What would we see at the speed of light? 

Thank you so much for the high quality content! It is extremely appreciated! I used to watch the first videos of the channel and now I am on my second year of Physics degree!

lol if you take 1 second to reach a thing on universe at speed of light the 1 second in normal clock its just a second! So in earth it is a second not 1000 years

@ScienceClic you say that nothing prohibits "space" from moving faster than the speed of light. If that is the case, should not gravity propagate at superluminal speeds since gravity is the warping of space-time? Hence the famous thought experiment. If the sun physically disappeared instantly, we on Earth wouldn't know for 8.5 minutes until the final light rays reached us. But how long would Earth remain in orbit? If space is not confined to moving at the speed of light, Earth should takeoff on a tangent instantly the sun disappears. However, if LIGO is indeed measuring gravity waves (undulations in the fabric of space-time) it seems like space-time does have a speed limit. Which idea is correct? Has the speed of gravity actually been correctly measured? Inflation would imply superluminal movement of space-time would it not?

There something wrong mentioned in length contraction please check again if I’m wrong

STOLEN VIDEO FROM COOL WORLDS.

COSMOS, by Carl Sagan

@@AdrianBoyko COSMOS is cool, but there were no visuals like these in the 1980s (and neither are there many of these types of visuals elsewhere even now, to be honest).

I agree. I watch a lot of great science material on other channels but this channel is very special indeed.

He’s actually insane anyone can understand this

Patreon allows warcriminals to use their site, everyone should use an other service.

Nothing is stranger than AOC

​@@martinsmith6049the politician? Huh?

"For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts, and my ways higher than your ways."

@@martinsmith6049 How did you make this about politics???? Get a grip on reality and what actually matters

It’s like a piece of string.

That's because it's dumbed down for people who don't understand these things it's kinda made for kids in a way

Not sure what youre talking about. I was waiting to see what it would look like, but I kinda had to use the progress bar and scroll along while imagining what the visualization probably looks like uninterrupted. Because we never actually got to see what it would look like. The point of the video

It's done with AI ...calm down

Yo

2 am baby

😊

Afternoon nap

Me and my cigarettes

Thank you so much for your appreciation 🙏 Glad you enjoyed the video!

That’s why I watch utube

Yeah I agree, great video. I find the idea that travel near light speed would seem instantaneous to the people on the ship to be intriguing. If we assume it could be done, to the people on the ship the trip wouldn't be a big deal. You'd just have to accept that once you left Earth, you're gone from there for good, unless you don't mind coming back there again thousands of years in the future.

​@@johna6767 If everything becomes instant, wouldn't the travelers be stuck or frozen in some way as they pass through their destination?

@the UN = MASS MURDERERS Well define close? You can always get mega closer without touching C.

The problem is that the illustration is showing the distance being different and not the time. It is the speed of the rocket changing in relation to the constant speed of the planet that causes you to imagine that the time would be different when the rocket returns. And that is part of why Einstein’s theories are actually not quite right.

@@DarrylAJones If you can prove Einstein wrong, where is your nobel prize?

It's something that I would love for someone to prove wrong, because at the core of it, it just doesn't make sense to me. One would think that the passage of time would be a universal constant. For someone to leave, experience less time, and then reunite with people that have experienced more, just because they moved fast enough.. it doesn't sit right with me logically.

@@samvansomething No shit bro, it doesn't make logical sense for anyone - even for Einstein, but that's just how the universe works as proven by Einstein. Lots of shit we know about how the universe works doesn't make any logical sense but we have to accept the reality no matter how much it doesn't fit with our "Logic".

@@veritasabsoluta4285 This is so counterintuitive to the path of discovery that it's laughable. Looking for answers is the basis of science. It's why I got into theoretical physics. Calm down and don't shit on people who aren't satisfied with the answers that we have.

Yes, it's very well done. But there are many others that people say the same thing about.

Easier seen w/ snow

I find that "nature" repeats itself EVERYWHERE. Sometimes even things that are not even close to being related to each other yet the process of one thing (even though they produce a different end result and have a different prcesses) can be the same as the other. One of these examples is Electricity and how to explain volts and amps.... water moving through a garden hose. The 2 have nothing in common and are complete different processes and the processes are not even related but if electricity were water going through a hose the amps is the amount of water going through the hose and volts is the water pressure through a hose like if you put a adjustable nozzle on the hose and you open it all the way open the water pressure would be very low or low volatage but the same amount of water is moving through it. Begin to close the nozzle and the water seems to come out harder and faster the more you close the nozzle but no more watter is comming out, the volume of water is still the same as going though the hose or amps. A LOT of people HATE this example precisely because it is nothing like how electricity works but as it explains volts and amps it also shows you how 2 completely unrelated processes and mechanisms in nature repeat. The light slanting like the rain is another example, the 2 process CANNOT be related because as you accellerate into the rain that is falling downward, the rain is not smashing into your windshield from the front.... you are smashing into the rain drops from the side. If you move at different speeds, it does not effect light's relationship to you. If you ride a bike at 30mph and as you ride at 30mph, you throw a baseball 50mph while riding, it would be traveling at 80mph because of inertia and momentum. You carrying it on bike gives it default speed of 30 + 50 from being pitched = 80mph. But now if you have a laser mounted on your handlebar of your bike you are riding at 30mph and you reach up and turn on the laser..... that light or "baseball" that you pitch in front of you ALWAYS travels at light speed. .. YOU have NO EFFECT on it and even though you are already going 30... it is not 30 + speed of light = speed of light + 30..... it is 30 + speed of light = speed of light. SO..... the raindrops, if they were light would never "slant" towards you and appear to hit you head on as you speed up because YOU have no effect on IT. Just like light leaving you always leaves you at light speed and that speed is constant , you can go 30mph or 1000000000000mph... the rain would still appear to fall vertically. Nature repeating itself...

can anyone heer explain to me wtf is going on with light contraction, im so confused ab if the universe is PHYSICALLY getting shorter or its just explaining that the faster u move the quicker u get places

@@starthejar1419 "The faster you move the quicker you get places" ??? That statement explains itself :) Anyway Lets say you are in a race car on the starting line. Your opponent is next to you and the light turns green. You both take off and... you notice their car is keeping up with you almost perfectly. BUT!!! you have a little secret surprise and you flip a switch that fires your NOS canister you had hidden and now your car lurches forward and pulls away from the other guy and you get to the finish line WAY before he does. Not exactly the same thing but replace the extra speed with time moving faster for the other guy (yes the "effect" is reversed). Faster you travel, the slower time moves forward for you. So if time is slower for you and his time is faster, why do you move faster? If you can take 5 steps in 3 seconds, it takes you 3 seconds to take 5 steps (kind of redundant there lol). Lets speed TIME up now by dobule. So you take your 5 steps but it now take you 6 seconds to finish the same 5 steps because more time has passed for you. Now lets make time slower by dobule slow. You take your 5 steps but now only 1.5 seconds has passed in the same distance traveled so you could now take 10 steps because you have another 1.5 seconds of SLOW time to go further. The video is explaining what you would SEE if you were to go that fast so nothing really contracts it only APPEARS to do so... kind of like going down the road in a car... if you look at the ground right where the road ends, everything passes by you in almost a blur its so fast. Now look in the distance at a tree that is far away... it looks as if it is barely moving past you while ground next to road is going super fast. It is perspective and how you SEE it.

​@Rusty Koenig Check Joe Marshalla and his theory of "Repeatlessness". According to him, nothing repeats itself.

The only other video that mentions instantaneous transport is Vsauce from 10 years ago. All other channels overlook this principle.

im still a bit confused on how it appears instantaneous to us but very long time for people on earth?

@@bapples1233 exactly my point as well.. Say for example in 1 sec I travelled some thousands of kilometers at speed of light going from point A to B While someone on earth travelled few inches in 1 sec, going from his point A to B. Now though the distance travelled by both is exponentially different, but still we took 1 sec only. Then how does the person on earth age faster?

@@bapples1233 photons do not experience time at all. The moment they are created and absorbed is the same moment in time - to them.

@@bapples1233because at the speed of light, time basically stops and with it our perception of time stops, the faster you go the the slower your time becomes, including your perception of time. At light speed you essentially never age. I guess in a spiritual sense that’s why after death your spirit is eternal, because the energy that was once in you, that made you is given back to the universe as light and will forever be.

Wow. We have same idea

That’s a problem with the video. I don’t think that many concepts were explained well, like time dilation.

​@@JustinDickinsthat's why human have brain, use ur brain and do research information by your self duh, lazy

​@@JustinDickinsit's 15min not 600h of courses + PhD thesis... But warp stuff was useless

But all this is just a reflection of you only you haven’t recognised it yet! Understanding the relative point of View is not necessary the point of view of the absolute therefore the theory’s they use and relatively are only tools to the absolute. They are not completely understanding the concept of truth. And just writing something they don’t fully understand, comprehend or know like a mule carrying a message. What they are saying is partly true but their theory is a relative truth not the absolute truth. When one wakes up and recognises what’s really going on we recognise these are all reflections of ourselves. It is all one happening! There are no seperate events or separations between you and the entire cosmos. Yes we feel like we are separate because we can only experience it one at a time but that you and the other even though they may be different or seem separate as 2 but in reality they arnt these 2 things you and other are really one but the illusion of self and other make you believe they are 2 and separate happenings. True relativity is unity. You and the other go together. These duality’s only exist for us to recognise. You would never know what light was if darkness never existed or what sweet was if bitter never existed etc. it’s a truely beautiful and amazing universe. So in reality 2 really =1 but not 1 in number but as a whole. So really we are the heavens and the earth and everything in-between but it’s fear and ignorance that doesn’t allow you to progress! So the true real evidence is the NOW You are always here It’s just we don’t recognise it And that’s part of the wake up call! It’s infinite. What most people see is relativity instead of the absolute Absolute is singular but not in number but as a whole. You spoke of those particles having No beginning nor end but that is who we are! If it has a beginning or an end that limited. And the system is unlimited. No beginning no end always forever connected and that’s what Adam represents the dome the circle, the wheel of life as some call it the earth goes round and round between light and darkness, our blood goes round and round circulating our body 24/7, the tide goes up and down always etc etc and we are part of that. The beginning that has no beginning and the end that has no end otherwise it’s limited. Sorry for the essay hope it helps just felt I had to write this to you peace

You were being what by massless particles? 🤨

​@@kevoelevo88photon

@@kevoelevo88timeless sloppy

@@kevoelevo88the timeless gawk

I believe that to the driver, the car's headlights would appear to work normally, as much as they could in that contorted reality. To an outside observer, the photons emitted from the lights would essentially build up in front of the car rather than continually stream forward, and upon dropping out of lightspeed, would be unleashed on whatever is in front of the car when it stops. A bit like a solar snowplow obliterating whatever unlucky destination you happened to be headed toward.

If the car's headlights were shining upon a target ahead, would the image disappear when the car reached the speed of light or would the target remain illuminated? If it remained illuminated, would it suggest that light is travelling faster than light, which reached the target before the car, which was aleady travelling at the speed of light? The video showed light getting brighter as the rocket accelerate towards it, which makes sense when considering the Doppler effect, but it didn't seem to consider light which was being emitted by the rocket towards a target ahead of it.

It would be nice to see all of these perspectives taken into account with travel and the effects of black holes properly in a non fiction based film. No bs, just straight shooting. I watched the last two films that featured black holes just to see the perspective they came up with. I still feel disappointed.

@@brown2889 what are those movies?

@@elakstein Interstellar and High Life. Last ones to attempt to show what traveling around or in a black hole. Haven’t really seen a movie that does light speed properly.

@@brown2889 I agree, but realistic is not relatable for people. At least the things that we didnt encounter in our evolutionary past. I remember Interstellar. Yeah, still bs. Lots of assumptions and fiction, lots of subjective emotional manipulation. Hmmm, on the other hand, how would one even portray anything resembling true infinity in a movie?(people just dont care for most things in any infinite set)

@@greenanubis Are you talking about that library scene from inside the black hole or the black hole imagery itself? Because if the latter, that was literally the most accurate representation of a black hole we had until we got the first images back from the EHT. If the former, then yeah, you can only show people the concept of infinity metaphorically; and, it's a movie about people, so why wouldn't there be "subjective emotional manipulation?"

none of this is real lmfao do you understand that? none of this has been proven or even attainable in any form other that youtube channel for morons. wtf are you talking about. literally a 3 year old presentation would make more sense than this entire channel worth of regurgitating unproven physics. oh look i took a shit and now it's speeding up at the speed of light towards your screen ( wtf is light no one can tell you either btw )

Thanks a lot! I was thinking of doing a "making of" video, I might just do that. Economically I actually produce everything myself except for the translation/dubbing, so there are not that many expenses.

@@ScienceClicEN Kudos!

But you do spend many, many, hours on this right? You work a lot to make these videos happen, and "thank yous" are great, but you should get some sort of compensation for making these for us as well, you do an amazing job

@@davidgamer7267 1m views in the matter of 13 days on ONE of these videos generates compensation .

@@ElectricCityBox Not that much though, considering there is only RU-vid ads

It really would actually seem like instant travel from Sci-fi movies. Not so much for people one earth tho. Irl space really is wacky

@@zaingamingtv2242 I am not sure if this true, because light is slow. e.g. it takes light 8 minutes to reach the sun, wouldn't we age at least that much and trip would feel like 8 minute trip, not instant (physical processes do not slow down more than speed of light, if it is instant at 99.99%, it would mean physical processes stopped fully?

@@jutjub22 the light itself might be slow but from our perception it would be instant. Abit like how time passes by faster when you are engaged in fun activity or how time passes by instantly when you are sleeping. From our perception it would be instant even if it literally isnt

@@zaingamingtv2242 so physical processes are stopped relative to other objects. Yes

When we start moving away from our planet..into different corners of space..as a species, maybe our whole perception on travelling will change..as we will no longer be moving in the linear motion which is parallel to earth, like a sitting duck blitzing from past to future but instead we would be taking a detour in space....we could go back in the time, in different time zones in space. People living in the past and the future at the same time, relatively speaking, like literally a point in space where you were before as that point in space has it's own pace in time...almost like the flow of time itself becomes irrelevant... we'll have our own natural time though...like our body itself is on a grind, on it's own natural order of things, so we will probably feel like we are aging normal...like the stationary trees that blitz pass us in speeding bus, all the time blitzes pass us once we come out the bubble...imagine that!...maybe we can get so far from earth that we can see it in it's beginning phase(when it was just a hot rock) than move towards it and capture all the evolution that happens til the day you reach earth...it would be a instant time lapse but if we could somehow see it.....opens up all kinds of possibilities...or maybe not😂😂

Excellent comment.

@@anobodyfromnowhere8427 I could def see how perhaps we could see the past in an object such as earth after moving past the speed of light for a while. This whole thing is quite a bit confusing for my mind.

does this mean that the thing we call the 'lightyear' is just the distance covered in an instant for light itself ?

@@dragondudeyt2344 frame of reference...from our frame of reference, the light takes a year to travel the light year distance...but if you were light itself, it would feel like an instant....it could be like one thing happened and the other thing happened immediately after, cause nothing travels faster than light.

makes mny mistakes tho

@@efdbjon2114what mistakes do you think this video made?

@@efdbjon2114Shut up, ignorant. It doesn't

Yes, it is very well done. And Einstein visualised all this in one of his trances. Main take-away being time dilation and length contraction... that a photon does not experience time. A trip to Proxima Centauri being a mere blip, yet we hear ad nauseam (even from physicists) that even if we could travel the SoL it'd take 4 years to get there. Nope; only for the outside observer. The SoL is the ultimate speed.

if you travel at the speed of light, particles with no mass would reach and destroy your optic nerve before you ever processed a single photon. Just sayin. This explained nothing, and it should not have helped you at all. In fact, every frame of this video is a detriment to your understanding of reality and the universe.

@@ZennExile "cosmos" is a masonic(satanic lie. Know who is who lies, masons. Know what are their lies, all which this world believes. Expose them and their lies, not support them and their lies. Extraterrestrial Life? - the existence of demons among the mankind. As the BIBLE says, we grow up with a offspring who is not like us, only look like us for a short time, until the harvest time has arrived. The wheat and the tares: Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

@@ZennExilelmao ok? It’s not like it teaches people some special relativity and other concepts of Astrophysics or anything…

@@ZennExileassume we are in a special spaceship that isolates us from any harm, how would you refute the mathematics?

Perfectly stated my thoughts abt this channel and channels like it. I think saying its a service to humanity is not a stretch.

Surprised, by the fact your comments are exactly same with what I thought!

Hi, no want be rude just saying that i don't think he needs your little money to thrive in this world,.. also other thing about this videos is: If you take 1 second to reach a thing on universe at speed of light then 1 second in normal clock its just a second! So in earth it is a second when you travel at that speed reaching that distance in just 1 second and NOT 1000 years! OBVIOUSLY.

So in conclusion you learn much more investigate yourself than watching this videos some of them is just copy paste garbage that you can watch everywhere he's not the only one and also not helping that much and its almost useless this type of information and to make things worst much of "information" like this video are CLEARLY lie/s to just have some views...

@@imlost..ineedhelpfromyoulord I’m sorry but you are very wrong. Everything he said in this video is true thanks to einsteins theory of relativity which has been proven many many times

No you’re amazing 😁

It’s amazingly false

​@@hosoiarchives4858why

Well, nothing can travel that fast because it would need infinite energy, which, well, doesn’t exist

I’ve watched many others and I agree

@@davidsheckler4450 do you even know what is science and how it does work? where are the scientists who support your claims?

@@en5374 David just thinks he is cool tossing around the word sheeple when in fact he has absolutely no clue what is being discussed in this video.

​@@617aaron617 spoken like a true sheep

@@lostpockets2227 Typical response. But, I wouldn't expect any less.

You would see the shadow of your own car behind you

@@SomewhatSuitable you mean not the black shadow ? But the 3D one with you in it turning on the headlights?

@@SomewhatSuitable according to this video you would still see the light move away from you at the speed of light

Indeed. If everyone was like me we'd still be living in caves!

Can't wait to show this specific video to my actual child once he's a bit older.

Try "Cool Worlds Lab" & "The Complete History of the Universe" 😎❤

no want be rude just saying that i don't think he needs your little money to thrive in this world,.. also other thing about this video is: If you take 1 second to reach a thing on universe at speed of light then 1 second in normal clock its just a second! So in earth it is a second when you travel at that speed reaching that distance in just 1 second and NOT 1000 years! OBVIOUSLY.

So in conclusion you learn much more investigate yourself than watching this videos some of them is just copy paste garbage that you can watch everywhere he's not the only one and also not helping that much and its almost useless this type of information and to make things worst much of "information" like this video are CLEARLY lie/s to just have some views...

personally i've been able to visualize all this in my head since i was a kid. only thing i dont like about this video, is the mention of "space-time", because there's no such thing. there's fabric of space, but time doesn't exist, time is just unit of measurement. time is to space, as liter is to water. you don't say that ocean consists of "water-liter", do you? you say ocean consists of water and you measure it in liters (or whichever country you're from, might be gallons or whatever, but same principle). otheriwse i agree, nicely visualized for those who don't have ability to visualize basic stuff.

​@@SethiozProject Thank you for pointing out "spacetime"!!! That's propaganda.

We also don't experience the movement of the earth and we can't see the curve.....

Great that you donated ❤

nobody travels like this too caveman like thinking. besides 5757 you will be given quantum nobody will use it

Every single time😂

Overrated movie of all time

Makes me want a Corellian YT1300 freighter.

They're even better than Veritasium and Steve Mould at simplifying complex topics. Reminds me of Richard Feynman, in a way.

It’s perfectly accurate. Sources used involve astrophysics research from the university of Colorado, and Dr Andrew Hamilton

What about eye dilation😁😁😁😁🙂?

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-K62SHNxmQlI.html

For real I’ve literally watched like 5 other videos trying to get it but didn’t until this one

Time dilation of special relativity is very easy to follow by the light+mirror clock on a train thought experiment

There is no such thing as warp drive.

Huh

​@@doylegaines1319 there is, only thing is its practically not possible now due to lack of technology ,in brief an engine when run should be able to attain near speed of light magnitude ... Which ll be possible after 200-300 yrs once civilization starts consuming more energy as consuming more energy ll increase the need for energy thus expand the energy in earth and force the civilization to capture energy from sun in vast amount....

@@henrykashyap8913 Why is there no Superman in real life?? Lack of technology. If we had "the technology" we could make the earth spin in reverse 3 times a day , right? That's all we need to do - just develop "the technology". One day we'll have the technology to walk to Mars. My bet is that we'll walk to Mars looooong before we travel at near light speed. Of course, I know that's probably not a popular opinion among sci-fi fans.

Not only a masterpiece ... but a piece of crystal clear thinking and a genius of conveying knowledge to us , mere morons... thank you for the light in a vast darkness....

And thus The Flux Capacitor !! ...thanks to Dr Emmett Brown.

Not a hard thing to accomplish if the math on ftl is worked out.

@@jamesofallthings3684 the math is not encouraging in this case. the bubble can move, but there is no way to enter or exit it, nor change its speed/direction, or even create/destroy one. It would simply exist, disconnected from causality.

​@@neeneko- It would require an enormous amount of energy to move a space/time bubble, to the order to several thousand Suns all at once. Till we can figure out another shortcut, it will remain science fiction.

I have to assume if you're in the bubble you're essentially blind, as you're disconnected from the universe. If light were to enter the bubble, it would: a. Cause drag that could maybe drag you out of the bubble. b. Be the same as super high-energy gamma rays blasting your ship, because of blue shifting. And of course the trick is to effect the command to stop the ship. What if you start your warp bubble and the ship decides to keep going in that direction forever, because your controls are also disconnected from the universe?

Yeah. I'd just like a video about how the non-Euclidean geometry makes the "longer" route actually shorter. Maybe it's due to what was said in a past video on this channel regarding movement through space necessarily creating less movement through time and vice versa, but I'd still like to hear more about that.

@@Rationalific That's correct. ScienceClic mentions in the video "We all move at the Speed of Light" that all matter and energy in the universe travels at 1.0c, the speed of light. A TL;DR explanation is that if you are moving through space, you are moving less so through time, so less time has passed for you; thus, your path is shorter. But how does that happen in the first place? I'll try to explain it as simply as I can, though it might be too long to read. Perhaps though, my comment could be the script of a video complete with diagrams and such. When objects accelerate, in the eyes of relativity, we redistribute a 1.0c velocity through space-time. The simplest example is linear acceleration aligned with our x-axis, so that we can ignore y and z. Rest will be no spatial motion relative to the origin. We now accelerate. Formerly, our velocity was solely through time. All of our 1.0c velocity was along the time axis: our velocity vector is parallel to the time axis. For every 1 second that passes on our spaceship, 1 second passes for an outsider at rest. But now, we are moving through space. Part of our 1.0c velocity is distributed along the x-axis. This vector would point up and to the right, but mostly up. We then turn off our engines. Relative to the origin, we are no longer at rest because our spatial speed is non-zero. Our vector still has a magnitude of 1.0c, but it has rotated. This is called a different frame of reference. Objects are in the same frame (co-moving) if they have parallel vectors. RU-vid won't let me post the link, so look up "hyperbolic orthogonality" on Wikipedia and enlarge the diagram that looks like many green circles and a purple hourglass shape. The 3 axes of space are Euclidean relative to each other, meaning we can use the Pythagorean theorem to calculate distances involving more than one axis. However, comparing any of the 3 axes of space to the axis of time will not yield a Euclidean relationship. The relationship relies not on Euclidean geometry but hyperbolic geometry. Euclidean geometry uses circles to define angles and distances; hyperbolic geometry uses hyperbolas. In the green universe, there is no universal speed limit. When the axis of time is pointing toward the old direction of the x-axis, that is infinitely fast speed (undefined). The tangent function (tan) is the relationship between angle and speed. (Notice how at 90 degrees it goes to positive infinity and wraps back around from negative infinity). This doesn't mean you can achieve infinite speed, however, because the tangent of 90 degrees approaches infinity. The inverse tangent function (arctan, from "arc of tangent", or tan^-1) lets you plug in a desired velocity and spits out what angle you will have rotated the axes by to achieve that speed. Because you can plug in any number from negative infinity to positive infinity into arctan(x), you can achieve any speed between negative infinity and positive infinity. On this graph, accelerating at a constant rate would look like the axes are rotating to the side, but slower and slower over time, never quite reaching 90 degrees. In our universe (diagram on the right), however, the relationship between space and time is hyperbolic, not Euclidean. As you accelerate (rotate the time and x-axes), they don't spin around as the green ones did. The points follow the hyperbolas rather than circles. The axes get closer to each other like the blades of a pair of scissors closing together. The axes are dragged toward that red diagonal as the purple points continue moving; the red diagonal limits the angle to 45 degrees, the inverse tangent of which is 1 (1.0c). To understand how this finite speed can be a universal speed limit, we have to abandon our naïve notion of velocity and replace it with a new one called rapidity. We can describe the velocity of an object using the numbers between -1 and +1, but the number 1 is the finite boundary. With rapidity, however, we can use numbers between negative infinity and positive infinity. In this system, the speed of light really is infinite, which makes it unattainable. We convert between velocity and rapidity using hyperbolic trigonometry. The hyperbolic tangent function (tanh) lets you convert from rapidity to velocity. The inverse hyperbolic tangent function (artanh, from "area of tangent", or tanh^-1) lets you convert from velocity to rapidity. Some example calculations: Velocity 0c = Rapidity 0 Velocity 0.01c = Rapidity 0.0100003 Velocity 0.1c = Rapidity 0.1003 Velocity 0.5c = Rapidity 0.549 Velocity 0.8c = Rapidity 1.099 Velocity 0.9c = Rapidity 1.472 Velocity 0.99c = Rapidity 2.647 Velocity 0.999c = Rapidity 3.800 Velocity 1 m/s below c = Rapidity 10.11 Velocity 1.0c = Rapidity is undefined, approaching positive infinity As you can see, velocity and rapidity are initially almost identical, which is why we don't experience significant time dilation at ordinary speeds. The departure of rapidity from velocity is the hallmark of time dilation. In fact, the Lorentz factor (how much a reference frame is distorted with respect to another) is cosh(x), with x as the rapidity. Thus, if we replace velocity with rapidity, we now have a situation similar to the green diagram on the left; bounded by an infinite speed. It is only when we use our intuitive version of velocity that we appear to be bounded by a finite speed. Now that we can convert from hyperbolic to Euclidean, we retrieve the case before, where plugging in any rapidity between negative and positive infinity into tanh(x) gives us a velocity, and then, plugging any velocity into arctan(x) gives us the angle. We cannot exceed 45 degrees (the speed of light). Now imagine Earth at the center of the diagram on the right, moving forward through time (up). Now imagine our spaceship at the center as well. We will depart from Earth at high speed and then return at about the same speed. Earth's motion is only along the time axis. Ours will be partly on the x-axis and partly on the time axis. We will accelerate (change frame) from 0.0c relative to Earth to 0.8c relative to Earth. artanh(0.8) is about 1.09 (this is rapidity), and cosh(1.09) is 1.667 (exactly 5/3 actually), so for every 5 seconds that passes on Earth (chosen rest frame), 3 seconds passes on our spaceship. arctan(0.8) is about 0.675 radians, or about 38.7 degrees, so you can imagine a line above the red diagonal but very close to it representing our spaceship's trajectory. (The angle is measured relative to the time axis, because an angle of zero with respect to time is the definition of rest in just the spatial axes.) Let 5 years pass for Earth. Earth will have moved along the time axis a distance of 5 purple lines (I am asserting 1 purple line = 1 year.) If we arrive on our ship at this time on Earth, how much time will have passed for us on the ship? We now track the motion of our spaceship on the graph. Assume we accelerate to 0.8c quickly enough to not affect our calculations. We move up and to the right at an angle 38.7 degrees away from Earth's time axis (our time axis has rotated with us). According to the axes as measured by Earth, we are passing each purple line (each year according to Earth time) slower than Earth is. From our perspective, however, we are crossing purple lines at the ordinary rate because we have our own axes. But according to Earth's axes, we are crossing purple lines slower. This is equivalent to Earth observers watching our clocks tick slower than those on Earth. Therefore, our frame is different from that of Earth; we cross Earth's purple lines (moments in time) slower than Earth crosses them. Earth has crossed 2.5 purple lines (halfway between the second and the third), so 2.5 years have passed for Earth. Our spaceship has crossed 1.5 purple lines (halfway between the first and the second), so 1.5 years have passed on our clock. We must now return to Earth. We accelerate to reverse our 0.8c velocity so that it is now 0.8c toward Earth instead of away. Because we have accelerated to a different velocity (0.8c in one direction is a different velocity from the same speed in a different direction), we are now in a new frame. Because a vector of a given direction and magnitude is identical no matter where you move it on the graph, we can superimpose a copy of Earth's axes on our ship even though our ship is way off to the right in the diagram. (Put simply, 2 miles north is 2 miles north, no matter if you are in Kenya or Canada.) That would be very visually crowded, so we will instead say that our spaceship is at the origin again, with the origin being the point where we turned around from to start heading back. The axes are still parallel to Earth's so all calculations will still be correct. We now move up and to the left 38.7 degrees away from the time axis. While Earth crosses 2.5 purple lines again, totaling 5 years, we cross 1.5 purple lines again, totaling 3 years. We accelerate (negatively, to slow down) to land on Earth, so we return to Earth's frame and make Earth the origin again. We are now in the same frame as Earth. However, because we accelerated into different frames of reference, whereas Earth never changed its frame (because we designated it as the rest frame), our clocks will no longer agree with Earth. It is by this simple fact, that vectors are the same no matter where they move*, plus the non-Euclidean geometry of the universe, that we can show that motion through space does indeed result in less motion through time. This particular combination of Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry is called Lorentzian geometry. *When this is not true, we call this curved spacetime. That is general relativity, not special relativity.

@@Rationalific here's a picture that worth a thousand words; to play with! :D ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v6KdrZrsBjY.html

@@Rationalific Mathematically, it's because time has a "square root of negative one" (imaginary) unit factor... so when you do the A² +B² = C² pythagorean length using space on one side of the triangle, and time on the other side, you wind up subtracting the time² from space² (So longer spacetime intervals measure shorter proper time.) The reason for this mathematical trick, is because every location in space is in the past of every other location in space. Things that you see come from the past... the negative time direction. (You could also turn this around so that every location in space is located in the future of every other location too... the important thing is that "right now" for any arbitrarily chosen point time and place sits at the intersection of an incoming sphere of light from the past, and an expanding sphere of light towards the future.) Distance in space is also distance in time.

​ @Julia Vixen Thanks for the explanation. If I understood correctly (a big "if"), then it does seem like it does in fact stem from the fact that you go through less time if you go through more space... And it does come down to that circle graph using "i" that I saw in a past video... Anyway, it's wacky but thanks for explaining more about that!

Same here! I'm 60 and a lover of science fact and fiction. Just in my lifetime I've seen what was once fiction become reality or on its way to becoming so . What an awesome time to be alive and to have watched many of these advances come into being a reality!

@@chefscorner7063 Agreed! 😊

What about a fart bubble underwater😁😁😁😁😁?

​@Daniel B it is real and you can see a published paper about warp drive. But, with our current understanding and technology, it is indeed not possible.

​@@newdiary6978Just because there's a published paper about it, doesn't mean it's real. Didn't he say that warp drive is a movie term?

Just play Star Citizen and be done with it...