed from behind, it can only be viewed by hitting a detector so is 'dark' in that you cannot bounce other photons off it to reveal it - and they couldn't reach it from behind... You could fire a photon from in front and detect its interference with the oncoming photon I suppose..... This hypothetical massive light speed particle would be almost invisible to the observer travelling at near C because only a few side-impacting photons could hit it and bounce to the observer - most incoming photons would scatter off it, away from the observer... The particle's shadow could be observed in the incoming light also. I'm looking at this as classical billiard balls for this example, makes things simpler to visualise. The oberserver would see the particle moving slowly away as expected intuitively... If he knows his absolute velocity he would comfirm the difference between his velocity and his measurement of the particle velocity adds up to C.......

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

No, the photon will not move faster or slower. The photon is in fact just a wave in the electromagnetic field which is always measured as speed of light. But you get blue or red shift of the light dependent on the relative speed of the observer and the emitter.

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

Not even light can catch up with light at least if you are not sending some of the light through a medium that slows it down.

[@PrivateSi]

@@oysteinsoreide4323 .. I agree, so why does she state the light is travelling at lightspeed RELATIVE to the observer, also travelling at (near) lightspeed (in a vacuum, implied)... I think my logic is correct and her statement is confusing... Many others parrot the same statement.

[@PrivateSi]

@@oysteinsoreide4323 I am not saying the photon will move faster or slower. A photon can be viewed as a wave (in a material medium, unless you are a bit mad) or as a particle... I am saying her explantion of the photon moving at lightspeed RELATIVE to the observer is nonsense as it implies the speed of the photon is ADDED to the oberserver's velocity... I am also saying that spooky action at a distance physically implies a material link, a force transfer mechanism that acts on the whole link as one extended thing, no matter how far away, in an instant when moving any of the entangle particles.... or woo-woo, or sci-woo (extra spatial dimensions, holographiv universes, virtual universes, Many Worlds.. etc.. etc...) If you build up the universe from a starting point of a hex lattice of +ve cells in an etheral sea of -ve charge many things, from entanglement to gravity, electricity, EM waves and dark matter and energy can be logically explained with black holes and big bang singularities replaced with cyclical systems... blah blah... Quantum Physics is a mess.

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

@@PrivateSi She is telling this, because if you did not take the speed of particles into account, you could get wrong results when trying to measure the speed of them. She said it because it was about some plasma that was travelling at 0.8 C and if you did the calculations the wrong way, you could get results that exceeded the speed of light.

[@raysalmon6566]

Rumors travel faster than light..

[@yoso585]

ray salmon Oh and they surely do. Even in all directions, round and round.

[@1SpudderR]

Missed that...blast it...maybe next time..time..time.missed that...maybe next time..timetimetimtit........RDR

[@irlserver42]

Even at x1.5 the signal to noise ratio on this video is pretty abysmal.

[@chadtrump7009]

Did you mean signal to noise ratio bozo?

[@irlserver42]

@@chadtrump7009 Yeah, I did a word there. Doesn't change the facts. :D This could have been 10 minutes long.

[@rockets4kids]

That means it will be a great choice for all the people who want a science lecture to fall asleep to.

[@raidermen]

Isn’t it James Clerk Maxwell?

[@kdragon7]

Thats how the scottish pronounce it, she said it right...

[@raidermen]

@@kdragon7 Correct. Just like the Irish pronounce Berkeley as Barkley.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

Well light isn't a speed. It's a rate of induction.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

@@qed100 Light also is NOT a particle either. You don't dump photons out of your camera lense when it accumulates too many.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

@@qed100 it has a speed. It's the rate of induction through the aether. However, it is not the universal speed limit.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

@@qed100 I'm saying the rate of induction can be measured as a speed, but it's not the universal speed limit.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

@@qed100 have you ever seen what a magnet actually does?? I mean, truly understood it. Not trying to be a smart-ass.

[@vdarknessfalls6704]

@@qed100 that's what I meant. Light is not a speed. It's a rate of induction. But they're measuring that induction as a speed, and applying it as a universal constant.

[@catholiccrusader5328]

A brilliant lecture by and brilliant lecturer whose is also quite beautiful.

[@jukkatakamaa7274]

I would refrase that opinion.

[@CandidDate]

What does it mean to "travel?" I mean, in Einstein's day the fastest thing was a train, hence his explanation of special relativity using trains. Later, I suppose he used rockets as a thought experiment for general relativity. If anything indeed moves at all, what is it moving relative to? You'd have to assume a zero point of perfect stillness to define any motion whatsoever. It's almost as if every atom had a string connecting it to every one of its surrounding atoms and light bounces around in the empty spaces in between. Almost an ether? Oops, did I say ether? sorry.

[@yuotwob3091]

watering the shrew

[@mitseraffej5812]

Faster than light, nope. Oh dear we humans are destined to only ever look but never get to touch. Reminds me of being a kid in a museum.

[@naimulhaq9626]

in 1968, Troitsky proved speed of light at the big bang was 10^10 c.

[@rippedtorn2310]

A pie .

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

The space itself can expand faster than the speed of light without violating anything. so even if two separate things are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, it's because of the expanding space, not from normal acceleration.

[@naimulhaq9626]

@@oysteinsoreide4323 Big bang is not about expanding space. It is more fundamental. Joao Maguere in 1994 proved c to be infinite at the big bang. QF is more fundamental to big bang, inflation etc.

[@1SpudderR]

Oystein Soreide ....Yea Yea...These Scientists have a way of not even explaining a black hole! What will future Einstein’s think of some of These explanations about The Universe! Do not forget for hundreds of years Scientists Thought That the Sun revolves around the Earth......And you were a believer then as well...I bet. Keep open attitudes to raise Your altitude, otherwise the future looks bleak! The next Einstein is around the corner...his cousin helped to chisel the granite Egyptian Sarcophagi in Egypt with a Wooden mallet And copper chisel.....Using laser cutting equipment...they do not believe that either...some hope for the truth eventually! We can hope! RDR

[@oysteinsoreide4323]

@@1SpudderR Actually I have a much better attitude towards scientists. Of course nobody can explain black holes to the fullest. They are hard to find, and if you find one, you die if you try to measure it's properties. Black holes became a theory as a direct consequence of the special relativity theory to Einstein. Of course the future scientists will find out more than the previous ones. But without those who had it wrong in the past, we would not have come as long as we have today. Better make wrong assumptions, try them scientifically, and work from there. Perfect theories never exists except if you look at religion.

[@ThuannguyenN-gp2vp]

How can you math 1+1= What's If 1 usd + 1 usd = 2 usd If 1 eud + 1 eud = 2 eud If 1 usd + 1 eud = what In this case usd represents for the objects as atomic structural space which energy can dynamic structure or transfer a part of its space but eud represents for particles structural space which energy can not dynamic it's space because it is fixed space. So the Speed of V usd + V eud violence the preconditions structural space of state of matter. That makes none sense or paradox case.

[@steve23464]

Tldr; No.

[@Tom_Quixote]

Why is she giving distances and speeds in miles? Britain is metric and has been for many years.

[@HighestRank]

11:10 “Callisto orbits at a much more leisurely pace than Jupiter “?

[@jorgkaufmann6363]

Imagine or calculate how the universe looks like from a photon's perspective. Why would you like to go faster than light?

[@1SpudderR]

To Steve C! .... Hmm.....It is inferred that as mass....goes faster...the weight? Of that mass increases! She mentioned that the Galaxy’s “spread” was Five Sixth’s Of The Speed Of Light! Then the mass...weight must Have increased dramatically? This requires More Energy to move the “spread” of the galaxies’ mass! Where does that increased Energy to push the Galaxy faster...and faster? Come from? It has been noted by general scientific reading that “The Space between Galaxies is increasing at faster than light speed! Wow..There is a dramatic impasse between how the lecturer is emphatic that “Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum!” and what is really going on in a vacuum with Galaxy separations! RDR

[@chasingdragons5288]

@@1SpudderR A photon is a quantity of energy and is not a particle or imaginary particle. The same is true of an 'electron' where an 'electron' is a defined quantity of dielectric energy. Neither have physical properties.

[@1SpudderR]

Photo Folium Hmm.....Neither has physical properties? Now that is what we should be striving to understand. The difference between physical and non physical! The difference between “wave and particle” and quantum entanglement. Conscious and Consciousness.......The Material And The Non Physical....The layer in-between the Onion, Personal Intelligent Conscious Perception Awareness. Understanding what you call “Not an imaginary particle?” These things? of non material properties in an apparent material world in a non material Universe! You are stuck in the mud of conventional not real? What concepts are holding back Attention to Attention!

[@chasingdragons5288]

@@1SpudderR Metaphysics is not something I have delved into.

[@1SpudderR]

Photo Folium Hmm....Metaphysics - now in the pursuit of what Consciousness is, as related to Conscious in our Intelligence Awareness Perception is Unlimited. It is up to you if choosing to strive into looking over the rut of Antiquated Traditions Which have gone past their Sell Bye date! Regards

[@keramidasnicolas2079]

35:50 : _"We deliberately do not attempt any theorertical or phenomenological interpretation of the results."_ I call this either pure stupidity or pure cowardice.

[@serchsource8744]

Yeah, in order to Brixit...the Brits must travel equal to the Speed of Light or else...

[@JoachimderZweite]

This ain't a rocky planet this is a wet planet.

[@danievdw]

I tried, but she keeps repeating everything. Just could not.

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

The fact that the so called "speed" of light does not depend on how fast light is moving with respect to its environment, proves that light _does not_ travel at all. End of the story.

[@JimOverbeckgenius]

Increate light is far faster than created light - i.e. - Christ's gods can outpace the sun, moon, stars etc in trans-migration into divine realms.

[@rogerfurer2273]

But Einstein vs Dayton Miller? Oh yeah, 99% consensus--sorry!

[@noihaose]

Meh!

[@exceltraining]

she looks a bit like "stands with fists" from that movie

[@jimo9555]

well spotted!!

[@keramidasnicolas2079]

_"Cause cannot come after effect."_ And these guys are paid...

[@blzKrg]

And how is that wrong, Mr. Genius?

[@keramidasnicolas2079]

I meant : These guys are paid to pontificate such evidences...

[@1SpudderR]

“A” “B”ig “B”ang is Faster than the speed of Light “C”....Otherwise we would not “A Be able to C it!” A Big Conclusion...THE ABC OF THE UNIVERSE. ! B comes before C...and that is A conclusion....before B., for why the alphabet is as it is and was before it’s Time? RDR

[@outsidethepyramid]

You've lost me

[@1SpudderR]

Colonel Walter E. Hmm..We get moments of inspiration? And put it in writing-keeping a note book by the side of the bed helps retain events from the (pre-subconscious). Science either does not know...Or more probably ignores the pre...Big Bang! So..if The “B” in the Big Bang was the a priori Of/And the event itself? Then something was before the Big Bang! That of course is up for debate...but Thinking And Up for debate are opinions! And some of us are seeking Truths...which cannot be debated! ? Although academics and intellectuals probably disagree! And that of course is up for debate! .....However..The “A” is What IS...The start of the Alphabet....And That is data....”Or The Alphabet?” And from that Data, or Alphabet, we can deduce Information, using thinking applied to that ABC..Alphabet, and access ”ideas to Explain the “A” or Pre-Big Bang Universe!” Does that help you get out of the Hampton Court Of Mazes? So if we are inclined to conquer ancient antiquated traditions....We realise that so far Science has gotten some Little way in the Cosmos of Understanding and starting on “C”.....With the rest of the Alphabet to go! And comically arrived at the Letter “C” “See” how far we have to go! ? RDR

[@johnjon1823]

Well, IF science is "self correcting" as she claims, her example being the apparent correction to an erroneous speed of neutrinos measured as faster than the speed of light, corrected in only 5 months. Well then, why is it taking so long for science to correct the erroneous assumption of more than 2 sexes? Hmmmm? I am hoping the self correcting also includes elimination of anti-male bias in her assisting people entering the scientific field. I await that self correction as well.

[@kevindog5080]

How we are ordinary star. 😂 😂 1 we are single star solar system 2 I think a stall like owl would only make up around about 40% of stars. and let's don't forget I guess giants are not near the sun 😂 😂

[@coffinman5007]

Any mechanical action is faster than light

[@metategra9798]

No.

[@coffinman5007]

@@metategra9798 if you put a pole against something and then push it what time does it take for the force to reach the object from your hand? It's instant isn't it?

[@metategra9798]

@@coffinman5007 Oh...ok...everything is somehow quantum entangled...but I quess it takes no time with spooky resonanse...but mechanical faster that light?

[@metategra9798]

@@coffinman5007 I get you...it is instant.

[@metategra9798]

@@coffinman50070.000002 nano seconds.Not faster than light.

[@jdstar6352]

Don't bother. The information is fine, but the teaching leaves too much to be desired. Sometimes it is pitched to a seven year old. Other times a college student. Nothing gels. Spend your time more wisely.

[@Scott.Farkus]

I think it's possible to travel faster than light, but you wouldn't be able to see anything traveling that fast, because light couldn't keep up with it. lol just kidding sort of. You could see it, maybe if it were going past or coming right at you, but probably not, because you'd be too busy observing something that's travel a lot slower. : )

[@1SpudderR]

Ken Quesenberry ... Hmm.....It is inferred that as mass....goes faster...the weight? Of that mass increases! She mentioned that the Galaxy’s “spread” was Five Sixth’s Of The Speed Of Light! Then the mass...weight must Have increased dramatically? This requires More Energy to move the “spread” of the galaxies’ mass! Where does that increased Energy to push the Galaxy faster...and faster? Come from? It has been noted by general scientific reading that “The Space between Galaxies is increasing at faster than light speed! Wow..There is a dramatic impasse between how the lecturer is emphatic that “Nothing moves faster than the speed of light in a vacuum!” and what is really going on in a vacuum with Galaxy separations! RDR

[@Scott.Farkus]

@@1SpudderR Were you trying to say "inertia"? In space you don't need that much energy to push things, since weight is a property of gravity it shouldn't be a problem.

[@1SpudderR]

Ken Quesenberry As the mass goes faster towards the speed of light...The back..or rear mass starts to compress and encroach on the mass in front and the mass pushing against the boundary of “light speed” becomes super heavy! In exactly the same way as if you were pushing against a rubber sheet...the more you push The boundary the more resistance..until all of the mass gets nearer and nearer light speed and it all compresses against the flat over stretched Light speed barrier! So there is the problem. Ultimately I do not think That Gravity is in the least bit understood, the same applies to mass...it is not clear what that is either....much the same as what was prior to the first three minutes before the so called..big Bang? RDR

[@marsovac]

If you were travelling at the speed of light the leght of the whole universe would be 0. You would travel the whole universe in what would account to you as "0 time passed". What would then travelling faster than light mean? Travelling the lenght of the universe in -10 seconds? Makes no sense. Like asking what is more north than the north pole.

[@Scott.Farkus]

@@marsovac At the speed of light it would take more than 50,000 years to cross the Milkyway galaxy.

[@chessdominos]

24:22 patriarch!!!

[@shark5919]

You have no idea how physics works!!!! Come on man!!!

[@luisjarillo8250]

She made a very good presentation/Lecture on the Speed of Ligjt but sadly it fell very short of showing the other side of the coin... Mainstream science will try and avoid DOGMAS but we are only Human and Dogmas do appear in Science from time to time... As it is with everything Einstien did... there is a very strong bias to ignore anything that goes against what he postulated and accept what "appears" to support him... Many good scientific work has been discarded that have found flaws in Einstein's theories and of Thories AND observations that show better answers... This will eventually be corrected when the evidence and paradoxes become overwhelming...

[@totalermist]

>Many good scientific work has been discarded that have found flaws in Einstein's theories and of Thories AND observations that show better answers... Please name one. Just one. Preferably including a credible source (scientific journal article or peer reviewed paper).

[@UKimpress]

Physics was exciting in 19th century and then Michelson and Morley ruined all the fun, on light I am with Tesla, Steinmetz and Heaviside, constant relation, all is permeability, permitivity, inertia and loss of it.

[@MarcusAndersonsBlog]

Its a shame she didn't stay in Australia a bit longer. This country's timeless indigenous people know all about time. She could have learned something. Instead what we have here is more headline grabbing garbage peddling the status quo by Academics who care more about their image than advancing the truth. The problem with all this is that her hero's (Einstein's) biggest blunder (apart from beating his wife) was persisting in the belief that the speed of causality (or Time gamma, dT) is a constant =1 so as to create a confirmation bias (circular argument) that the (max) speed of light C is also a constant. In other words, Einstein DEFINED C by assuming dT, rather than recognising their interdependence. Even though Einstein himself showed that - if C is constant then the speed of causality T changes due to general relativity - he preferred to ignore the fact that if T is not likewise held to be constant then C (which is inversely proportional to T) must likewise become variant inversely proportional to T. Consequently, while everything in this video is technically correct, it is fixated with the Academic/Einsteinian view that the OBSERVED speed of light is a constant so as to describe relativistic effects in terms of a variation in dT. It ignores the fact that this is just one of two equal models. The alternate model (my model of time) - where dT and C are variant and inversely proportional - recognises that you can actually travel faster than light at the cost of having your Time gamma slow down proportionally compared with the rest of the universe. This elephant in the room is already well known, but no reference to it here (well actually I skipped 90% of the middle). In both models however, no-one can be OBSERVED to travel faster than light, but in nether case can it be claimed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The latter is Einsteins big lie, apart from his covering up his domestic violence.

[@astrophonix]

By positing it as a 'lie' rather than even consider it could have been an honest mistake, makes you sound like a paranoid conspiracy nut with an agenda to grind. Just so you understand that when you always assume malice aforethought, it rebounds on you.

[@kerryburns6041]

Where is the proof that light travels at all ?

[@marsovac]

It doesn't. What travels is a wave that carries electromagnetic energy and light is what you measure when it transfers some of it.

[@kerryburns6041]

@@marsovac That's interesting, thank you. To answer my own question, the proof of anything scientific is confined to the framework of mathematics. Within the language of maths we can describe things and construct proofs, but we have only proved our maths to be coherent, we have not described the phenomena. Other than within the framework of maths, we have proof of nothing, gravity, light, atomic structure are all theories. If we understood consciousness, the tool we use to comprehend, we might then have a reference point from which to address what we call "Reality" but we don't so we can't. We speculate, express it mathematically and call it "Science." Which is why it develops from one fashionable theory to another.

[@petebrotherton736]

Interesting lecture but oh my, what a dreadful public speaker !

[@Tadesan]

She is such an unengaging presenter. Is she presenting to a statue?

[@b.griffin317]

the sun is not a rather ordinary star.

[@deadpanrobo]

It is, it's one of the most common main sequence stars out there next to red dwarfs

[@b.griffin317]

@@deadpanrobo 90% of stars are red dwarfs. If you're one of the 10% of a population of anything I don't think you can be considered "common."

[@deadpanrobo]

@@b.griffin317 *70% and out of the 30% of stars that aren't red dwarfs, most of those are G type stars which is what our star is

[@CandideSchmyles]

@@deadpanrobo Dont forget that its one of billions. Hard to say one of billions isnt ordinary methinx.

[@geraldweinsack5500]

At about 20:00 you did a vast mistake! You failed in calculating, thinking or speaking. First you told that light is moving 300 centimeters per nanosecond and a few seconds later it´s a foot per naonosecond. Where were you teached this? A foot is equal to 30.48 centimeters! It´s no sign of approval if you miss by a tenfold. That´s rather weak for a scientist!!! and another !

[@johnnycharisma162]

She was “teached” this the same place you were taught teached.

[@jimo9555]

I'm sure she misspoke and meant to say 300 mm