This scientist says Why the speed of light is not an absolute limit

[Leo123]

She is a German so her accent may well cause problems. But she is prominent in videos about science. She is very well worth listening to. Or if you already don't believe the speed of light is absolutely the limit to speed, explain your theory.

Why the speed of light is not an absolute limit​

I love Sabine. Been watching her videos for a while. She is very intelligent.

 

[toobfreak]

This scientist says Why the speed of light is not an absolute limit​

Let me cut to the chase on a few things.

• Is the speed of light an absolute barrier? Yes it is, to ordinary matter in normal space. This also implies that other things must lie beyond the speed of light including non-ordinary matter stuff in non-ordinary space (hyperspace or subspace); to them, nothing can exist below the speed of light.
• But light is not a speed barrier to all things, particularly to non-baryonic matter existing in altered space/timelines. For instance, FTL travel has already been proven and demonstrated in quantum entanglement studies.
• Aliens are here (as demonstrated circumstantially) and they could not have gotten here in normal space so NEED FTL travel to get about.
• The matter of time being one-directional, forward-traveling may also be a perceptual problem. It may very well be that we can only see time going forward, when in fact, time is really just another spatial dimension which can be approached many different ways. In fact, the duality of time is a prerequisite of any FTL travel.

 

[toobfreak]

For instance, when you look up a star in the night sky, you might be light that emitted from it 150 years ago. The star might even be gone by now but it's taken that long for the light to get to us if it's 150 light years away.

Even the Sun. When you look up at the Sun, you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes 41 seconds ago (that was the figure when I was growing up, I think the estimate is a little different now), so looking at the Sun, if it blew up right now, you wouldn't see it occur for another 8 1/2 minutes.

In fact, even looking at the Moon each night, you are looking back in time by about 1.5 seconds.

So really, which is the correct time? Did the Sun blow up when it blew up there 93 million miles away or did it not blow up until you saw it happen and the propagation of the event reached you? Or could both times be true?

That suggests that every point along the timeline of propagation is a valid event all to its own and that indeed, the speed of light is the speed of the propagation of information about the ordinary universe, thus making time both a property of space with the event riding the light wave, as well as simultaneously suggesting that FTL propagation is possible and necessary for the propagation of non-ordinary information and events.

 

[toobfreak]

I proposed going faster than light was possible by curving space in front of the vehicle.

And by curving space, we are really not talking about bent space as nowhere in spacetime can one ever perceive space as anything less than straight (at least not without leaving ordinary spacetime), so in effect, when we bend space (fold space, warp space), what we are really talking about is stepping into another dimension cheating the timeline it should take to get from A to B by cutting a lot out of the middle thus shortening the distance; in effect, exceeding 1c.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

No ... traveling at the speed of light you would be going 186,000 miles per second. That's not "instantly" when you're dealing with millions or even billions of miles.
For instance, when you look up a star in the night sky, you might be light that emitted from it 150 years ago. The star might even be gone by now but it's taken that long for the light to get to us if it's 150 light years away.

Doesn't work that way. Light doesn't "travel"