Why can't you go faster than light?

[@abdullahahmad2474]

Einstein's girlfriend, "I need two things from u space&time Einstein-"Okay what's second"

[@optimisticoutreach1236]

That's only a rumor...

[@youngbougie5560]

Damn. Savage.

[@scubaguy007]

Fall in love with physics 😏

[@fungiuse]

Einstein replied: Wait a second... I'm busy bending time!!

[@muralibanerjee5645]

I think this request from his girlfriend prompted Einstein to think of SPACETIME and not space&time.

[@VoicesofMusic]

In the faster than light world, everyone says you can't go slower than light.

[@FrarmerFrank]

They have gotten photon to go slower then light and even stand still in the lab via a strong magnetic field On the other hand they have yet to catch a tachion (?) In those giant pools of water

[@SkyRiver1]

According to this video you can't go slower than the speed of light in this world either.

[@Tinfoilnation]

Actually - that would be true. Google fodder is "tachyon" - which is a theoretical particle that, if it existed, would exist faster than light and the same rules would apply. It could not slow down *to* the speed of light just as we cannot accelerate to that speed.

[@1ch190]

@Voices of Music That's actually a hella W O K E comment man. Although, it can ONLY be argued if you are said to exist in such a state if you in a relatively stable state of energy or at a undetermined gain vs time spent there. I think there exists a base measurement to go by for the energy gain value required to maintain faster than light speeds and subsequently a factor for acceleration (I suspect it be a runaway value; because of the principle that our universe is not said to be gaining energy.).

[@StephenNeece]

einstein says a particle cannot be "accelerated" from less that the speed of light to faster than the speed of light.. however a particle could such as a tachyon theoretically could be "born" traveling faster than the speed of light.

[@benji.B-side]

The was a woman named Bright Who flew at the speed of light She went out one day, in a relative way And came back the previous night.

[@fromirene]

From a good book 😂

[@Nautilus1972]

Bravo

[@allanrichardson1468]

To her friends said the Bright one in chatter, “I’ve learned something new about matter. “For because of my rate, “Much increased was my weight, “Yet I failed to become any fatter!”

[@petetaylor9758]

There was a young fencer named Fisk Whose speed was exceedingly brisk: So fast was his action That Fitzgerald contraction Foreshortened his foil to a disc.

[@ksenobite]

@william rivera This is not true, she couldn't have flown faster than the speed of light, since it's impossible, so it must be "THERE WAS A WOMAN NAMED BRIGHT, WHO FLEW OUT THE WINDOW SLOWER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. SHE SOON LEARNED SHE COULDN'T FLY AND SHE NEVER CAME BACK HOME BECAUSE SHE DIED THE PRIOR NIGHT."

[@headholio]

The question posed for this video is " why can't you go faster than light?". The answer included the idea that our movement through space time is constant, and we really don't know why that's true. Maybe I'm missing something but that doesn't explain anything in my mind.

[@notyourtypicalwatchreview2563]

I’m with you.

[@jagrandom641]

"You cant go faster than the speed of light because you are travelling at a speed of light" really dont answer the question though

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

I think the ultimate answer is we don't know. Note that he said everything moves at a constant speed through spacetime, but we don't know why. If you are moving vertically in the graph, that speed is entirely through time. Therefore, all of your speed is through time, and that speed is the speed of time. If you are moving horizontally in the graph, you are moving only through space. Therefore, all of your speed is through space, and that speed is the speed through space. The constant speed through spacetime is the speed of light. Light, being massless, tries to travel at infinite speed, but it is constrained by the constant speed through spacetime; that's as fast as it can go.

[@numbereightyseven]

Agreed. This didn't teach us WHY.

[@JIMJAMSC]

When you hear "just trust me on this" you know quantum physics is being discussed.

[@vinaygr28]

but quantum mechanics was not involved. Causality is what drives both quantum mechanics and relativity. that's why you see people say "just trust me on this" in both cases.

[@wayneyadams]

no, what you hear is are physicists trying to explain difficult concepts to laymen without spending months education them. A video that simplified the concept you are asked to accept would be hours long and would lose most viewers very quickly. So before you make snide remarks, which 25 other people like, be sure you know what you are talking about. Here is my retort, given at the same level as yours. "When you read comments like the one above, you can be sure it is coming from a non-scientist who is ignorant of the basic concepts of physics." Now you know what it is like to be insulted.

[@vinaygr28]

@@wayneyadams a. its not offensive if my/our comments appear as "obviously not from someone with a physics background". It is an observation and an accurate one at that. b. rather than ranting about what someone else didn't do, like spend on education, try to focus on what YOU can do if you ARE someone with a physics background, like try and point us to blogs/papers/courses/lectures that have more formal descriptions.

[@alicetries5954]

@Abacus false; no ones gives a shit about what you have to say. I was actually interested. But hey maybe thats why only your mom subscribes to your channel.

[@upsydaysy3042]

@@wayneyadams I didn't read it as a snide remark, I read it as an admission that quantum mechanics is difficult. Which is a position that legend attributes to Feynman: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics...

[@RavennaAl]

The true theory of relativity is this; If you're a millionaire and you die without a will, you'll suddenly have more relatives than you dd when you were alive.

[@nelsonclub7722]

Also true if you have a no friends and then decide to get a swimming pool

[@roobscoob47]

LOL!

[@imsidetracted]

i know comedy when i see it. very funny.

[@imsidetracted]

@xc5647321 xc5647321 Same in New Mexico! Talk to some one for ten minutes and find they are your cousin. I was born there, thirty years later I moved back and yup. I lived in Florida, as south as you can get. and nope. My family didnt live here long enough. It really does show though. "It is a small world after all"

[@alisardo1119]

Mind-boggling stuff,you got to have some special brains to study ,get involved and invent & discover things.

[@1articoli]

The conclusion seemed to be, you can't go faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is the fastest you can go.

[@alfonsocantu9992]

By sight

[@GummieI]

Kinda, but not really, it was more akin to, that "you can't go faster than light because at that point there is no more time movement to trade for space movement"

[@alfonsocantu9992]

@@GummieI "True",and the sound barrier wouldn't be broken but it was so 43 million a second at the speed of "Sight",a man would be in Sun Orbit in half to second and half like I did in 1980 on the Indian Ocean at sunset.Alfonso Cantu

[@vsh137]

No, what he is saying is, you can't go faster than the the speed of light is because its the upper limit of our space time continum, or another way of saying it is, Universal speed limit. Its interesting to note that towards the end of the video, he said physicist don't know why the limit is there.

[@stepbackandthink]

@@vsh137 This is simply a proposal without a conclusion

[@peterj5751]

It’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard. I’m not sure if it necessarily explains why at the deeper level of mechanisms that make it so, but then this is something that scientists spend whole careers trying to work out.

[@dun8410]

0:54 So y'all not gonna talk about the Nigerian Prince in the e mails? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@LokeshThakur]

or the blasphemer who said Einstein was so very wrong?

[@cgaccount3669]

It must really suck for an actual Nigerian prince trying to use email

[@SinghAaditya]

WTH! I was thinking the same😂

[@Sturzfaktor2]

Hi, I'm a Nigerian Prince and I discovered this new theory of everything. Pls send moneys so that I can go public! Thanks.

[@MarianneExJohnson]

The Nigerian prince email is the only sane thing in that inbox. Fraudulent, of course, but sane. 😄

[@kth5077]

... That was a complicated way of saying, that you can't go faster than light because you can't

[@kiishaankrishnan6453]

Give this man a noble prize.

[@dabeste6163]

@@kiishaankrishnan6453 Nobel, not noble. **flies away**

[@theodentherenewed4785]

@@dabeste6163 A prize for nobles.

[@dabeste6163]

@@theodentherenewed4785 Fair enough.

[@kiishaankrishnan6453]

I'm amazed by this community.

[@leefournier]

“I am a Nigerian prince” in your email. Nice 😂

[@hemiacetal1331]

And so

[@noinfo6181]

And so

[@borhain1n972]

And so

[@redgrengrumbholdt2671]

And so

[@hariprasaddebnath1870]

And so

[@sergeipolozov4617]

So, does it mean that it is impossible to speed up an object to the speed of light(theoretically, assuming we only have an object in the absolute empty endless space) not because of an infinite energy requirement for the increasing mass(if mass is not changing - we have a finite amount of energy to apply, aren't we?), but because of an infinite TIME requirement? Faster the object goes - slower the acceleration becomes because slower becomes the time itself which slows all processes including acceleration(but energy requirement is still the same). And the whole process of reaching the exact speed of light should end at the point when the time is simply not a thing. And when the object is at this point, its own time simply does not move so the process of acceleration becomes impossible and it can not move faster than light.

[@eladcohen4039]

This video: "Why can't you go faster than light?" Up next: "How to travel faster than light" huh

[@TheTCIP]

notice the same here :)

[@Eyes-of-Horus]

When that new fangled contraption called the loco-motive went faster down the track than horses (more than 40 mph) it was believed that if anyone was inside the passenger car science said all the air would be sucked out and everyone in the car would suffocate. When airplanes began going faster and faster science said that at the speed of sound there is a barrier that couldn't be surpassed. Now, science says (mathematically, by the way) that nothing could not go faster than light. Because as the speed of light is approached the mass of the object increases preventing it from going any further. Science has been wrong before. Who knows what the actual future holds?

[@mindtraveller100]

Alex Holub You´re being scientifically dishonest. "When that new fangled contraption called the loco-motive went faster down the track than horses (more than 40 mph) it was believed that if anyone was inside the passenger car science said all the air would be sucked out and everyone in the car would suffocate." Dispite what some stupid people may have believed, science never said that. Specially since it could be easily proven wrong. "When airplanes began going faster and faster science said that at the speed of sound there is a barrier that couldn't be surpassed." Science never said that either. I don´t know if you realize that, but at that time there were already objects travelling way faster than the speed of sound. Remember, you can´t make good arguments using wrong information.

[@kevb3047]

Some of these guys have so much pride in their "knowledge" and "facts"... until a new form of mathematics is invented in a hundred years, or undiscovered forces are found, but til then, "embrace it.., trust me on this.., it's TRUE..." Here's one: "don't believe the man who CLAIMS to know the truth, follow the man who's SEARCHING for the truth."

[@Airbiscuitmaker]

Because it IS possible, however we don't have the technology for that (yet) nor is there any conceivable drive / propulsion system that creates an exhaust speed well beyond lightspeed.

[@infect6521]

0:55 "Alpha Centauri is easy" "The New Einstein" "Relativity is an Illuminati plot" "I am a Nigerian prince" LOL

[@cheesebusiness]

The Nigerian prince is awesome. He gave me $1000000.

[@cwdiode4521]

To be fair, Alpha Centauri is only a few centuries or even decades of travel away if we can get to relativistic speeds, compared to some of the other stars out there, that’s easy.

[@Sam-zw3vi]

All geniuses in a single row😆

[@erikb8877]

"Epstein didnt kill himself" would have been funny

[@GlenHunt]

My bicycle can't go faster than light because it's two-tired.

[@davidamoritz]

Glen Hunt rofl good one

[@locutusdborg126]

lol

[@yereverluvinuncleber]

You shouldn't have spokeN like that.

[@ksheer]

I dont get it

[@hugolindum7728]

Glen Hunt tyred

[@sliderule5891]

Thank you Dr Lincoln for bringing these wonderful videos to the public. So educational. Thank you Fermilab and the Department of Energy for sharing science with everyone. Enrico Fermi would be very pleased.

[@akaku9]

The email part has to be fake...it's so perfect This guy is better at making memes than all of us

[@i-evi-l]

Metric Snobbery is a real trope because they think they have it all figured out. lmao = No appreciation for measurement history.

[@swee2251]

Did any of you notice the one from the "Nigerian Prince"?

[@mrkiky]

@@i-evi-l There's a reason why history is history.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

It's definitely fake. Look at the receipt times - all those e-mails came within a few minutes of each other. He just had someone send him a bunch of mails for the sake of that clip.

[@seanstarr1003]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn w/almost half a million subscribers and videos with views in the millions, I would not be surprised if it was real, even considering the receipts.

[@jimthorne304]

"There was a young lady named Brght Who travelled much faster than light She took off one day In a relative way And came back the previous night"

[@leonardoleal5092]

Good one, mate, a very picturesque short poem

[@Muralidharan001]

You can't go backward in time.

[@MrBoybergs]

@@Muralidharan001 Apparently going back in time doesn't break any of the laws in physics; so theoretically it is indeed possible to do so.

[@aimxhere]

@@MrBoybergs But not in the way people imagine it, by going back to past events. In the understanding of physics, 'going back in time' is not the same is rewinding history.

[@MrBoybergs]

@@aimxhere well my understanding is only that resulting from a casual interest in the subject but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about multiple time-lines wether going backwards or forwards or something else?

[@PDizzleFoRizzle]

Title: "Why can't you go faster than light?" Video: Ya just can't, trust me.

[@tomboard1]

I know practically nothing about physics and I understood his explanation.

[@stu9000]

I agree. He didn’t explain why the speed of light is a limit or why it is the speed it is, but as he says I guess no-one knows.

[@eddyecho]

The reason you can't go faster is that according to the lorentz factor equation, as you approach the speed of light, the lorentz factor approaches infinity. This has many implications, including that this would mean that in order to reach the speed of light, you would need to have infinite mass.

[@PDizzleFoRizzle]

@@eddyecho That's what I was always led to believe but correct me of I'm wrong, but didn't the guy say that is incorrect?

[@eddyecho]

@@PDizzleFoRizzle well, photons have zero mass. But i assumed you meant, yourself, and last i checked we all have mass

[@AaronHOrtiz]

I am 55 years old and your explanation / analogy of the why we can travel faster than the speed of light was the best I have ever heard. Your caveat concerning the shortcomings of the analogy were most helpful as well.

[@bkbj8282]

who cares. how will this impact your actual life.

[@cayea4076]

Some people are enriched by education and knowledge.

[@samuraidoggy]

This is mostly just BS and old info. Its proven now that one can go way faster than light. This is just old religious talk with old science from the past.

[@yosoy3982]

And why can aliens run faster than light? Could it not be that our conscience is 💩?

[@rockmusicvideoreviewer896]

what does your age got to do with anything?

[@amaree9732]

I think that my car goes faster than the speed of light because when I turn on my headlights nothing happens.

[@pushtostart1377]

Daniel Clark they would still turn on you just wouldn’t see the light projecting out in front of you

[@olegasprince7256]

Lol

[@junkiemonkeyilikemyowncomm7266]

U funny as hell 😂

[@robertpatterson3321]

Steven Wright: "If you're driving at the speed of light and you turn on your headlights will anything happen?"

[@jenspedersen9138]

@@robertpatterson3321 Yes, the cops will notice you and pull you over!

[@GodsMan500]

“I’m so fast that when I turn off the bedroom light, I’m in bed before the room gets dark.” Mohammed Ali

[@menosproblemos6993]

Fear of the dark

[@petersennello813]

His room was lined with mirrors

[@jaswik2023]

@@petersennello813 won't change much

[@petersennello813]

@@jaswik2023 He used a light bulb with a thicker filament that slowly cools down

[@jaswik2023]

@@petersennello813 sure

[@nycbearff]

Why didn't anyone ever explain this to me? Seriously, it took him 8 minutes. I'm seventy f##king one and no one has explained this little fundamental, essential piece about motion through spacetime to me before. Suddenly a lot of other things are much clearer. Damn. Thanks, Prof Lincoln, you're a star!

[@johnchesh3486]

I learned that in 8th grade in my light topic sci project in gen. science class. Course I lost them in about 5' but then again biologists don't know much physics. & still ranked 8th in state in gen. science, tho. Which upset most of the class and the teachers.... I called it magic. they called it trouble making. So when many of us leftt state when getting our doctorates, they still had no idea.

[@johnchesh3486]

160 of us left Ohio with our new med degrees, over 2 yrs, 1976 ;& 77,. But they knew not why. They lost $millions in educatoin, talent and ever more in total life income and they still don't know!!

[@ventuslightning82]

Ahhhh 🤔 So that's why when I go for an hour long run, time only shows 5 minutes have gone by

[@BOBANDVEG]

Everything enlarges at that speed also

[@Godx69]

Lmao

[@ventuslightning82]

@@radkonpsygami7634 I bet you're fun at parties

[@lilliangrace9505]

lol! I know this is a humorous statement, but I like inputting so bear with me pls. Firstly, that statement refers to perceived or internal timekeeping, which is notoriously horrible for humans lol. Secondly, the velocity you would need to travel at to even vaguely perceive time dilation or contraction would be way past what a human body could bear lol, but run away flash!

[@lawman3966]

I now think I understand why my one-hour physics lectures used to last eight hours.

[@StarboyXL9]

"The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time" Ah, so that's why an hour always lasts a year when I'm exercising...

[@pushtostart1377]

Joel Gawne it’s hypothetical though because nothing moves that fast or will ever move that fast. It’s like finding an equation of how to make it possible for humans to fly like birds. So even if you found an answer that said all we have to do is flap are arms this fast to fly. It’s something that can never be achieved. Only thing that can move at the speed of light is light so in order to move that fast you would have to be light itself. So even if you gain mass the faster you move, means nothing if moving that fast only exists hypothetically.

[@ulquiorraschiffer1497]

@@pushtostart1377 I may be incorrect but gravity also travels at the speed of light, right?

[@no3144u]

@@ulquiorraschiffer1497 To add to your incorrectness, by adding my own. I think gravity is more of a field in that it happens everywhere at the same time. It just is (preparing for the "uhm actually," onslaught). :)

[@ulquiorraschiffer1497]

@@no3144u but it doesn't change the fact that it still travels at the speed of light

[@vegitoblue8249]

The speed of light is a costant and It is also the fastes you can go, so when near a Black hole when light slows down so does time

[@Paguyuban_tepa_selira]

0:55 the infamous Nigerian Prince strikes again...

[@Stillow]

good, im not the only one that noticed that xD

[@ivandrofly]

ahaha,

[@patmclaughlin107]

Theo Suharto 😂😂😂

[@EtzEchad]

LOL! I didn't notice that when I watched the video. That whole list is pretty clever.

[@PatrickMcAsey]

Well spotted! 'Hi. I am Prince Mbeki, and I am writing to offer you a large sum of money ...'

[@MLFreese]

This makes it seem like our reality is a giant game engine, and the speed of light is the speed that the CPU running our reality can run at. So, something can either sit still and run at a high fps, or move really fast and have a very low fps.

[@philharmer198]

Life . People tend to forget that without Humans the computer would never exist . The computer can't evolve on its own , Naturally . Computers need a builder .

[@ruipx]

Diarrhea is faster than light... in fact, i didn't even had time to turn on the light.

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

OMF.. divinely funny... hats off sir!

[@tiny_toilet]

Congrats. You somehow found a way to make a diarrhea joke that isn't funny.

[@nadeer787]

Nice joke bro

[@relentlessmadman]

Oh poop!

[@harrytornow3808]

Soooo, it moved only through space? (for this discussion, the distance from butt to bowl)

[@just_arpan]

Love the "I am a Nigerian Prince" cameo in the gmail inbox! 0:55

[@oluwolechaviro9937]

I only came here for this comment 😂

[@simplebike2230]

No it is ME

[@ramizr]

Haha

[@IvanSoregashi]

Even if we sit in place, aren't we moving with great speed across space, along with earth, sun and milky way?

[@GlassTopRX7]

Yes but time is relative. It's something that only has meaning when describing things that intersect in spacetime.

[@hartmutjager1430]

Yes we do ! :-)

[@linxie1216]

Yes. So the alians are experiencing different time from you do.

[@john-maryknight2012]

Ye, but not in our own reference frames.

[@anandprakash2483]

yes and that is why you are travelling through both space and time. Otherwise you would have become old and died the moment you were born if you were travelling only through time.

[@Vocademy-Electronics-Tech]

I have a slight problem with this. Let's say the car is traveling at a 45-degree angle through spacetime, as shown in the video. An observer in that car would see himself or herself as stationary. Therefore, from that observer's frame of reference, the car is *not* moving through space and time but only through time. No matter what an outside observer sees, any observer sees himself or herself as moving through time only and not through space. Do you see the problem? The graph must rotate such that any particular observer sees themselves moving only through time. In other words, an observer in the car we see moving at a 45-degree angle through spacetime will see him or herself going vertical in the graph, through time only. This doesn't change anything except the way we describe the situation. This would make time a constant from any frame of reference. No matter the relative motion, any observer will see time going at the same speed as any other observer from their frame of reference. However, any observer will see time slowing down for any object that is moving relative to them. This means that time doesn't slow down for you as you go faster; time is a constant. However, from your frame of reference, time slows down for any object moving relative to you. Am I missing something, or is this a correct way to describe the situation?

[@antifog5069]

I'm glad he moves his hands with every sentence, it really makes the information clearer.

[@ashleecadell9955]

it makes his hands age more slowly.

[@nicholaslogo2003]

Ashlee Cadell makes them shorter too

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

He's batting away the photons that are obscuring his vision.

[@6421rich]

IDK still cant understand Bernie Sanders

[@randomgrandprixrgp3440]

Trump vibes😂

[@shahanshahpolonium]

0:55 "Alpha Centauri is easy" "The New Einstein" "Relativity is an Illuminati plot" "I am a Nigerian prince" -Dr. Don Lincoln

[@cecilandrews1875]

I saw this and laughed,it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light, you would be traveling in the dark and crash.

[@picassoboy52]

Not clever

[@alphamale9814]

😂😂😂 Then may the force be with you my young apprentice 🤟🤙😜

[@PatrickMcAsey]

What a brilliant insight! This is sure to change the face of Einsteinian physics forever.

[@JasonWW2000]

Just turn on your own lights. You will see fine.

[@aa2339]

I doubt you’ll still see anything lit up ahead if you turn on your headlights, while already travelling at the speed of light.

[@smittymcjob2582]

Both the notion of space-time and the abstraction explained here are mathematical tools to better illustrate and package the concepts contained in the theory of relativity. Even though I appreciate the simplicity they bring to the subject, it is perhaps a bit of a misrepresentation to claim that an abstraction constructed to simplify the concept is the reason that the concept works in the first place. To expand a bit on the topic discussed in this video, I should say that we have no notion of the speed at which we move through time so to say that when we are at rest then we move through time at the speed of light is an artificial idea that makes sense only in the context of trying to find a framework to make sense of relativity, and so to claim this constructed concept explains why you can't go faster than light seems wrong. Neither spacetime nor the Minkowsky abstraction explain relativity but rather are mathematical abstractions to simplify visualizing the consequences of relativity.

[@philharmer198]

Smitty , brilliant !!!!! Our thinking is evolving ....

[@unbearable9770]

You can't fool me. I've seen every episode of Star Trek. The secret is to have a Scottish engineer.

[@nealsparkes4887]

Robin Allen he wasn't even Scottish

[@10p6]

Or an English one, who pretends he is Scottish with maybe a little Canadian thrown in for fun. Sounds like the makings of a crappy Mel Gibson movie.

[@roberthiggins1489]

I’m a Scottish engineer.. not that fast though.

[@worthdoss8043]

A drunken Scottish engineer.

[@ShaunBauidhNoBas]

Coz e can do the same work drunk as you english can sober

[@DangerClose13E]

I think the explanation on PBS spacetime was satisfying as well. It explained the speed of light was actually the speed of causality. Its the quickest speed that anything can react to anything else in the universe!

[@ANGRYpooCHUCKER]

@ClearPolitics Information does NOT travel faster than light in quantum entanglement. It is simply that you know the particles are connected in some way, and when you measure one, then based on the exact connection they share you know immediately about the state of the other. But no actual signal traveled between the two particles.

[@hannibal02]

@@ANGRYpooCHUCKER so you're saying the entangled particles share a connection but no information goes through this connection. Seems vague to me. Is this like a worm hole?

[@iurycabeleira7990]

@@hannibal02 nah, it has to do with quantum propreties. Basically things that are really small exist almost in a mathmatical and statistical way, so when you create 2 entangled particles all that means is the math involved is statistical probability. Those 2 particles havent interacted with anything yet so they exist in both the 2 possible outcomes possible lets say they are both up and down at the same time. But when you interact with the particle you make it "decide" wich one it is, and since the one interacted resolved its probabilistic nature into a real nature the other particle has to be in arcordance to the one interacted. Think of it this way, we tried our best to beat the rules of causality and information travel speed but the universe finds a way to make it right without breaking its own rules. This prooved that thigs can travel faster than light, but they cant have information

[@ANGRYpooCHUCKER]

@@hannibal02 The state of entangled particles can be a specific set of things that you know beforehand, if you've entangled them properly. Thus, when you measure one particle, you can deduce instantly what the other one is based on the state of the particle you measured. So, TECHNICALLY, the "collapse" of the wavefunction for both happens instantly no matter how far apart they are, but you (nor the other particle) are not gleaning new information per se. You can't transmit any useful information this way.

[@crookedpaths6612]

I went faster than light but nobody saw me.

[@rollingrocky3608]

Hahahahaha

[@LTLT900]

My farts are faster than light.

[@nikolvilla2632]

that would be correct if you travelled faster than light

[@jesuswasahermetic5871]

Well, thought is faster than the speed of light but not measurable. So, you're correct.

[@ksenobite]

You is liar, you must be Trump supporter. Nobody can go faster dan de light

[@birgitmitchell5873]

Your understanding of space time is built on our understanding of what we know now. Tomorrow we may know other things that make your explanation incorrect. This has happened in science time and time again (no pun intended). When trains were first invented it was believed we could not travel faster than 25 mph because the gravity on our bodies would crush us.

[@erictaylor5462]

There was a scene in the original Cosmos that disturbed me very deeply. A teenager leaves on his scooter for a relativistic tour of the countryside. When he returns, just a short time after he left, there is an ald man sitting where his brother was. Then they explained that the old man WAS the brother. I was about 10 at the time, and for some reason this had a powerful effect on me. They had the same sort of thing in a movie, but not quite as dramatic. In the movie this kid is sent out to bring his little brother home. The kids end up separated. The older kid falls and is knocked out. He come to some time later and goes home. The door is locked and he finds some other people living in his house. The police are called and they find out the kid was reported missing years before. He is reunited with his family, but his mother is much older, and his little brother is now a teenager, older than HE is.

[@andrewmendelson7971]

The second movie is “Flight of the Navigator”, from 1986, and it was the first time I heard of relativity.

[@ObliterateTyranny]

Movie sounds like Disney's "Flight of the Navigator".

[@SwarthySkinnedOne]

Eric Taylor That shit in the 1980s isn't original. Just a rehash of the material used in Rod Serling's original TZ stuff, and further back in the radio broadcasts of X-1 and Demension X episodes of the 1950s and further back in the Sci-fi short stories authored by obscure fantasy writers, the radio broadcasts were based on. So what else is new?

[@Jeff-xy7fv]

One of my favorite movies as a child! :)

[@sergiokorochinsky49]

SwarthySkinnedOne There are two Cosmos Series: the new one (deGrasse Tysson) and the original (Sagan). That is what Eric meant. With your logic, the only original story is Einstein's paper from 1905.

[@sweetwilliam49]

You can’t go faster than light because you can’t see where you’re going. Then you’ll hit something and your insurance will go up!

[@danpesta4220]

Mt man 1949 this comment made me laugh out loud. Thanks!

[@Tony07UK]

That comment is more easily understood than the dude waffling in this poorly explained video.

[@prathameshsahasrabuddhe1182]

Mt man 1949 hehehe

[@danceswithcritters]

and you get a speeding ticket. it's against the 'law'.

[@patrickreilly7256]

Mt man 1949 : Anything you might hit must go slower then light...All matter at light speed is light... Anything faster is the darkness...!!!

[@joezagamejr.2846]

This is excellent. Thank you for making this topic accessible to regular folks like me.

[@kidwave1]

Cant even come close to the speed of light, hitting a pebble would destroy whatever vehicle youd be riding in. End of conversation.

[@XDarkSkyX]

but wouldnt this mean that for the observer that is only going through time the person moving only through space would apear to not be moving

[@frozenmist-w4k]

Sorry, we dont serve fundamental particles A Tachyon walks into a bar...

[@charleskannal]

Ha, ha! Didn't see that coming!

[@jimmywrangles]

That made me laugh.

[@KutWrite]

Keep working on that. There is a joke there... somewhere!

[@hieudang1789]

the order of the lines is backward, is it intentional, if so then it's a nice detail

[@geraldwatts5492]

@@hieudang1789 That's the punchline. Do some research on tachyons!

[@101franny]

As a person who dropped out of high school to work, then in later life started to enjoy finding out about physics, I have to say, your videos are always ( mostly 😊 ) easy to understand, I just wanted to say thank you for another great explanation! Slainte 👍

[@stauffap]

Have you started do some math as well? (answering physics questions quantitatively)

[@101franny]

@@stauffap have you started TO write ✍️ properly yet? I can enjoy how physics work without knowing the equations, but you being a genius want to take that away from me, because of what, I’m not sure 🤔, maybe contemplate your own thoughts on that! One other thing genius, my comment was to the maker of the video, so why do you care? 🧌

[@stauffap]

@@101franny Calm down, please. I was just curious. Why do you think, i want to take something away from you? Why did this simple question from me lead to so many assumptions and so much anger on your part? I don't quite get it. Understanding/learning the math has little to do with being a genius. You'll find that it has a lot more to do with hard work/practice. A lot of physicists work very hard. Being a genius gets you there faster, but you can't avoid the hard work. So i reject the genius comment.

[@101franny]

@@stauffap my apologies, no I can’t do mathematics quantitatively, that’s why I enjoy these videos, I can grasp the concept of how physics work on a basic level, as in why gravity affects light from distant stars, etcetera, but I work so hard for my family I don’t have time to get in to deep mathematics and equations, so having sites like these is great, especially when I trust the maker of them to be reliable. I took you for a troll, again I apologise, so many people think it is cool, or simply enjoy shooting you down because they can’t do anything else. I hardly comment much anymore because of these people, I think that’s why I was at fault. Thank you for taking the time to come back and tell me! 🙂

[@gfreeman9843]

I'm going to have to watch it again 😃😃.. good for the brain to grapple with these concepts.. even if you don't really quite get it.....

[@Aceondrums58]

When I was a kid my friends and I came to a river and contemplated just how to cross it. After many suggestions they said if we wait until dark, they would shine a flashlight to the other side and I could crawl across on the beam. I laughed and replied " I'm not that dumb, when I get half way you pricks will shut the light off!"

[@nainabhatia4153]

nice!!!

[@kyram123]

You showed them.

[@guessdog4871]

When they asked his Dad, an astronaut, how he was planning to make history and fly to the Sun without burning up. His answer: what do you think I"m stupid? We fly at night!

[@Snap4WeRGodPPL]

@@kyram123 Actually, he told them. He showed them nothing!

[@coreybray9834]

Friends suck, don’t they? But, hey, I would never shut the light out on you, because I am a real pal. Honest!

[@TubeOnRichard]

As long as no one can explain why speed is set (6.45 in video) then none of it is understood and falls into the "best guess" zone

[@ashekshanto8537]

In the year 2500, I went faster than light in an experimental machine. Turns out it made me go backwards in time and now I am stuck in the year 2021.

[@bradleymilton1720]

Sounds like you going back in time and being stuck was an unintended and unforseen occurance? So what then was the actual intended function of the 'experimental machine'? What was is supposed to do? What was it designed to do?

[@ashekshanto8537]

@@bradleymilton1720 Can't say. It will create a paradox and destroy the timeline. ;)

[@bradleymilton1720]

@@ashekshanto8537 It's ok, I'll keep it a secret. Just between you and me only.

[@ashekshanto8537]

@@petere1060 Well Argentina will win World Cup Football 2022. I can't say more to preserve the flow of the time space continumm. :D

[@IlicSorrentino]

Thank you sir for remembering that not everyone is used to calculate in imperial system (SI is THE standard one...). You are very good in explaining difficult things for common people like us. I am a PE teacher with a passion for science and space exploration. Salutations from Italy, thank you.

[@KuraIthys]

Well, he IS a physicist. Even in the US, the norm is still for scientists to use the metric (SI) system. If you want to do physics, you have to know that system.

[@animistchannel2983]

Here are some simple ways to cross-reference Standard to Imperial, and keep in mind that this will be close enough for watching any popular video. People panic about being over-precise, when most measurements talked about in videos are just to give you a basic idea of scale. A mile is about a kilometer and a half, so a kilometer is about 2/3 of a mile. For any really long distances, like in astronomy, you can just treat them as basically the same unless you are actually calculating some specific orbital equation. A pound is about half a kilogram, so a kilo is about 2 pounds. Tons are about the same in either system, so don't worry about it. You can probably do "half or double" in your head in a fraction of a second if you aren't being neurotically repressed about it. A meter is about 3 feet, and it is basically the same as a "yard", and an inch is about 3cm. If you think you are imagining things any more precisely than that, you are fooling yourself. If you are too stupid to do that in your head, you probably didn't understand the rest of the science video anyway. Temperature numbers are a bit trickier in what we experience in everyday life; but in science videos, they are often talking about stuff way outside everyday ranges, so you can just ignore the differences unless you are calculating daily weather or medical data. A degree Fahrenheit is about half a Celsius, but with a zero-point about 15 C lower. So a really hot day (or body temperature) is about 100 F or 40 C, and water boils at 200 F or 100 C, and water freezes at 30 F or 0 C. For extreme temperatures like stuff happening near absolute-zero, or metal melting, or the temperature of stars, it doesn't really matter which one you think in. The point is just "really really cold" or "really really hot." Someday, maybe we will all get sensible and learn to put everything in Kelvins. For any layman watching popular science videos, that's all good enough to get the basic ideas. Anyone who is a science enthusiast will find those simple enough to learn, or they are kidding themselves about how over-precise they need to be. I've been thinking in both since I was about 8 years old, and it's really not that hard. If you already learned a second actual language, this stuff is child's play.

[@PrivateEyeYiYi]

If you want to do carpentry then you'd better know inches and feet.

[@gregbenwell6173]

yeah but when you are talking speed and horsepower a lot of times THOSE GUYS are NOT using metric at all!!! Heck NASCAR and NHRA Drag Racing in many places is still doing what science says is impossible using a 9/16 inch wrench here and a 1/2 inch bolt there and so on!!!!!! And you set forth a "basic prove of concept" to some of these guys and they will take what you design, modify it, tweak it, and squeeze ever last ounce of power out of it, more than even the most experienced engineer could have ever imagined possible out of it!!! I am not saying that the metric system doesn't have its place.....but when the United States started we didn't have anybody TELLING US what system we had to use, and we had the Imperial Measurement System IN PLACE from the start!! Heck it was the same with all the "toys" we sent over in World War I and World War II and those tanks had more than one bolt on them that was 5/8 inch or so on!! So NOT EVERYTHING is always metric, and honestly metric doesn't always work out to an "even number" either!!!! And in a lot of ways like with Volume, you get ripped off with metric because what you pay for a "liter" of fuel is a joke to what we get for a GALLON of say gasoline!!!!

[@Ed-quadF]

Ilic Sorrentino Commend you on your English. However Imperial vs Metric is not the point. Your comment matches mine however. Viva Italia.

[@georgemanka]

I like that I am travelling at the speed of light through space time, even when lying in bed watching this on my iPad.

[@just2share]

So we move the fastest (through spacetime) when we do NOT move (in space).

[@-007-2]

but you are moving through space. i fact you are moving at quite a speed. you are on a rotating planet that is also hurling through space in an orbit around the sun. In a solar system that is also moving through space... etc

[@nikolajkappel1506]

@@just2share As I understood it, according to the video, you are always moving through spacetime at the same speed. You are moving the fastest through TIME when you are not moving in space. :-)

[@richard84738]

This was way more clear than most of the fancy flashy pop science channels. Thanks

[@gauravnegi4312]

Fermilab: Why can't you go faster than light? Also Fermilab: How to travel faster than light Fermilab: I am playing on both sides so i always win.

[@dougfairbanks8055]

I missed a large chunk of this at the start when I read the email, "I am a Nigerian Prince"......just lost it slowly but surely.....thank you for that Sir!....(..& G'Day from Bunbury , West Australia). Keep up the excellent work....clarity is much appreciated!

[@gedstrom]

All those interested in time travel, meet here last Thursday.

[@JariSatta]

I overshot by 299 792 458 m/s

[@cakemoss4664]

But you didn't show up

[@timearly5226]

gedstrom Lol And don't step on any bugs! (extra points for getting that)

[@fungiuse]

I went and returned 'cause I lost one of my shoes somewhere!! ... Have U seen it along the way?

[@eddysw8549]

Ok np

[@mikeofallon]

There's nothing in the Theory of Relativity that prevents superluminal travel (i.e. it has always been travelling > C). But nothing with mass can accelerate to or beyond C.

[@ironsm4sh]

now: "Why can't you go faster than light?" by Fermilab next: "How to travel faster than light" by Fermilab

[@ogi22]

That's because physics is a bit more complicated than a box of matches;) Check out PBS Space Time: "The Speed of Light is NOT About Light" :)

[@ironsm4sh]

@@ogi22 just pointing out the semi clickbaiting titles

[@sneezymango8183]

Ironsm4sh why point it out if someone already has 4 months ago?

[@ironsm4sh]

@@sneezymango8183 Am I supposed to scroll through 4 months of comments before commenting myself?

[@peach8352]

Ironsm4sh - Sneezy knows everything and as a consequence his head fills all of spacetime. The paradox is that even with that big head he can still fit entirely in his parents' basement. His real name at school isn't Sneezy Mango, it's Sneezy, Man, Please Go!

[@ralphholiman7401]

Physicists: "Faster than light travel is impossible." Aliens: "It is until you know how to do it."

[@Vamp898]

@Enteraname Technical yes. But Humans in 1930 did know that it was possible. They could calculate it and observe it, they just didn't hat the technology to do it. There are a lot of people who say "In the past, people think we'd never fly" but that was never true. We know, for sure, that since the beginning, people where experimenting on how to make humans fly and experimenting, what was necessary to do so. So people always knew its possible to do so, they just didn't know how. That is different than the speed of light. We do know, that its impossible We can calculate and proof, its not possible. Lacking the technical skills to do something that works, and something that doesn't work are two different things.

[@SwePianoholic]

@@Vamp898 downwards is generally no problem to fly....

[@garysimpson1988]

PROBLEM IS, NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO DO IT BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. THAT'S WHY NO ALIENS ARE ROAMING EARTH EITHER IN UFO'S OR SITTING IN THE LOCAL PUB HAVING A SMOKE AND A COLD ONE.

[@ThomasJr]

go back to school, ralph. It doesn't work like that. What makes you think humans are the underdogs among the intelligent species?

[@ralphholiman7401]

@@ThomasJr Time, and our place in it. Unless you think that we won't know a whole lot more about physics in 10,000 years, than we know right now.

[@dontaskiwasbored2008]

THIS is the kind of explanation I've been looking for. Much appreciated.

[@vitorigatoni]

By far the best and simplest explanation of relativity and the connection of space and time I have heard. He knows how to get to the core of the subject. Good job! I have become a fan!

[@yupok318]

fanboy

[@TheoneGodfather]

Lol, on the right he’s got a video titled “ how to travel faster than light”.

[@MrPoster42]

The only ways we can theorize based on known science involve not going through space. But at least theoretically it's possible.

[@wayneyadams]

If you watch that video you will see he is talking about exceeding the speed of light in a medium where light travels slower, not in a vacuum. It is the origin of Cerenkov radiation which causes the blue glow around nuclear rods stored in water. By the way it is blue, not green like in the movies.

[@tomboard1]

If you remove yourself from spacetime you can travel faster than light. FTL does not use velocity.

[@Bootmahoy88]

You clearly have a deep understanding of this. You explained something commonly very confusing for people very simply. Bravo.

[@sukuna8731]

Sometimes i think that my mom's sandal is faster than light you proved me wrong thank you

[@tomastemprano]

Sandal speeds are determined by the chancla bosson. It can go FTL.

[@guysabol8743]

What we learned way back in 1970 was that a small portion of our SPEED was converted to mass, and even with a slight portion of mass involved SOL was then unobtainable. Since I am just a biologist, musician and such and NOT a physicist, things may have gotten further since then?

[@philharmer198]

Why was speed converted to mass ?

[@MrPuzzles]

Interesting thing about scientists and academics who always say you *can't* do something, or that something is *impossible*: They are *always* ultimately, eventually proven wrong.

[@crashmancer]

I've watched a lot of relativity videos (and taken a physics class or two) and this is the first one where someone mentioned that everything moves at the same speed through spacetime and "velocity" is just changing the direction of that vector. And OMG everything else suddenly makes sense now.

[@frankschneider6156]

That's why photon's (who always move a the speed of c) do not experience time at all.

[@parityviolation968]

Well, not so fast... This representation is misleading. For massive particles/objects the magnitude of the 4-velocity can always be normalized to equal c. But keep in mind that this choice is arbitrary and depends on how you parametrize wordlines. Physicists simply settle for conventions that make calculations and expressions more concise and convenient to handle. In contrast to quantum states in Hilbert spaces, where normalization is required to insure probabilities to add up to 1, there is no inherent physical necessity to normalize velocities. More importantly, the 4-velocity for massless particles traveling at c such as photons cannot be normalized because their proper time is zero, that is the time components exactly cancel the spatial components. In the rest frame of any moving observer there is no spatial movement at all. At velocities close to c the spatial and time axes in the rest frame are almost identical. In the limit of c, for example in the rest frame of a photon, there is not only no spatial movement but also no movement in time as the time and spatial axes are identical. This is also why the description of the spacetime diagram in the video is even more misleading. In spacetime diagrams we typically use units of c, which places lightlike worldlines at a 45° angle between the axes... A particle moving horizontally, that is parallel to the spatial axes (no time component) would imply moving at infinite speed, not c. Only if we used more human-scale everyday units such as meters and seconds, the worldlines of photons would look quite parallel to the spatial axes in a spacetime diagram. But that would be a just a scaling effect that has nothing to do with photons moving exclusively through space but not time. For an observer outside the rest frame of the photon, it is very much moving in time.... Otherwise its movement through space wouldn't be canceled to result in zero proper time, which is necessary for lightlike movement. The flimsy explanation in this video unfortunately suggests spacelike movement, which would violate causality and the foundation of SR. I repeat: Only in the rest frame of the photon there is no "movement" in time, but there is certainly no movement in space as well, otherwise causality and SR would be violated.

[@evanpenny348]

Bugger. Just when I thought I understood something for the first time. EVANNZ

[@kailasac6532]

After years of study... your geometric diagramme (x;y) has finally made me understand spacetime and the connection between the two 😭 cannot thank you enough, you have achieved in a few minutes what Hawkings' book did not 🌷! Mathematics rules!!!

[@mikebrunet54]

The Big Bang is not fact. Also no one measured heat in space billions of years ago. The NWO is being locked in and Satan is coming as a man of peace. Big Bang and Macro evolution is nonsense.

[@coreyham3753]

Good point

[@reevus01]

Ka-Chow!

[@alexdelara9858]

@David Mudry and that's why you are not traveling at the speed of light... you are also moving through space so time has slowed for you... for us all on Earth... and you cannot stop Earth for if it stops, you are still locked in the Milky Way which is also moving.... nothing can stop moving as the Universe is always expanding, so time is always slow than what would be if there was not speed/movement at all.

[@billsamuls7620]

the thing that is faster than light IS WHEN TIME FIRST STARTED AND KNOW

[@gunlokman]

'There was a young man called Bright, who could travel faster than light. He set off one day in a relative way, and returned the previous night! - I rest my case.

[@kuler6892]

John Cortex good job reading the comments

[@paulh7589]

WHAT DO WE WANT??!! TIME TRAVEL!! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? It's irrelevant.

[@fpvflyer4758]

Sir, THANK YOU!! I find this topic very hard to understand.... Or did, until I came across your video. You've made it so easy to understand, and I find it intriguing. Thank you so much! 🙌🙏

[@chrissede2270]

Since we are on a pebble that is moving at 1.3 million mph thru space, I would say that I wasn’t stationary even though I am sitting on my couch watching this. Moral of the story, never let somebody tell you that you aren’t going anywhere.

[@chistopherr7536]

You’re stationary relative to Earth. Obviously you’re not completely static at one point in the universe.

[@adityasinghawesome5917]

Somebody studied quantum mechanics but forgot his kinematics lecture

[@umue11]

Not thru space, but spacetime.

[@smartwork7098]

😂 nice.

[@AverageAlien]

Compared to the speed that light travels through space, we are only very slightly travelling through space

[@hiccup3.14]

"I have a physics degree, ofcourse I have problems" I was not ready for that😂😂😂😂😂

[@5daysastranger]

But we never stay still. Even if i'm sitting on my chair in front of my pc right now, i'm still moving .Because the earth is moving. And if the earth didn't orbit the sun, but instead it stood still on a fixed point in relation to it, it would still be moving; because the sun is moving. My point is that i don't get this analogy. How can i, or anything in the universe, be completely and utterly still at any given time when everything is moving in relation to something else. How can i be moving only though time when i'm never still?

[@dopessongs3635]

How do you explain this if your talking on the phone with your grandma in a different state? My voice is going from point a to b vice-versa.

[@somyakhanduri3949]

@@AelundTwitch woa you explain pretty well

[@dopessongs3635]

Wrong

[@andreasc9570]

I think the part where most people get confused is the slowing of time. When he says that everyone is travelling through spacetime at the same speed he essentially means that everyone experiences the passing of time in the same way, no matter their speed. However, from the perspective of a fast moving object, slower objects experience time faster, and vice versa. In other words, if for example a spaceship left earth now and travelled around the galaxy at a high speed, let's say half the speed of light, as far as time is concerned, the theory suggests that they would not feel or experience any difference during the travel, but when they return back they'll discover that people on earth have aged much more than they did. Which means that time has passed slower in RELATION to the time that has passed for people on earth and vice versa. At least, that's how I understand it. As for the argument that we are never entirely still, its completely true! We just happen to move faster or slower than other objects in the universe, which means that a "god" who was not bound by the rules of the universe would see us "age", for the lack of better words, differently.

[@januszwrobel]

​@@andreasc9570 I'm not a scientist, but I think you're confusing things a bit. There is no "slower" or "faster" in the cases you described. If A is "moving faster" than B, then you can as well say that B is "moving faster" than A. Speed is relative, and speed of A from B's PoV = speed of B from A's PoV. When two objects are moving in relation to each other with a constant speed, there is complete symmetry in their situation and no difference in how they both experience time. You mentioned the Twins Paradox, but your explanation is not the correct one. Again, as speed is relative, you can't explain the difference in twins' age by saying "one twin was moving faster than the other", because there is no "faster". Both of the twins perceive themselves standing still and the other twin moving with high speed. As I understand, the asymmetry comes from the fact that one of the twins massively changes their speed during the experiment, while the other's speed is roughly constant (when we ignore the fact that Earth rotates, our galaxy rotates etc). I'm unable to explain further, but I find this episode: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zpqti5KHfLJ_epI along with the whole series, to be really good at describing most of the relativity concepts, including speed of light, time dilation, etc

[@Roonayy]

I've been told that the reason is, that as you move faster, more energy is required for increasing the velocity. Then at the speed of light, assuming you'd ever get there as a non-massless object, the amount of energy needed to accelerate beyond the speed of light would be infinite. And since we could never have an infinite amount of energy, we couldn't ever reach the speed of light, let alone go beyond it. Is this incorrect or just another way of looking at it?

[@Hadrian_S]

This specific limitation of infinite energy is not incorrect. You would indeed need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light. However this is the “engineering” limitation. Something might be theoretically possible but engineering it is another thing. For instance the sun (or any other star) is relatively simple. You collect enough hydrogen in one spot and you can eventually create a star this size of the sun. Easier said than done. The engineering limitation on why it’s not possible to have an object with a resting mass accelerate to the speed of light pales in comparison to the fundamental reason it is not possible. A spaceship would not be able to accelerate itself to the speed of light because as it approached the speed of light…it itself would cease to experience time. Any occupants inside could travel for 20 billion years (from an outsiders perspective) and they would have no ability to continue to accelerate because to the occupants of the spaceship not even one second has passed. The ship is not able to accelerate itself to the speed of light and no other outside force can accelerate it either because the outside force must also be traveling at the speed of light. Once again you run into the same problem. There is no time flow to do anything at the speed of light so how can you possibly ever get there? But if you ever did get there you would be stuck forever. You’d be in a stasis for the rest of time. 20 quintillion years from an outsiders’ perspective and not even a nanosecond would pass from your frame of reference. The only thing that can free you from the speed of light would be colliding into a planet or even a speck of dust. If you collided into a speck of dust your ship would be obliterated into quarks and electrons. If you collided into a planet…you would destroy the planet. Either way you are not escaping haha.

[@Roonayy]

@@Hadrian_S I think I've heard a variation of this explanation before. Thank you. This topic is wild.

[@Hadrian_S]

@@Roonayy My pleasure brotha. Sorry if I rambled but this topic is so intriguing. I tried to tell my wife what I wrote to you but she just smiled and nodded politely. Couldn’t care to save her life lmao

[@cecilchristopher5092]

From an engineers point of view excellent explanation of the engineering problem. I'm sorry Scotty the warp drive ain't gonna work 😂😂

[@fattyz1]

What do you mean by we are moving through space time at light speed? I felt like you didn't explain that or I missed it, you just said it. When'd that happen? Where's the energy come from ? Big Bang? Is it because the universe is expanding at light speed already?

[@sweatysweatson9399]

fattyz1 yeah I also didnt get that part😕

[@arctorusmedia]

He also made a mistake at 4:50. He said when we're sitting in our chair watching the video, we're not moving through space. That's not true since the Earth and the solar system are moving through space, so of course we are.

[@timsfun6653]

@@arctorusmedia Remember, movement through space alone doesn't count as movement. Only movement relative to another frame of reference counts. It would be fair to say we are moving relative to our sun or the other planets in our solar system or anything else that exists but movement through space isn't movement!

[@michaelanthony9068]

I am not a physics guy, but I feel like I actually understood this, and that excites me. Congratulations and thank you !

[@reevus01]

Ka-Chow!

[@roberthigbee3260]

Wow, mass never changes, I had been confused. Thanks! I have 4 questions. First, please know that I now understand that it’s the Lorentz factor (1/SQRT(1-(v/c)^2)) that approaches infinity when a mass’s velocity (v) approaches the speed of light (c) and that the force acting on the mass due to it’s acceleration (a) = F = (Lorentz factor)(m)(a) and therefore, the force you have to apply to the mass as you uniformly accelerate also approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light. Question 1 - So, if space were a fluid, can one describe it as a non-Newtonian shear thickening fluid, an example of which is a slurry of corn starch and water (gooey when you push on it slowly, but hard when you stab it quickly)? Question 2 - What is the current theory about why space acts like a shear thickening fluid? Is space rippling up in front of the mass making it increasingly harder to accelerate forward or what? Question 3 - In Einstein’s book “Relativity, the Special and General Theory, A Popular Exposition by Albert Einstein”. Translated by Robert W. Lawson of the University of Sheffield (c) 1961, Crown Publishers, Inc., Paper back Edition; Original German Edition written in 1916, Part II, chapter XIX, page 65, Einstein says a body’s gravitational mass equals its inertial mass and that these masses are “a characteristic constant of the accelerated body. However, in part I, chapter XV, “General Results of Theory”, page 47, Einstein writes: “the inertial mass of a body is not constant, but varies according to the change in the energy of the body”. Just previous to this statement, on page 46, Einstein talks about a thought experiment where radiation with energy (Eo) impinges upon a moving mass. He seems to be saying that this radiation has pumped up the rest mass of the “body” to a new higher level. I assume Einstein is being consistent, but I can’t grasp what seems to be contradictory statements about whether or not a body’s rest mass can change. I realize you might have to dig through your library for this book which I am sure you have. Question 4 - You allude to an experiment where if a mass whose velocity is very very close to the speed of light were to buzz by close to the Earth, the gravitational tug on the earth by this speeding mass would just be equal to the gravitational tug of its rest mass, thus proving that mass does not increase with velocity. Was this just a “thought experiment”, or has someone done some sort of actual experiment, like maybe in a particular accelerator? In short, how do you know with such certainty that mass does not grow as its speed increases, i.e., grows by the Lorentz factor?

[@陳力歐-d2d]

I have similar idea, that the space-time itself is like a high viscosity fluid like honey, I've been learning electromagnetism, and there's concept called "magnetic vector potential",denoted by A, is analogous to the velocity of some fluid, and I think, the old concept of "aether", is not wrong, it's just "the fabric of space time " kzbin.info/www/bejne/raPamHygd7qMjMU&ab_channel=ScienceClicEnglish At the 9:30 in this video, the geodesics is constantly shrinking into the earth, it acts really like a fluid flowing into a hole The space time itself is like a 4D, high viscosity, imcompressible fluid.The electric field is the shear stress in the time direction, and the magnetic field is the shear stress in 3d space.You can go to understand the concept of stress tensor, inside the matrix, the diagonal terms represents the tension on the axial direction, while the non-diagonal terms represents shear stress on each surface. You can have a look to the EM tensor, there are no diagonal terms, means the fluid is impressible,and the magnetic field are all in 3d space, and the electric field is all in time direction. the magnetic permeability mu0, is analogous to fluidity, the reciprocal of viscosity mu, and the electric permittivity epsilon0, is analogous to the density of the fluid, rho . And EM wave is analogous to a shear wave inside the honey when you press it suddenly, the formula for wave velocity is in similar fasion sqrt(mu/rho) sqrt(1/mu0*epsilon0).

[@Zodiaczero2]

Your force equation is wrong. F= (Lorentz factor)^3 m a Answer to question 1. Inertia are not equivalent to mass at high speed. inertia also depend on a reference frame. as you go faster and faster, your inertia becomes significantly greater than your mass while your mass stay the same.

[@roberthigbee3260]

@@Zodiaczero2 - Hi, thanks for your reply. Regarding your statement "your force equation is wrong": First off, it is not my equation, it was inferred from another of Dr. Don's "Fermilab" KZbin videos, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/goWtkqiXmsuHkK8 . Per Dr. Don in this other video, as a mass's velocity increases, the "inertial mass" value, but not the actual mass, is increased by an amount that equals the Lorentz factor. Lorentz factor = gamma = v = (1/SQRT(1-(v/c)^2)). BTW, in this comment I am not using the Greek symbol gamma, but I am using a lower case letter v to represent gamma. In this other video, he writes the real momentum equation as p=vMV (time mark 3:37). At time mark 5:27, he wrote the Lorentz equation. I just watched this other Dr. Don video again and I now see that no where in it did he write F=vma. Since I am not a scholar of relativity, I looked this up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia says we are both wrong. Per Wikipedia, in relativistic mechanics, Force (F) = the rate of change of momentum (p) with respect to time (t): F = dp/dt and they write that when you correct F=ma to account for "special relativity" you get F = vma + v^3ma, where where a = acceleration, v= The Lorentz factor and where vm = the "transverse mass" (mass perpendicular to the velocity vector) & v^3m = "longitudinal mass" (mass parallel to the velocity vector). Here is the Wikipedia link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics#Force. One more thing - You did not answer my question #1 at all because my question pertains to Dr. Don's statement that mass does not increase as you approach the speed of light, contrary to what a lot of people have been taught. Dr. Don says that the force required to accelerate the mass gets bigger as you approach the speed of light and Dr. Don said that the Lorentz factor accounts for this force increase, but there is no mass increase. My question #1 pertains to the real source of this mysterious force increase predicted by the Lorentz factor. My question 1 asks if, somehow, space is acting like a "non-Newtonian shear thickening fluid". You will have to study what I mean by "non-Newtonian shear thickening fluid". In my original comment, I give the classic example of a corn starch & water slurry which behaves like a "non-Newtonian shear thickening fluid" because if you push your finger slowly through this slurry, the slurry behaves like a fluid, but if you try to move your finger quickly through the slurry, it behaves more like solid. My question one is asking if at near light speeds, space behaves this way. I do know one important thing about Einstein's special relativity. It is mainly a mathematical "what-if" exercise based on the astounding discovery that occurred before Einstein came up with special relativity. That astounding discovery was that physicists back then found that the speed of light in a vacuum remained constant regardless of the speed of the light source, meaning that if you run with a flash light and your forward velocity is V1 and you are aiming the light ahead of you, the speed of the photons, relative to a stationary ground observer, coming off of the flashlight, are not increased by your velocity V1. This is entirely different than if you tossed a ball in front of you while running, then the ball's velocity = the sum of your running velocity (V1) + the velocity at which you threw the ball away from your body (V2 relative to you). In other words, Einstein did not have the foggiest idea why any of this weird stuff he was predicting was happening, he was just finding the mathematical consequences of other scientists observations. I, on the other hand, am trying to ponder the physical mechanism behind why the Lorentz factor exists at all, which, is what the Fermi lab people are fundamentally trying to do too, but at a level many times higher than my brain is capable of.

[@AnthonyB2351]

@@roberthigbee3260 Hi, "My question 1 asks if, somehow, space is acting like a "non-Newtonian shear thickening fluid"." I've been fascinated by this idea for years and if true what bearing it can have on other aspects of physics. I've never seen anyone else mention it before. I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician so don't move in the circles where it might have been discussed. Do you have any links to more information about this? Maybe studies - research etc?

[@ivanostellato9478]

all ether is sticky, some materials stick or slow at different rates with speed, thats all, its the same properties just different time vector ratio relative difference ... i know u follow ... mass is dependent on perception which is dependent on speed and change ... if you travel steady at the edge of light speed you will slowly regain mass youve cast ... stay at that speed your mass will fade relative to other sticky objects you encounter, objects you cant ether

[@evog35viii]

If you're in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light, then go in a random room inside the ship and turn on the light. Does the light from inside the room travel faster?

[@philipdienelt]

if you left the earth to traveling at the speed of light to alpha centuri and if time stands still could you ever return? how long to accelerate to the speed of light subject to our planets G-FORCE.

[@danmoore3660]

Yes, because a spaceship can't travel at the speed of light, dork nose.

[@four_two]

No, the light would not travel faster, it's color (frequency) would appear shifted to a stationary observer outside the ship. This is called the Doppler Effect. This effect is used to determine the speed of distant stars and galaxies.

[@jeffwells1255]

The phrase "faster than light" is strictly speaking inaccurate, because it should say "nothing *with mass* can travel *as fast as* light!"

[@notahotshot]

If it can't go "as fast as" then it most definitely can't go "faster than".

[@nicocrestmere9688]

Right?!? If I record me holding a flashlight and then play back the recording but hit fast forward the light from the video is traveling faster now.

[@upsydaysy3042]

"so the comments don't fill up with metric snobbery..." Oooops, he just got me with my European fingers in the typing honey pot LOL

[@Sapeidra]

So I think in a sense this admits the metric superiority :D

[@notahotshot]

@@Sapeidra, no, it only recognizes that metric snobs *think* it is superior.

[@all-four-inches]

@@notahotshot because it is

[@turkishman92gesundheit21]

@@notahotshot1 mile =5280 👣 or 1 km = 1000 meters What sounds better?

[@cornelmasson4610]

I came here for the 60mph is ACTUALLY 96km/h comments.

[@mact5]

It sounds like the real "why" question is why do we move through spacetime at a fixed speed. I can't wait for that video in the year 2100.

[@netajibabusimhadati6745]

You said it! I was very frustrated with the explanation "just accept that you travel at speed of light through spacetime"

[@tylerdurden3722]

@@netajibabusimhadati6745 Time dilation proves it. Time dilation is the predicted decrease in speed through time. The fact that relatively predicts it accurately, and this fact is applied practically for stuff like GPS, is proof that it's legit. Without taking the time dilation into account, caused by the speed (and difference in gravity) that satalites experience, GPS would not work accurately.

[@tylerdurden3722]

@osp80 because if cause and effect were instantaneous between any distance, effects would have been able to occur before the cause. The maximum speed causality can travel without doing this, is equal to the speed of light I think it may simply be limited by the fact that causes and effects are actioned by the stuff that is limited by the speed of light.

[@GummieI]

Well he did say that we (as in no humans, not even scientists) really know WHY we move at a constant speed through spacetime, just that that is how it is (6:35)

[@shelbyz1988]

@Ashwin Mouton I think what he’s getting at is why is it the particular value of 299,000km/s. Kind of like all of the other free parameters of physics that have very well known values that we have no idea why they’re the particular value that they are. Like the strengths of strong force, weak force, gravity, etc. We know the values and what consequences they have, but absolutely no idea why.

[@chadportenga7858]

The travelling car analogy is perfect. So easy to visualize Space x Time when thinking of it as North & East. Now, what if you threw the car in reverse??? hmm....

[@Saki630]

Masinga Mbeki needs your help!

[@MegaHarko]

you sure he doesn't want to help? with like.... size-related things?

[@IVORGABE1]

Saki6

[@mosantw2014]

Cyanide reference lmfao

[@shack8110]

I don't understand the explanation why nothing can exceed the speed of light. He says this is due to "everything moves through space-time at 1 speed, the speed of light". That doesn't make sense. Also, the Universe is said to be 13 - 14 billion years old. Does this mean the Universe is the same age as it would take the Earth to revolve around the Sun 13-14 billion times? So, what was the Universe at the time of 15 billion Earth revolutions around the Sun ago? Infinite Nothingness? How does a "big bang" occur from nothing? If not nothing, then the Universe would be older than 13 - 14 billion Earth revolutions around the Sun ago, just compressed into a tiny point??

[@shack8110]

Why would only 1 Universe be compressed into a tiny point? Are we like microscopic organisms who can only see our 'observable universe' but actually our 'observable universe' is really just a microscopic portion of a larger Universe?

[@cptechno]

This is one of the most interesting shows you've done! I like it. Hermann Minkowski's intuition was so insightful and so very important to put Einstein's theory of relativity in an geometric context. I've viewed this show twice before and several months later I viewed it a third time. On the third visualization I got an idea. I would like to offer an answer to your question: "Why everything in our universe is travelling through space-time at at the speed of light?" I offer the answer: "It's a quantic property of our space-time". This is reminescent of atoms absorbing energy at specific energy levels. This my speculation here. If we think of our space-time as a bubble in a super-space containing our space-time universe and possibly many other things that are hard for us to imagine. The only way to enter our space-time bubble is to have a specific level of energy (like quantic behavior of atoms). Conversly, one way to exit our space-time is to diverge from that level of energy. Black-wholes may be one example of diverging from our space-time universe's level of energy. I am suggesting that whatever is in black-wholes is outside of our space-time universe because what's inside diverges from our universal level of energy to travel through space-time at speed c.

[@ChethanSrinivas]

Hey I thought it was an assertion that we move through space time at a constant Speed, the speed of light. I was not able to make out what he meant.

[@beta700a]

"We don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here", says bartender. A faster-than-light neutrino walks into a bar.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

M Fin LMAO brilliant

[@davidlafleche1142]

"Light speed is too slow!" "Light speed too SLOW?" "Yes! We'll have to go right to...LUDICROUS speed!" "LUDICROUS speed?! We've never gone that fast before! I don't know if the ship can take it!" "What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz? CHICKEN?"

[@offtopic5307]

I don't understand why highly qualified and talented people continue to say that we, on Earth, are stationary in space. We are in a galaxy speeding away from other galaxies, and a sun that is hurtling around the milky way, and on a planet that is revolving around the sun. We learned centuries ago that the universe does not revolve around Earth, so let's acknowledge that. Our little bodies are probably already travelling FTL even though we are sitting down while watching this video!

[@narfwhals7843]

Because motion is relative. We are moving relative to some objects and stationary relative to others. It makes no difference.

[@johngood3072]

Great explanation by Dr. Lincoln, as always. I am wondering if someone catched the funny touch of his inbox's message list (0:54). Very hilarious message subjects, including a nigerian scam prince letter! 😂

[@nmklpkjlftmch]

I was wondering what the Nigerian prince had to offer, unless he was also writing to say that Einstein got it very wrong.

[@SJR_Media_Group]

Dr. Lincoln, thank you for that easy to understand explanation about the Speed of Light. Your example of North / East and the Vector the car is traveling makes sense. By substituting Space / Time, something that was hard to comprehend became much easier. I understand this new concept and will forever forget about increasing mass relative to speed as I was taught years ago.

[@keithw4920]

Now I am thinking, the axis representing light makes sense if it goes from 0 to C and you can have it in m/s kph etc etc. But for time, what is the scale? What is the speed of time? Is the time we are experiencing when at zero velocity the maximum possible? Also, light can go in multiple directions, can time also do that? I like that graph but now I have more questions!

[@SJR_Media_Group]

@@keithw4920 Makes you more appreciative of scientists. I need to watch again.

[@reevus01]

Ka-Chow!

[@SJR_Media_Group]

@@reevus01 Thanks. There are 2 kinds of science oriented videos on KZbin; PhD level geared to other PhD's. Then there are programs like this, he uses everyday words where possible to explain very technical and theoretical Physics. I was (still am) a Math, Physics, Chemistry, Space, and Science geek. Sometimes even his 'simple' examples push me harder to understand. I got straight A's in High School and College. I'm certainly not dumb. But compared to him, I am but a student still committed to life long learning.

[@SpikeDonkin]

@@keithw4920 The axis does not represent light. The vertical is time, and horizontal is space. The scale on each axis is the speed of light. The space axis ignores the three dimensions of space, they are all rolled up into a single dimension of space to simplify things. We travel through spacetime, the combination of space and time at one speed, c. If we travel faster through space, we have to trade off an equal speed through time and vice versa. So if we travel through space at the speed of light, our speed through time is zero, and again vice versa. So our speed through spacetime, the combination of space AND time is always c. Hope that helps.

[@robertmartin1116]

0:57. That Nigerian prince must be going super fast.

[@cosmodeus1720]

Hello, I am a prince from one of the stately houses of Romulus. Unfortunately, my father a great Praetor died and the Bank of Remus is holding all of his possessions until I am able to pay off the death tax on the inheritance. For a donation of 300 bars of of gold-pressed latinum, I will send you my father's secret formula for trans-warp travel. Please transfer all funds to Quark's Bar, Deep Space Nine. I will reply to you as soon as the transaction is complete.

[@joesuss4669]

LMAO

[@lewisxavier8802]

Very perceptive of you. And what is all that junk mail doing in his primary folder... And who in the world is Millicent Scoggins?

[@beenaplumber8379]

@@cosmodeus1720 Oh I suddenly miss Quark's Bar! Nicely written :) I still feel nerdy, but a little less dorky, for having paused and read his inbox! It reads like a YT comments section on any science video!

[@Deontjie]

Mbeki is the surname of one of our previous presidents. Before Zuma stole everything.

[@CowTownKings]

It took me a long time to get this one, but it blew my mind once I got it! Thank you!

[@izimiger8924]

Wow. Simplest, most straightforward, and practical explanation I’ve heard regarding this! Bravo! Why can’t physics be taught like this? 🤦🏾‍♂️

[@BruceSeesall]

Hey Brother much respect from Canada. Great stuff man.

[@sythlorde]

please come listen to some of My sci fi you will love my a i video it will shock you

[@seemlyme]

6:10 Einstein did the first discovery of time can be slow down

[@masterpainters1706]

Brilliant. That's the best and most understandable way I've ever heard that. Its the first time I have been able to explain it to my partner. Subscribed

[@phildavenport4150]

A very lucid and captivating exposition, thanks. However, you won't capture the flat Earthers - they believe that we can't go faster than a horse and cart. And that we can't see any further than our back fence because, well, reasons. Perspective, I think it was. And their Sun never sets, it just gets smaller and smaller as it moves away from us.

[@SevenFootPelican]

Thank you so much, Dr. Lincoln. Your videos are so helpful and have helped me gain a more complete understanding in some key and fundamental concepts in physics through the consistency of your presentations. I also love how you make sure to include other videos linking to the content in the current video. It's taking me down a wonderful rabbit hole of knowledge!

[@johnpillay66]

Qk

[@emmanuelkoutsoudakis4614]

Love

[@yosoy3982]

And why can aliens run faster than light? Could it not be that our conscience is 💩?

[@wayneyadams]

One of the coolest comments I saw, decades ago said, "As your speed increases, you trade space for time." In other words, time dilates while length contracts.

[@yingyang1008]

lol, such nonsense

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

You mean like a wave flattening?

[@edwinbrown2465]

@@The1stDukeDroklar It's amazing that you connected this to frequency. “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - Nikola Tesla

[@The1stDukeDroklar]

@@edwinbrown2465 i agree. I call it a wave form but what is a wave form but a frequency. Props bro or sis ya never know lol but it's nearly irrelevent. What's relevent is the being within the fleshy "Cars" we operate or "possess" in this dimensional plane.

[@chrismazz6130]

That’s what she said.

[@rkrabindragon5326]

the relativistic causality is what prohibits matters or a particles to gain a higher velocity than speed of light as it violates planck's 7-dimensional analogy of equiplanar cosmosis thereby implying the time dilation along with sub-atomic quantum super positional entanglement and I dont know wtf am I talking about but just realising its too freaking hard to pose as a physics nerd when you don't know anything.

[@allenhelmer8418]

That's the problem. Physics is actually really simple. It's because scientists have been trying to make wrong theories work that it gets enormously complicated.

[@arjanstam78]

"Physics is actually really simple." Alas this doesn't in the least mean that it's easy to discover that simplicity...

[@0623kaboom]

if that was true then you could not split light apart because to do that you must either slow down or speed up light ... and if light is constant then that would not be possible .. but as light is variable it is therefore NOT a constant and therefore can be gone faster than .... only the einstein special case physics uses it as a limit as it assumes light speed is not affected by other forces ... but astronomy has proven that light bends (lensing effect) and the basic prism that splits light ... done by slowing light allowinig it to bend ... . but this is not seen as possible as the current physics taught uses the einstein special case as it's test bed and therefore is limited to just 2 dimensional physics ... and has little to nothing to do with real world physics

[@MT-oh8vi]

Everybody knows that!

[@kienhsi9522]

That's the most complex thing, making them easy.

[@CryptoBlockchainTechnologies]

You can’t go faster than the speed of light because we live in a simulation, you should theoretically be able to go as fast as infinity.

[@Bender13]

I remember having a discussion with a group of my friends about 60 years ago on why we can’t travel faster than the speed of light. We came to the conclusion that one other reason for this concept is that , as you just mentioned, everything is traveling at the speed of light. In other words, so are the atoms and other subatomic particles that make up our world….especially us. To go faster would mean you are now exceeding the speed or equaling the speed of these sub atomic particles which would now start to drift apart and you would then cease to exist. Hey….I was a nerdy 12 year old back then and this theory made a lot of sense to us.

[@jursamaj]

In 1 year, a light beam moves 1 lightyear of distance and 1 year of time. In that same year, a stationary object move 0 distance and 1 year of time. Clearly, they are *not* both moving at the speed of light. Don's analogy is terrible.

[@-cj-4065]

@jursamaj; maybe you should give the video one more spin, you seem to have missed the core point

[@jursamaj]

@@-cj-4065 Pretty sure I didn't, but go ahead and enlighten me.

[@shaadydog1]

@@jursamaj in the context of the space what objects are truly stationary?

[@jursamaj]

@@shaadydog1 Doesn't matter. The object can be moving at any arbitrary speed you like (less than c, since it isn't a light beam). It still isn't moving the same speed as the light.

[@russellcannon9194]

Excellent video. The simple fact that everything moves through spacetime at one and only one speed brings it all into focus. Thanks for that. Cheers, Russ

[@adamsamuel6394]

Russell Cannon can u solve the equation E=MC^2

[@DarkFox2232]

He did explain phenomenon wrongly, that's all. He did explain that for external observer (owner of clock), his clock slow down on its internal time as they move faster. That part is correct, but rest is bogus. If you are clock capable to measure your path, then you can measure your speed since speed is derivation of space through time. Now, You move at some relatively slow speed and it takes you certain amount of time. As you move very fast (for external observer at least -> which is actually tragedy of modern relativistic religion), your internal time slows down to almost complete stop. => But Hey, I am still that clock, I just traveled 200,000,000 m but it took me from my slowed down perspective only 0.15 seconds. For monkey man outside on dummy planet called Earth, I did travel at 200,000,000 m/s. But As traveling clock, I actually moved at 1,333,333,333 m/s which is 4.4 times speed of light. (That's if we accept speed of light as finite.) And then there is another look on statement: "You can't move faster than 300,000,000 m/s!" Proper answer is: "In what direction."

[@ashokjadhav9904]

Tony Piano Good question. But consider, that the displacement, or the rate of displacement , speed is always measured in a frame. That is , with respect to some stationary object compared to the moving object. If you want to measure the displacement or the speed of this moving object, you have to compare it with the stationary reference frame. When you are sitting, you are stationary wrt to earth surface.

[@gteaz]

Even time slowing down is incorrect too. Time doesn't slow down, you're going from A to B faster.

[@outbackeddie]

Muhammed Ali used to say he was so fast that he could turn off the lights and be in bed before the room got dark.

[@MattWhatsGoinOn]

I knew a guy who said his apartment was so small that, when he opened the door, the light went on - like a fridge.

[@yogioto]

Well depends on where the source of light is positioned I'd say. He could theoretically do it ;)

[@meadowsmydog]

Maybe...60 years ago, when I was just a little kid, I remember the incandescent light bulb in my room took about a second to become completely dark...

[@Horusaem]

@@yogioto I would just say that his lamp had a huge condensator and it took time for it to be depleeted

[@mrGoesto11]

G@@MattWhatsGoinOn

[@AlaskaSkidood]

Is the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime the reason time only moves forwards - or at least the reason we can't travel backwards in time?

[@philharmer198]

Explain what " hyperbolic geometry " means , to you . Otherwise No . You can't distort Space . You can't shrink nor expand space . Nor time . Time its self , in and of its self , is not a true dimension. Space has three dimensions of volume . The volume of space never changes ,( No matter the energy and matter in space ) in the Universe . There is no real geometry to space nor time . Mathematically but not in reality . Space is not a thought concept . Space is real . Look around your environment . Time is a concept derived from movement . Time does not cause the movement . Time is not a real dimension . Time can not , in and of its self , create energy , hence mass . Time can not create a physical thing , of any kind .