Why Can't Physicists Actually Measure The Speed Of Light?

Subscribe to my channel - bit.ly/ReYOUniv....
Why is it impossible to measure the speed of light?
What is the speed of light in a piece of sugar?
Can light be slowed down?
Why can't you move faster than light?
…or can you, after all?
RYV Team:
Voice Over: Kent Bleazard

[@kennyrosenyc]

If you take a candy bar and put it in a microwave so that it does not rotate and microwave it in short bursts until it is just about to melt you will find small regular soft spots on the candy bar. If you measure the distance between those soft spots and then convert that distance into meters and multiply that times the frequency of the microwave converted into hertz you will get a number that is pretty much exactly the speed of light in Earth's atmosphere. This is because all parts of the electro/magnetic spectrum move at the speed of light and microwaves are a part of that spectrum. In other words, you don't even have to be a scientist measure the speed of light.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Are microwaves the same frequency as visible light? And is a candy bar the wave or the medium in this case?

[@kennyrosenyc]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 SciMan Dan does the experiment on his KZbin channel. It's very interesting. But no microwaves are not the same frequency as visible light, if they were they would be visible. LOL In fact they would be light and not microwaves. Radio waves move at the speed of light as well. All frequencies of the electro-magnetic spectrum move at the same speed. And that speed is the speed of light.

[@tomholroyd7519]

You are always moving at the speed of light through time. (Your motion in space is negligible). Everything everywhere is always moving at the speed of light through spacetime [The speed of light is the same as the speed of time]

[@woodlawnfinest86]

I see we have plain common sense!!! 😂😂😂

[@woodlawnfinest86]

All the way down to a nano world. Time moves slower which means light travels slower there than it does in our world and light moves faster in space than it does on Earth because in space time is endlessly moving which means things move so fast that anything in it’s surface in our eyes it’s floating or moving extremely slow. Light and time moves so fast in space we instantly freeze and die!!!! Because our body it’s can’t get up with the speed. Light will never reach the other side of space because again space is infinite therefore so is light!!!!

[@clintonhowe88]

Actually no. You travel thru time at a rate of 1 sec/sec.

[@GLORYZONE92]

That's a fried statement at the end of what you've said

[@darrenhenderson6921]

I was taken away only to realise it was a crappy magician

[@stephen7774]

The speed of light is limited because it is really the speed at which the aether spins which counts. Thus, if you are travelling in a spacecraft at 50 % light speed and shine a torch forwards the light can only still go at the speed of the spinning aether which is light speed. Hope that clears things up.

[@theoneway22]

I was once a part of a long wave for 8 minutes at foxboro (gillette) stadium.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

I hope you didn't experience any interference.

[@JungleJargon]

Actually GR requires a variable speed of light depending on the amount of gravity there is. The parameters to measure light’s speed change so light’s speed itself changes. It’s not complicated. The combined effect of time speeding up away from the center of a galaxy according to GR while the measure of distance increasing away from the center of the galaxy according to GR makes causation much faster. This is the reason for faster than expected motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies and superluminal motion appearing to be faster than the speed of light while maintaining the speed of light because causation itself is faster. It’s also the reason we can see distant starlight in 6,000 years because light travels faster between galaxies where there is very little gravity to slow it down.

[@markrowland1366]

Electrcity, being the moveing electrons, travels at walking speed through a wire. The electric field is what you observing at light speed.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

You are absolutely correct. Electrons in a wire travel like 1.2 mm per second.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

True that. At least from what I got from EE college.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Often in basic layman electronics theory explanations they will over simplify things for the sake of visualization. I have done it myself but these were for training people for a job in the electronics industry, not theoretical physics so it didn't really matter. If anything it would just add unnecessary confusion... but those interested into delving deeper into theory were suggested where to research.

[@JoeBlowUK]

All those elements that were close to each other at the point in time of the big bang, then in a split second found themselves millions of light years away from each other, say: Hold my beer.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Yes the expansion of the universe is said to be faster then light speed but expansion is not an object, it is an action.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

In short, relativity.. remember what he said lol.

[@kruz2582]

35:00 Assumes the orientation of Space and Time is perpendicular to each other. How do we know that? It seems to make sense, but it operates on an assumption. 50:34 Information is theorized to move faster than the "speed" of light if the theory of quantum entanglement proves true.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Time and space are not perpendicular to each other. Space is in a sense a sentient substance and time is not. If time is passing or flowing we would be able to detect it. Marrying space with time is absurd. It is like mixing water with the idea of dryness.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

From what I gather quantum entanglement doesn't involve the transfer of information and it is theoretically impossible for it to do so. But I understand why it could be implied. This is next level shit heck even Einstein called it spooky action at a distance.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d You need to do more research. You are essentially trying to debunk Einstein here. Now if you can show your work and it has credibility and peer review there might be a Nobel prize waiting for you. KZbin physicist.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306 I don't need a Nobel prize. I already got a noble prize for being a physicist; what causes the speed of light? What is the definition of time? Link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKSyk5RoqtWfoNk

[@stephen7774]

The synchronized clocks have the same time. One clock moves away but it has to move through a medium. This medium is called "the aether". The aether causes some friction on the moving clock's mechanism which slows it down slightly. Thus, as the second clock moves away it's time slows down. Problem solved and logic maintained.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Once I hear that the narrator say the nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri but later on he corrects himself and says nearest star to ours. The nearest star to us is our Sun. But a big blunder is at 50:27 minute. It is not CASUALTY violation but CAUSALITY violation.

[@jonnylightbody301]

Biggest blunder is he's wrong. I have watched scientists use the biggest slow mo camera in world it's on slow mo guys channel

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@jonnylightbody301 I see. Good point.

[@claudecahen6780]

I think that the question of the possible speed difference in a back and forth travel of the photon has been resolved by the notion of isotropism of the electromagnetic waves.

[@d3vilman69]

44:10 For me this is the most valuable part of the vid. I always suspected from pilot's point of view it won't be the way star wars depicted where the points of light representing stars suddenly become streaks of light going towards and past the spaceship. I think this part wow-ed the audience that first witnessed it because (probably) no movie has done it before. Spectacular but scientifically inaccurate. Many documentaries on cosmology always show stars as light points moving slowly towards and past you/camera as if they are clouds outside a cruising commercial airline. It just doesn't make sense.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

Another problem I believe is that at higher speed oncoming light will be blue shifted so much so I believe that we wont be able to see it at all. Perhaps we can see some radio signals in stead.

[@FlashGameReviews]

You could fix the problem of the 2 timers syncing by syncing both timers in the middle then moving them equal distance to both ends

[@noturaveragejoker7367]

Because WE are IN IT 😮

[@jesusaguilar-sanchez8336]

What about putting the light shooter in the middle but putting one receiver just longer to exactly see the time it shows receiving the signal and do all the math then would that make a better speed accurate calculation??? Of light???

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Good idea but still the two measuring devices would be at a distance at which two points of rest of the devices would be relative to each other.

[@yolofullsend]

To maintain clock synchronization, you could synchronize the clocks in the middle and move them both apart from each other at the same speed.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

Doesn't that assume that we are at a total stand still. If both clocks are already moving at some speed in the same direction I don't think it would work.

[@orinhickman1721]

I postulate that consciousness may traverse spacetime at the speed of light, which could elucidate why the speed of light remains invariant for all conscious observers across every frame of reference. In this framework, light itself does not traverse space in the conventional sense; rather, each observation point within the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is encountered by consciousness. This can be likened to fast-forwarding a movie: the perceived acceleration of the video is not due to an increase in the playback speed, but rather a modification in the rate at which each frame is observed.

[@RomeoPavo]

How can a body with different masses or weight travels horizontally or vertically with a tremendous speed equal or nearly equal to the speed of light

[@johnhodgson4216]

you can measure the speed of light, just split the beam and have detectors at both ends of the beam measure the different in detection and sync the clocks to all three points.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Can't be done. You can never synchronize clocks by sending in impulse to both of them because by moving one clock from the other you made a relativistic move.

[@stewiesaidthat]

E=mc. Mass converts to energy with acceleration. Once the mass reaches c, there is no mass left to accelerate. You can't go FTL because mass becomes light with Acceleration. And light cannot travel faster than light. That is why it is the cosmic speed limit.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

A bit confusing but you are on track.

[@jesusaguilar-sanchez8336]

Wouldnt the picture be of 4 years ago or the time it was for the person who took the picture not the same instant it was taken????

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Good question.

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Time flies like an arrow - Fruit flies like a Bananna (Basil Brush).

[@primusstovis3704]

Boom Boom.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Time does not fly nor does it move and has no arrow.

[@primusstovis3704]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@primusstovis3704 Give me the definition of this illusion.

[@primusstovis3704]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d The illusion is that you think that it is real.

[@christophergame7977]

When someone uses the phrase form 'beg the question' as it is used here, one knows that the user doesn't know the original meaning of the phrase. Newspaper reporters do it routinely.

[@mackellyman5642]

Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it.

[@christophergame7977]

@@mackellyman5642 "Assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be proved, without arguing it" is the present day newspaper-reporter meaning of the phrase, but not its original meaning. The Latin was 'petitio principii'. Originally it meant what it said, 'prematurely asking the principal question, without having presented the basic preliminaries for the principal question'.

[@BabyOxide]

what if the medium for electro-magnectic is the fabric of space time ?, what u cannot see or measure does not mean its not there... what if there is something there, and we can simply, passes thru it... and take it for granted ? ....

[@curtcoller3632]

All right. Just - forgot Einstein - "all is relative". So if you talk about "speed" you always need to add "relative to what".

[@Mysteries-revealed]

So you can't evenly space out sensors from here to the moon, quantum entangle to various sensors on earth for moment of light departure and see exactly how fast light travels through all sensors that are evenly spaced out?

[@FloydMaxwell]

5:48 - "the ether was brutally disproven" -- except...you can't "prove" a negative

[@babzfadipe7841]

They call it quantum now

[@zoot4]

light waves do travel through a medium its called dark matter

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

I thought the same.

[@scottbutler3317]

It’s because energy is spinning poles Polarity Negative positive negative positive and so on As all space is curved As what you call light is seen to travel you are seeing the motion of polarities as it changes what you are actually observing is pressure or a pressure wave Moving away from what crated it you for instance light takes on the vibration and frequencies or impression of what it touches Because its vibration And pressure of energy moving through a field of energy that is determined by the gravitational force At the distance from the masses centre As gravity changes on a Golden mean spiral 🌀 And changes again as it passes the threshold and this is reversed when it heads towards mad once again So basically it speeds up as it leaves mass and slows down as it moves towards mass It mathematical Gravity can be calculated using a + b = c if a is ground level And is seen as a sphere its radius is a The golden mean spiral 🌀 Where it intersects the radius line You calculate the difference The speed o fight is the speed of the energy wave as it travels through the gravitational gearing Like stretching the skin of a Balloon 🎈 Water pressure is another example Of the same principle As gravity Metatron Fish Amen 🙏

[@FloydMaxwell]

9:00 - "we call it the speed of light because that was the first thing measured" Right. Clearly it is the speed of the medium. The ether.

[@babzfadipe7841]

They call it quantum bath

[@buffalobill3426]

Single photon thought experiment is a really cool idea

[@mmenjic]

0:25 speed of boing relative to what exactly is lower than the surface of the Earth at the equator ???????????????????????????????????

[@curtcoller3632]

51:00 :) This is NOT a paradox. It's in fact the only reason why Einstein claims you cannot travel faster than light. But he forgets again - his own statements - "all is relative". What we "would see" on a planet 5 light-years away from earth is simply the light reflected towards us 5 years after the moment it left there. Okay? Well what we don't see is what happens there now. If we had a super telescope showing the people in a city driving the streets and a car accident - that happened five years ago. But it is completely false that we could "warn" the drivers if we would be able to travel to this planet with "light speed" and land at that location. First: because we don't know it happened; Second: because we would arrive too late. Only if we could travel faster than light AND would have seen the accident in our special telescope, only then we would be able to warn them. But that is not "a time machine". A time machine would allow us to get there - see the accident - travel again - and then warn the people. Do you see the difference? No paradox.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Mind blown. The only logical solution to any paradox in this context is to accept that multiverse is real and is a thing. However, I can't confirm if there is any power that can force the universe to be logical about everything. Or even anything for that matter being a human construct.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Just like I don't think there is any power that prevents coincidence. Or if there is I don't see it.

[@mrcleanisin]

So, can you show a demo of speed of light vs speed of stick ringing a bell on the moon? Let the stick be stretched from earth to moon and the laser be located on earth. Now switch on the laser and push the stick at the same time. Which one will hit/ring the bell on the moon first? No need to search for an Internet answer; there is no response to this question.

[@grimmmetals5290]

Could'nt you sync the clocks in the center and then have them both move an equal distance apart at the exact same rate before doing the experience? Time dilation would now be affecting them at the same rate, negating one being off, right? 🤔

[@hellraiser7118]

You still would be forced to assume that light speed is constant, that there is no fluctuation in the round trip speed, because as of now its very possible light could travel faster one way than the other, as long as the round trip speed stays “C” , physics does not fall apart. Knowing its one way speed needs to be known to perform an experiment like that

[@Andy_Mark]

We are moving through time at the speed of life. 😊

[@williamwalker39]

The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *KZbin presentation of above arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZazlX1tq7iErLM *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

I have red your explanation before and have thought about it a lot. It gives me a problem as farfield is different according to frequency. A signal at very very low frequency would then be able to send information instantly to a far away position. At 1Hz it would be close to 300,000 km.

[@williamwalker39]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Yes, the nearfield can extend to astonaumical distances, but at the expense of data rate. For instance we are in the nearfield gravitational effect of the sun, and the gravitational force points directly at the sun. This enables the earth and the planets to have stable orbits, which is what we observe. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then this would result in a force tangential to the orbit causing the earth to speed up and eventually spiral away from the sun due to conservation of angular momentum,, and this is not observed. Simone LaPlace noticed this in the late 1700's. Clearly information about the Earth's position relative the sun is being communicated by the gravitational field in this system, but it is not much information. But as observed by the LIGO interferometer farfield gravity waves propagate at about speed c and they contain more information about the source. The same is true for an electric field, since both gravity and the electric field follow a 1/r^2 law, which is independent of time (ie instantaneous). And this has to be correct since we use this simple law to accurately track rockets, asteroids, planets, and the stars. But the effect is localized to the nearfield, and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes exactly speed c even at extreme astonaumical distances. Setting the wave equation =0 is boundary condition only valid at infinity. To analyze the speed of the field, one must set the wave equation equal to a source. As I mentioned my post, the reason the instantaneous speed of these fields is fundamentally due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that ∆x ∆p

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@williamwalker39 I have just had a look at the pdf telling about the experiment (apparently) seeing the same signal from both the transmitter and the receiver at the same time. I am still sceptical as I can see the signal being reversed which could mean that it is the oscilloscope frame that is picking up the signal on the second probe. This signal would of cause be much weaker than the TX signal but I am sure that there would be one. The real signal should then come a little after 5ns (5ns for the distance from TX to RX + 2.5ns in the cable or there about in both cables). The signal will take about 2.5ns (at least) from TX to the oscilloscope through the cable and about the same through the air. It should take another 2.5ns to get to RX. Then it should take another 2.5ns back through B cable to the oscilloscope again. High powered electronic noise signals have a knack of getting in any where is my experience from working with electronics for the best part of 70 years with big computers, radio, television and radar. A simple metal screening as around a coax cable doesn't stop all electronic signals. I think only a dead short does and even that I am not sure about as we can have a current at a point without any measurable voltage at that point. I do not know if I am right or wrong. I could do the experiment myself if I had the spark transmitter. The receiver could really be anything metallic. I am not that good at mathematics although through my engineering education I did learn most of it. I see things more visual in my mind instead of through using mathematics.

[@williamwalker39]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done origionally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve, showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.

[@williamwalker39]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Hi. The signal we saw on the receiver channel was clearly the only signal. Of course ground coupling between the 2 channels is a possibility, so we checked this by using 2 separate synchronized oscilloscopes with no common ground. See the text just before section 3.1. It should be noted that a lot more measurements were made and are documented in the URL at the bottom of page 7. Of course such an experiment needs to be checked and the results confirmed by many independent researchers. Note that we mentioned in the paper that this is the 2nd time this type of experiment has been done, which was done originally by W. G. Gasser in 2016. The experiment is very simple and very easy to reproduce. We encourage researchers to reproduce it and check the results for themselves. It should noted that this is not the only experiment to confirm instantaneous electromagnetic nearfield propagation. In the other experiment mentioned in my post, a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 dipole antennas, and the phase difference was observed as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results matched perfectly with electrodynamic theory, and showed that the phase shift is nonlinear in the nearfield and linear in the farfield. The curve also had a clear minima in the nearfield. Applying well known relations for the phase and group speed that are proportional to the slope of the curve, showed that they are both instantaneous in the nearfield and approximately speed c in the farfield. Another researcher, Hans Shantz, did the same experiment and got the same results. See my paper on virXia. Again this is a results of 30 years of work and it has been checked by the best physicists, starting at ETH Zurich for my PhD thesis in 1997, and no error has ever been found. The results have been checked experimentally, theoretically, and numerically using RF simulators. The results are always the same. The nearfield is instantaneous and the farfield is approximately speed c. I do not think the results are in doubt, because it has been checked in so many different ways by so many different researchers. But the question now is what does it mean? I have given my conclusions in my post. If the speed of light is not a constant then Relativity and any theory based on it is wrong.

[@CommackMark]

A spacecraft is coming back to earth at less than light speed. We see it come and land and we greet the astronauts on the landing pad.... they hand us a space souvenir they collected on the journey.... all is normal. All that we saw ....from their approach to earth to their arrival on the landing pad was the light reflected and/or emitted from their craft as it reached our eyes and instruments on Earth. Now imagine same scenario but this time the spacecraft approaches earth at greater than light speed. The astronauts land on the pad and hand us the souvenir even as we still see their craft flying through space towards earth....because afterall they were traveling faster than the light that we see from their spacecraft. So they arrive and hand us a souvenir even while we see them still traveling through space towards us. Makes no sense and conclusively is why faster than light speed travel is not possible.

[@als2cents679]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2jFeIOhgd-krJY The video has a bug here. It shows 50 km/h speed both North and East, but it should be 50/sqrt(2) km/h in each direction by vector arithmetic. Would not have said anything, but considering that this is a science video, I think that needs to have been shown correctly.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

You are correct. By vector it is precisely 35.35 km/h. There is another bug; at 50:25 he says ''causalty''. It should be causality. I have different ideas and propositions about this video. I shall return to it and write more extensively on this topic in general thread.

[@davehoward22]

Seen the slo mo guys actually photograph it

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

Have they done it 2 directions or just the one?

[@angryhedgehoglee6363]

"Relative to" says it all.

[@SeiroosFardipour-wf4bi]

Nothing moves by itself light travels through (something)without a medium nothing could be, precisely what has no Medium is the intelligent beneath and beyond understanding,inside out of what we postulate as reality,what intelligent is motivating atoms, Occam's Razer tells us what motivate a motif is the third relation that can not be showed,alike Wittgenstein theses in languages.

[@thegreyhound1073]

The speed of light is the speed of light because I said so. I didn't know what that meant when I was a kid, and I still don't know what it means when I tell it to my kid. I think that's what I learned. I'm not sure, better watch it again.

[@chrisdemin9733]

Me at the equator Rn chill'n!

[@Grampa84]

What is wrong with synchronizing the clocks together, moving one to the other end and doing that a few times to be sure we know how far off the clocks move from synchronized. Then just adjust the clocks by that much since we know that amount of difference is from our physical movement.

[@stewiesaidthat]

The problem is that clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space. The higher the operating frequency, the greater the precision in measuring motion. No two points on a rotating sphere are moving through space at the same pace. Synchronized clocks, one on top of the other. The top one is slower because it is tracing out a greater circumference. An egg balances on its tip at the equator. Why, because the north half as the same amount of acceleration as the south half. Move the egg north or south, and the acceleration rates change where one side has more. Even if you did sync the clocks. They would not stay in sync unless at the same parallel and radius. As they say, the observation is only valid for the person making the observation. Everything is moving through space at different rates. The first floor is different from the second floor because there is an increase in the radius, which increases the circumference of the circle you are tracing out.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@stewiesaidthat I agree with you that clocks have nothing to do with time. The rest of you post I will have to delve into to respond. But very nice begining. I also have thought the same.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

What is wrong with synchronizing two clocks together? Here is the point; when you have two clocks next to each other and then you set one at the same moment of the other one then the first clock must send information to the other saying I am here on some measuring scale. But it takes time to do that. So, by the moment the second clock gets the information the first clock has already ''gained'' time. (By the way I don't believe in time but for the sake I go on). Then the second clock gets the information from the first one but it is late with the first one. And when the second clock wants to confirmation then suddelny the first clock says that I have got this info late. And doing it betwen two clocks back and forth none of them can know what the other is doing. Also even if it were possible to synchronize clocks the way I described, let's say by your hand setting two clock identically and then start moving clocks away from each other then you are basically start involving relativistic motion in distance from each other because you are moving them through space and then like the author says when you begin moving, time starts slowing down and one of the clocks will slow down.That is at least what the scientist say. I have a bit different conjecture on time but that's another issue. So, you will never synchronize clocks. What I believe is that clocks have nothing to do with time. But that is for now as I explained.

[@stewiesaidthat]

@user-ky5dy5hl4d clocks measure motion in space. Space and Time, as in biological aging/radioactive decay, are separate frames. You can synchronize two stationary clocks. You just need to know how far the signal has to travel. As long as they are at the same radius and same latitude, they will stay in sync. The clocks are measuring motion, so if YOU move the clock, then they will no longer be in sync.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@stewiesaidthat But you have to move the two clocks from each other. And then the relativistic effect will take place.

[@jamesmeritt6545]

I think the guy should review Maxwell’s work. Also seems to confuse the English word wave with is what is going on

[@Italliving]

Light is instant in the quantum realm and if you want to measure it you need to see the photon itself but all that we have is equipment that is always to slow and i belief they tried this also and failed again

[@RomeoPavo]

The question far more important today is how fast a man can travel in this universe,❤❤can we exceed the speed of light?

[@TrCic]

49:25 Its a HYPOTHESIS, not a Theory. why do people have such a hard time differentiating between the 2? 🤨

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

Because for many people theory is some thing thought up and possibly not correct and is thought of as being different to reality. In reality as understand it it is really in between as a theory however well proven can still not be said to be 100% fact. It is really a lack of education in the way that the common person sees it one way and the higher educated person has been thought to understand it differently. It could also be said as being a different kind of language spoken. It is probably easy for you to differentiate but some people have possibly not even heard of a hypothesis. In my native language between my friends and family "theory" was normally understood as I assume you understand "hypothesis" and the word hypothesis would be thought as speaking learned or basically a different language. In my experience those people can have learned as much through life if not more than the people with higher education. It is just different.

[@debasishraychawdhuri]

The problem is not just with speed of light, the problem is with the speed of anything. There is no meaning to the question whether it is same in all directions, it really is just a convention to make the math simpler.

[@Ritziey]

math is gay

[@naim84]

The speed of light through time: one second per second 🤔

[@JiffyDealer]

Light needs a medium to be measured.

[@ashoksarkar4820]

Really many many things to you

[@ESeriv]

how can this be a problem ... use a satalite and sync its direction to a tower and at the same moment fire signals at each other ... thats it .. opposite direction just make sure they are orthogonal on each other ... these are not problems thats easy .. Dude ... make a large mirror in space reflect light coming from our past to our present to see the past ... reflect light from the future to the present and u have ur timeline :) Dont tell anyone i told u

[@gonegahgah]

I got to 12:53 before I couldn't bare it anymore. Nothing I haven't heard before. Still full of holes...

[@benhoffman6606]

Light speed would be a state of zero. Zero time between you and the end of the universe

[@CSGATI]

Because it varies with gravity.

[@iratozer9622]

Are you the same person that narrated the original "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy"?

[@DroneImmobilier]

No.

[@factormars4339]

A stanley parabole vibe

[@jonnylightbody301]

But they actually can it's on KZbin

[@JohnTovar-ks8dp]

The metric system is stupid. Why isn't time divided into 100 units?

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

If you divided time into 100 units then it would be in metric system.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Exactly but dividing a year by 300 days 10 hours 100 minutes and 100 seconds would give funny days and not exactly 31536000 seconds as out current time system uses. I prefer our current system and wake up about the same time every day. Just imagine how to set the alarm clock. i think he got confused a little. It can happen to the best of us.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 I think so, too

[@GabrielSBarbaraS]

If light from the sun takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds , help me understand why Jupiter's moon eclipse is not 16 minutes and 40 seconds plus the diameter of the sun at 4.64121082 light seconds instead of the 22 minutes stated in the video?

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

8 minutes and 20 seconds is the time of light it travels from the Sun to Earth. It has nothing to do with the distance form Jupiter to Earth. You have to calculate the distance form Jupiter to Earth and not from the Sun to Earth. The light is just a reflection of Sun's rays. When IO appears it actually appears as it were in the center of Jupiter. But that distance is negligible to the distance from IO to Earth. And when the Earth is on the other side of the orbit then the light reflected from IO travels longer to Earth because of the longer distance. Don't add the time light travels from the Sun to Jupiter or IO but disatnce from Jupiter to Earth in two different points of Earth during one year.

[@GabrielSBarbaraS]

​@@user-ky5dy5hl4d If Jupiter and earth are on the same side as the sun would be different than Jupiter and the Earth on opposite sides of the sun. Since the Earth is about 94 million miles from the sun, then when earth and Jupiter are on opposite sides of the sun, would it not be 94 million times 2 ( equating to 16 minutes and 40 seconds from the position of the earth in summer in comparison to the the position of the earth in winter. My opinion is that this distance needs to be added to the distance from earth to Jupiter during these opposite times of year. Correct me if I still can't see this.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

​@@GabrielSBarbaraS It takes Jupiter to go around the Sun 12 earth years. Now, imagine clock face. You got 12 hours on the clock and Jupiter and the Earth is at 12 o'clock. (for the sake of this it is funny that we can assign 1 year to one hour to movement of Jupiter). When the Earth in 6 months ( 1/2 Earth year) moved to the other side of the Sun, Jupiter will have moved only 30 minutes on the face of the clock which is half of one twelfth of the Jupiter year which is the same as 1/24 of the Jupiter's year. So basically Jupiter has not moved much but the Earth is already on the other side of the Sun. The distance from the Earth to the Sun was already known. What mattered is that when Jupiter was almost in the same place as 6 months earlier as the Earth was, Jupiter's IO showed up later than 6 months earlier. So, when Earth was away from Jupiter on the other side of the Sun the light from IO took longer by 22 minutes. So one has to add distance of 2r (it would be 2x94 million miles to the distance to Jupiter. And from calculation of know distance it was shown the speed of light. But the difference in this calculation is the distance of the Earth of one position relative to the second one.

[@GabrielSBarbaraS]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Good conversations Eric. Thanks.

[@gwillis9797]

What year star wars took place. Captain Kirk always gave a star date.

[@CSBastianyGaumnitz]

Star Trek

[@robertmontague5650]

At 26:23 you say that sending a light from earth to mars in 10 mins and then assume it returns in 10 mins that it would be 20 mins but that assumption would be wrong because what if it went out in 20 mins but returned to earth instantly. If nothing can go faster than the speed of light, then your assumption of the light returning instantly is ridiculous.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

In my opinion he was right and I will explain my point of view. If both earth and mars are traveling in the direction from earth to mars at about half the speed of light then it would take light from earth nearly twice the time to get to mars as earths speed and light speed are not added together. Mars is running away from the light so to speak. The trip back would be much faster as earth is moving towards the light. The total light travel would be longer than twice the time as this is really what gives time dilation. We just wouldn't measure it much longer as our clock had slowed down due to our speed.

[@robertmontague5650]

@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Thanks for your astute reply, but I believe I have a valid rebuttal. Time dilation effects may indeed be in play but only for observers OUTSIDE of the e-m frame of reference-not for the observers within the e-m frame of reference. For example, an observer on a stationary train station platform would expect to see time dilation effects from light sent from the caboose to the front of the train and returned, but being in the same frame of reference those observers would NOT see effects from time dilation as they are in the same inertial frame of reference within the train.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

@@robertmontague5650 If I understand you right then yes. Time goes slower for what is moving but they or it can not see it. They/it only knows when they/it can compare to some thing that has not moved. They/it will be younger. I say they/it as it works on a very small level like sub atomic so for every thing. It can only be seen from outside if it is possible to see from one frame to the other but it is still the moved that has a slower time.

[@whichgodofthousandsmeansno5306]

I always wonder how things would have went if Einstein had a LHC to mess around with.

[@williamwalker39]

The one way speed of light has been measured! This was done by using one clock (an oscilloscope) to measure the time difference between the transmitter and receiver. In one experiment a sinusoidal signal was transmitted between 2 antennas, and the phase difference was measured as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. The results showed that the speed of the electromagnetic fields (light) is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c, about one wavelength from the source, and then converges slowly toward c, but never becoming exactly speed c. In another experiment an EM pulse was transmitted from a transmitter antenna to a receiver antenna located in the nearfield, and an oscilloscope was used to measure the resultant time delay of the front edge of the pulse. No time delay was observed. Since the front edge of a pulse represents the change from one state to another: 0 to a 1, then the speed of the front edge is the speed of information, which was shown to be instantaneous in the nearfield. This is completely incompatible with Relativity. If the speed of light (information) is not a constant, then Relativity is wrong and this impacts all of modern physics. These results have now been verified theoretically, numerically via simulation, and experimentally by many independent researchers. See the post below for more details. Specifically look at the papers linked at the end.

[@clintonhowe88]

Except it can measure it, cant it?

[@SloppyGoat]

It's simply because there's nothing faster than light, that we know of, to measure it with.

[@graxxor]

Wow. All those physicists should have just read this comment rather than spending millions of hours and dollars on experimenting.

[@SloppyGoat]

@@graxxor I'm sure they already know that. We measure everything with light. Even light.

[@sridhardathathraya2381]

Can you move faster than the speed of light? I think, at least theoretically, yes. But you can never measure that speed because the information about the speed of an object cannot reach you faster than the speed of light. Are black holes really a hole? I am not so sure anymore! We see things because of light coming out of things. If you can figure out a way to not reflect or emit any electromagnetic radiation from an object than that object cannot be detected by our technology today.

[@stewiesaidthat]

E=mc. Mass converts to light with acceleration. You can't go FTL because there is no mass left to accelerate at the speed of light. E=mc. Mass converts to light with Acceleration. Black holes, being at the center of rotation, have very little acceleration. Zero acceleration equals Zero energy output equals no visible light being emitted. Since mass does not attract mass, there doesn't need to be anything there. Just as hurricanes and tornadoes don't have mass at their centers. Black holes? High mass, low acceleration celestial objects.

[@ioanbota9397]

I like this video its interestyng

[@amlord3826]

We have no way of knowing that the speed of light is constant. It's a fundamental assumption that most of modern science depends upon

[@claudecahen6780]

Your analogy of the coordinates of North and South with Space and Time is simply absurd . North and South are of the same nature they indicate a direction, while Space and Time have nothing in common . True, in general relativity space and Time have become “ Space- time”….. under the mathematics of Minkowski, which Einstein copied. But in term of physics , while it is generally accepted as real and true, the tenets of quantum mechanics destroy this concept : Time is a totally independent notion by itself : It is “constant , universal and absolute”. It is not variable or malleable. Supreme difference .

[@keirangrant1607]

Magnetism. The waves travel thru magnetism

[@TheLastStarfighter77]

46 seconds, we are located on the 2nd outer spiral arm in our galaxy, not the centre?

[@stoobydootoo4098]

Why would we be at the centre?

[@artifactis]

There are mirrors on the moon that we use to measure the speed of light

[@chrishawth1589]

Fastest phenomenon is entanglement.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Yes, it would seem so. But it has some flaws.

[@jamesmeritt6545]

Poor guy hasn’t heard about RADAR or the right angle reflectors on the moon.

[@KrzysztofRodak]

We will have to build quantum clocks, and they will be synchronized.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

Can't do that because it will use quanta which are relativistic.

[@AndJusticeForAll...1985]

Cause of the system of math and physics they have fed us. Ppl walk-in around thinking we are on a globe n shit. Whack!

[@deholin7110]

光速是可以當時間的計量單位但絕非時間，時間是人類根據事務活動的速度周期而定義的，卻反客為主與空間和事物平起平坐，結成一體了。多荒謬啊！

[@whothefoxcares]

the speed of darkness is slightly greater

[@tomholroyd7519]

The speed of Mathematics is infinite. Square root of 2! I just did an infinite amount of calculation. I can do it again, too.

[@wcarthurii]

​@@tomholroyd7519 care to share! I also want to be confused.

[@woodlawnfinest86]

They been saying the answer the whole video…… it’s Time itself. Light is as fast as Time

[@iratozer9622]

What everyone seems to ignore is that the speed of light is like a snail, compared to the fastest thin in the Universe.

[@iratozer9622]

Which by the way, take no time at all.

[@june2892]

I was just thinking about the totally different math Aliens use, which and where in spacetime they showed it to me.

[@JusticeNDOU]

your explanation is completely wrong it assumes jupiter is a fixed distance in relation to the sun

[@paranormalix]

the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s

[@lilfr4nkie]

Light has no speed

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

Even 10x the speed of light is painfully slow !

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

Depends on what scale.

[@g-9222]

.

[@BillMulholland1]

👍

[@Mysteries-revealed]

Doing so could only propel humanity beyond anyone's contr.... Oh yeeeeeah

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

Why Can't Physicists Actually Measure The Speed Of Dumbness?

[@macdmacd7896]

speed of light or photon? "speed" of light is zero.

[@leonhardtkristensen4093]

The speed of light is the same as any other Electro Magnetic emission. Measured with our time it is just short of 300*10^6 m/s. If EME has a clock it stands still. If a Photon exists is debatable. The energy of what is called a Photon is the energy of an emission for one second. (E=hf). That is my understanding.

[@scottbutler3317]

Because they don’t understand it

[@kerrychase4839]

The speed of light is based on the speed of movement of the tiny particles which make up the particle field called the Light Carrying Medium (LCM). All particle fields have a characteristic speed of particle movement and average distance between mutual collisions (ADBMC), which define the force effect of that particular field. Field effects are not limited to the particles of any specific field, but often, because of collisions between particles and waves of particles between the many different fields of particles, their effects cascade from one field force to another one. There is no absolute "speed limit" for particles in the Universe. The LCM is limited to light speed, while particles in the gravity fields propagate much faster (G1 = at least 2 times ten to the tenth power times light speed!).

[@Waltitude]

Hogwash

[@kerrychase4839]

@@Waltitude I see you're DOWN on what you're not UP on. That's OK for you, but thankfully the Universe doesn't incorporate the "hogwash" factor into its grand scheme of things.

[@deerazor8280]

AND BY THE WAY light isn't the fastest thing in this universe, what a stupid thing to assume!

[@v.prestorpnrcrtlcrt2096]

Srew off utube!!! Either the vid plays or it does not. CHOOSE ONE!!! It should not take 2 hours to watch a 1 hour vid. Wasting time!!! Youlesstube!

[@Veed.l0]

Strong independent photon don't need no medium

[@kerrychase4839]

On the contrary, "photons" are generated and propagate by waves passing through a unique particle force field called the Light Carrying Medium (LCM) from which the old physicist's term "Elysium" comes. That's why "light" bears the imprint of both "particles" and "waves" when measured in a lab. Without the LCM, there would be no light perceivable in the Universe.

[@JamesWhite-yj7sd]

Total BS