Lightspeed is always the same

>The energy you put into it also makes it slightly heavier.

This is wrong. There is only one mass, and that's the invariant mass. Relativistic mass is a concept that introduces far too many issues.

This is probably the best most direct answer for "why" you can't exceed the speed of light or move a massive (massive meaning has mass not necessarily big like people normally use it) object at the speed of light.

Preserve causality is a consequence of this speed limit.

By transmitting information faster than the speed of light

Wait, isn't it the opposite? That c being a limit CAUSES problems with causality if anything were to somehow exceed it?

lightspeed is a fucking meme. yes, light has a speed.

it has nothing to fucking do with time.

it has nothing to fucking do with causality.

there are plenty of non-local or ftl information paths.

anyone telling you that light and time are related, or that it has anything to do with causality, are retards who don't have a brain, or they would have thought it out a little and realized how foolish of an idea it is.

>yes, light has a speed.
>it has nothing to fucking do with time.

er

Yeah it does

Since nothing we can observe exceeds the speed of light we have to assume it is the limit.

>somehow exceed it

it's a core concept in relativity that you cannot exceed it. See it would take literally infinite energy, not allot, literally infinite.

In a Newtonian universe I think it's assumed there exists absolute standards of time and space, that's what the "aether" was supposed to be, so transmitting FTL wouldn't matter. But if that doesn't exist, which all experimentation tells us it doesn't, then yea FTL would be a problem for a Newtonian universe.

no, not 'er'. shut the fuck up. time doesn't have a rate, and even if it did, it has nothing to fucking do with light. sound has a speed too, time has nothing to do with it.

light has NOTHING to do with time. we would not notice if the speed of light changed a little. the fact that it'd take us about 8 minutes to notice the sun had vanished doesn't mean that light has anything to do with time. it doesn't have infinite speed. that's all 'the speed of light' means. nothing would be different if light was faster or slower except for how long it'd take to notice the sun had vanished. which has nothing to do with time, because whether you saw it or not, it vanished at one moment and not another, your perception doesn't mean any more to the sun than sending a letter too late for someone to receive it on time.

it's not fucking relative.

do you even know what speed means?

Except that speed does in fact have everything to do with time

GPS would not work if we did not correct for the relativistic change in time encountered by the clocks on GPS satellites.

yes, and no matter how fast you go, time does not change relative to it. time does not have a rate. you have a rate of change of a value, such as distance down a road.

time is a undifferentiated metronome against which events can be charted. but it is in no fucking way relative to speed or light.

i shouldn't even be talking to a brainlet like you. obviously i fucking know what speed is, but you asked a stupid question anyways.

fucking WRONG.

speed has nothing to do with time, except that change occurs in the context of time. speed is not RELATIVE to time.

GPS has no special relation to time. don't be an idiot. an engine wouldn't work if a belt didn't 'time' the injectors, either. that doesn't mean fucking anything about time.

so when you said
>yes, light has a speed.
you were just randomly spouting bullshit
got it

Well that's not really to do with the speed of light, it's more to do with relativity. c in a Lorentz factor is more of a constant of proportionality, a constant we can eliminate by switching to Planck units.

Typing in all caps doesn't make you any less wrong.

You are under the assumption that there is some universal measure of time somewhere in the universe. There is no such thing.

don't play your stupid fucking avoidant games with me.

light does move at a certain speed, just the same as a tennis ball or bullet moves at a certain speed.

this doesn't alter times constancy in any fashion at all.

even the fact that if you were to travel very rapidly towards earth from far away, that while looking at it with a telescope, it'd seem as though things were moving faster down on earth. this has nothing to do with time. you're simply running into the light emanated from earth at a faster rate.

time itself isn't fucking changing and if you think it does, you're a zombie person who does not possess consciousness and does not have a mental existence.

time can not be measured because it does not have a rate. there is nothing to measure. events simply proceed at a certain speed and not another. this is a constant. there is nothing to compare it to. there's no way to measure existence, there's no way to measure time.

clocks only work because time is an absolute constant, and the clock proceeds in rates that are constant in relation to the rate that everything else proceeds.

time remains absolutely constant even if you speed up the clock.

if you can't grasp this, you're sub-human, you haven't developed into a rational being, you are merely a animal automata, who is blind, deaf, and dumb.

OP here

but WHY is lightspeed the limit? WHY can't we accelerate a space ship faster then light?

nobody here really answered my question

you all saying lightspeed is the limit, accept it.

but i wanted to know WHY is lightspeed the limit? do we know it yet ? i would be satisfied when you say we don't know yet but everybody here is just talking around my original question.

>but WHY is lightspeed the limit? WHY can't we accelerate a space ship faster then light?

there's no reason to think that we can't. people are just really, really confused.

in all likelihood light has a certain speed simply because the subatomic event that generates a particle of light has a threshold energy level that makes it so that any time a photon is sent flying, it's sent flying at a certain speed, because it breaks off at that threshold only.

there's no reason to think that this can't be manipulated.

Wow such insults

You really convinced me with that hot opinion

See you can't generate enough energy to move any object with mass even AT light speed let alone beyond it.

>Everything you said about time

That's all wrong, time is relative to particular frames. There seems to be an underlaying assumption that there exists some privileged frame, such a frame does not exist.

>but WHY is lightspeed the limit?

Because when you work through the mathematics of SR you end up with a term that looks like [eqn] \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 1 - \frac { v^2 } { c^2 } } } [/eqn]Which is divergent as [math] v \to c [/math]. Now why does that exist? Well that comes from the invariance of the line element [math] c d \tau ^2 = c dt^2 - d \vec { x } ^2 [/math], so why is that invariant? Well that follows from the fact that space time is homogeneous and isotropic. So why is space time homogeneous and isotropic? I've no idea, it just is. Like I said earlier, at a certain point you just have to accept that the universe is the way it is.

I know the theory says it absolutely cannot be exceeded. But if there were no such thing as relativity and c being a limit, would there be any issues with causality if oyu could travel at, say, 10^100 m/s?

thanks
this is something i understand.

so the real answer is "we don't know YET". right?

btw i heard about a experiment where they accelerate light to 2-3 times c. does this mean we can break the speed of light but only with massless particle?

so one day when we be able to transform mass into energy and vise versa we could travel faster then c? we could transform a, lets say, a cup into energy and transform this energy back into its original form , a cup, we would be able to teleport in a instant? no matter the distance.

or is the future teleport related to quantums? when one is positive the other is negative you know what i mean. we could travel faster then c by "building" clones?

It isn't something light has a monopoly on. Even gravity propagates at that speed. The reason it is "exactly" c is inconsequential. We call it 3x10^8 m/s in our arbitrary units, but is is simply a constant that we can convert into our units and express as a speed.

There is nothing arbitrary about the exact value of c, it comes out naturally as soon as you assume there is a max speed. Then other weird shit gets implied (such as length contraction, time dilation etc) that you can then test and find that the limit is indeed the speed at which light travels.

It has nothing intrinsically to do with photons, or gravitons specifically, its just that these particles are not bound by having a rest mass, so their only limit is the causal limit of the universe itself.

kek

This guy gave you an actual answer

to speak of you as being 'convinced' of anything would be false; you are simply an accidental ball of slime who bears a passing resemblance to a sapient life form amongst which you subsist.

>I've no idea, it just is. you just have to accept

time is not relative. if you think it is, you are wrong, and if you think it's relative on purpose, you're wrong and stupid.

time and space have fucking nothing to do with each other. nothing. there is no god damned space time, you retards.

FUCKING LOOK AT IT.

these people can't think about things for themselves, and they can't stand not knowing things, so they say fucking whatever they hear someone else like themselves saying.

yes, someday nothing will be impossible to us. we will possess the capacity to 'instantiate'.

but whst about pure energy without mass?

i know that we lack the technology now and probably we need another 5000years. this is just a theoretically question.

that wouldn't be a breach of causality at all in a Newtonian universe

You're either trolling or have absolutely no understanding of things like time dilation, which have been observed and DO happen.

>time and space have fucking nothing to do with each other.

Gene Ray, pls go.

i'm on a phone and i didn't read the answer before i posted my comment

It is possible there are other sets of rules that could produce a universe similar to our own sure, you could have in theory a universe where there is causality and there is no relativity and no C speed limit but all experimentation and observation tells us we live in a universe where both the C speed limit and relativity are true.

>pure energy

This phrase has no meaning. So your sentence doesn't make sense.

Are we being raided by /x/?

>time dialation has been observed

no the fuck it has not

>muh theoretical bullshit that doesn't produce enough actual effect to wipe my fucking ass with

if all physicists in the world, and all physics books and information, were thrown into a pit and burned, within 10 years we'd have a far more advanced conception of the fundamental laws of reality than we do now.

if i were leader, i would execute every single physicist and burn every physics book and you would just have to start over.

>
>time can totally change guys, time and space are like, one huge thing, maaaan

it is YOU who are /x/

you are not dumb and i believe you know what i meant. sorry for my language but english is not my first language.

>pure energy
lets say quantums instead if you want. i don't care what you call it but i hope you get what i mean.

It seems to just be an in-built property of space-time. Space-time itself can/does expand at unlimited speed, but anything within space-time, that has to move 'through' it, is limited to less than c, or c if massless.

I bet you think the earth is flat too

you think that because you're a fucking fool. you are the kind of person that in better ages long past, would not have been taught to read, and would be immeasurably improved for the omission.

when you educate fools, you achieve only stupidity-on-steroids.

Do you use GPS on your phone?

this is not /x/ related

is c really the limit? or can photons travel faster then c? or other partical without mass?

will humans be able to go faster then c? with spaceships or just by accelerate particles without mass?

is c really the limit? when yes, please explain why in detail.

Bob and alice are connected through a supraluminal communcation device the same time she sees his hand on a detonation button.
When bob presses the button it transmits a FTL singal to alice indicating that a bomb exploded on a planet at the same time light bouncing from bob's hand reach Alice eyes.

From Alice's point of view the bomb explosion happened before bob pressed the button, thus fucking up causality.

>if i were leader, i would execute every single physicist and burn every physics book and you would just have to start over.

Shit dude, you're like full on mad. Is special relativity too hard for you're little brainlet you understand? I mean I could point out to you something like that Hafele–Keating experiment or even GPS. But I doubt you'd accept them. I'm lmaoing at you so hard right now.

I honestly don't know what you mean, I'm not trying to be an asshole here. Energy is kind of an "fuzzy" subject, since it's not really well defined (I think the only half decent definition I can come up with is that it's a manifestation of a Noether current). I energy could propagate at c (like x-rays from the sun), but it doesn't have to.

Still not the point I'm trying to get across.
I know OUR universe DOES seem to have c as a limit. I'm saying, isn't that what CAUSES causality problems when you then hypothetically suggest 'what if something went faster?'.
IF the universe had no limiting speed, there'd be NO problems, in terms of causality, with anything flying off at any speed, ever.

>is c really the limit?
Yes
>or can photons travel faster then c
No
>or other partical without mass?
A particle with no mass can travel at c.
>will humans be able to go faster then c?
No
>is c really the limit?
Yes
>please explain why in detail.
I tried here but I don't know if that will count as a satisfactory explanation.

Mass and energy are essentially two sides of the same coin. If you have intrinsic rest mass, and you lose to c, the closer you get, the more inertial (relativistic) mass you gain, until it would take an infinite force to accelerate you any further. You don't "convert to energy" at that point. In fact, you'd become a black hole.

>why
>Not really a question for science
>cooking
>Not really a question for chefs

Are you serious bro?

>no matter how fast you go, time does not change relative to it
All of relativity theory disagrees with you. You are trying to force a point that the speed of light has nothing to do with time. When all time and space coordinates in the universe are defined relative to the speed of light. In fact, most of the time I don't even get what you're trying to say. Is English your first language?

Any experiment you read of that claims to have made anything go faster than c is lying to you. Maybe is said faster than the speed of light in a certain material/medium?

Isn't the causality only fucked because the signal went faster than light? If light had an unlimited speed itself, there's no problem.

BUT IS GRAVITY FASTER THAN LIGHT?

the same equations that relate to gravity propagation approach 99% incorrectness at larger and larger distances.

they made up dark matter to cover this mistake.

>since the button transmitted a message indicating an event faster than the light from the event reached the person who received the message... causality is broken!

if i have a water gun and jump into a pool, and squirt you before the waves from me jumping in hit you, have i broken causality?

you have to be a very, very special kind of stupid to think that just because the message got there faster than light, that the bomb didn't go off at the exact same time for both bob and alice. because time is a fucking constant. everything happens together, at the same time.

jesus christ, you probably make fun of religious people, but someone coming back from the dead because he was gods son literally makes more sense than these crackpot theories that conflate light, time, and causality.

i feel sorry for you stupid, blind sacks of shit.

'special relativity' is a fucking fairy tale. you're basically a scientologist at this point if you literally believe that GPS devices clocking each other proves that causality has anything to do with how fast the room lights up when you flick a fucking switch.

>All of relativity theory disagrees with you.

relativity has WHAT merits exactly? fucking none, you morons. you've accomplished fucking nothing with it. you've hit a brick fucking wall and god damned techno-tinkers are surpassing you while you look at the sky and do math to try and prove that your retarded theories aren't actually as wrong as they appear to be.

guillotine.

youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

>Are you serious bro?

Deadly serious, bro. Why is a question for philosophy, not science. I sort of expanded on that a bit further up . At a certain point you just have to accept that we've reached bedrock, that the universe is just like that and we need to accept it.

No.

>'special relativity' is a fucking fairy tale
>On of the most well tested physical theories ever
>A fucking fairy tale

kek.

All current experimentation and observation tells us FTL transmission of objects or communication is impossible.

There do exist fringe theories about things like tachyons which are particles supposed to travel at FTL speeds but there is no evidence they actually exist and they are not part of any widely accepted theories.

There's also quantum entanglement which may involve an FTL transmission of some kind but it seems to be fundamentally random and uncontrollable so it cannot be used to communicate.

Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility, but thus far nothing we know of indicates to us that moving an object or a message from point A to point B FTL is possible.

>pure energy

gravity for example is something i would call "pure energy". radioactive rays would be another.

i hope you get what i mean now.

e=mc2

cut out the mass and you have pure energy. basically particle without mass.

can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example. if you put more energy into it will they be able to go even faster?

If our universe had no speed limit but you left everything else the same any object that exceeded C, or whatever the fastest thing that could transmit information was, would be able to break causality.

Light cannot have unlimited speed because it would be anywhere at the same time

>can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example. if you put more energy into it will they be able to go even faster?

No. This has been tested.

>relativity has WHAT merits exactly
It has the merit that it has been proven correct on several occasions, even ones that should be evident to warped brainlets like yourself.

You obviously aren't a scientist, so why do you feel like you have a right to judge whether or not scientific principles are correct? If I was to tell you that the way your GPS works is based exclusively on these principles, and wouldn't work at all without them, would you believe me?

I'm guessing probably not, because you have no concept of how this information was acquired, therefore you place no importance on it. If you actually sat down with an intro physics/math book and tried to learn things, then you might eventually realise how completely ignorant you are.

>I'm too stupid to understand special relativity, but too self-absorbed to see that.
It's funny how stupid people lack self-awareness.

>can pure energy go faster then light? photons for example.

No. You have this thing called the Lorentz (or sometimes gamma) factor, as you start to get closer and closer to the speed of light, the Lorentz factor gets larger and larger. It approaches the speed of light "asymptotically", which is to say, it never quite reaches c.

'special relativity' hasn't been fucking tested. you've made up a bunch of shit rationalizing it. you have

ACCOMPLISHED

NOTHING

with it.

fucking geeks just FUCKING AROUND IN THEIR GARAGE have accomplished more than 'special relativity'.

fucking 'special ed' indeed. specious accusations that time and space are unified in any meaningful way, implying that they're subject to anything.

it's the most gobbeldy-gook hokum ever seen.

>hurr, if you went really fast, you'd break causality

that's just stupid of you.

GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle. you fucking fool. it's basically a couple radios with stopwatches strapped to them and a calculator. you have no clue what you are talking about.

i have the right - at this point the duty - to point out when you faggots have your head so far up your ass that you start talking pure shit. such as speed being able to 'break causality'. put down the fucking comic book.

if i was to sit down and read a book, i'd take some effort to make sure it wasn't full of pure nonsense. this is what you should have done and what you did not do leading to you making the most wildly stupid claims possible, that show you have not spent five fucking minutes actually THINKING about time, space, matter, light, or causality.

no, it's not funny. it's not funny that you adhere to some retarded, broken concept that no one has the balls to put down because they'd look stupid, and instead come up with less and less plausible and rational cover-ups for their big flub.

guillotine for physicists.

And we have reached several "bedrocks" throughout history and overcame them. What makes you think this is any different? Would you really be a scientist if you just gave up and said "well that's just how it is"?
I thought the whole point was to find out why things are the way they are. Philosophy and science are linked at the most basic level. They both concern the use of logic to obtain truths (at least philosophy used to be).
If you are not driven by a desire to know why things are the way they are (e.g. why is c the speed limit) then you should really just stop with science.

>can pure energy go faster then light?

No, if you add more energy to a photon, all you do is transmit more energy, it doesn't get there any faster.

>All current experimentation and observation tells us FTL transmission of objects or communication is impossible.

>There do exist fringe theories about things like tachyons which are particles supposed to travel at FTL speeds but there is no evidence they actually exist and they are not part of any widely accepted theories.

atoms where not part of any wodely accetped theorie 5000years ago. never say never. this is how i understand science. it's 99% we don't know till we have a proof.

>There's also quantum entanglement which may involve an FTL transmission of some kind but it seems to be fundamentally random and uncontrollable so it cannot be used to communicate.

it's looks random for us now.but maybe in the future we will understand how it works. nothing is trully random in the universe. everything follows orders, even when we don't understand it yet.

>Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility, but thus far nothing we know of indicates to us that moving an object or a message from point A to point B FTL is possible.

my question was not about information.

thanks anyways

to come back at my original question. WHY is c the limit? what about partical without mass? could they travel faster theoretically?

if you are traveling at light speed in vacum, aiming straight to the center of a black hole, when you enter its gravitational field, does the gravitational pull adds speed? if not, because it's impossible to go faster than lightspeed, why if you suddenly changed to the opposite direction without losing any speed still be dragged into the black hole?

>"f i have a water gun and jump into a pool, and >squirt you before the waves from me jumping >in hit you, have i broken causality"

From my reference frame i have seen:
1) Person with water gun jumping the pool
2) Squirt from gun
3) Wave
4) Me being hit by a fast water stream and a slower wave

Actually these are not even cause-effect actions at all

thanks

i posted this before i read your posts

i need to learn more about this now. thsnk you and bye

your personal reference frame doesn't mean jack shit.

is the misconception that it does at the heart of the flawed path that physics has taken? possibly.

>never say never

I didn't, I literally ended by saying
>Is there a possibility that we will some day discover something that upends current understanding? Yes, there is always that possibility,

>it's looks random for us now.but maybe in the future we will understand how it works. nothing is trully random in the universe. everything follows orders, even when we don't understand it yet.

It's certainly possible that there is something at play we just don't understand yet but you should really look into this for yourself. Quantum physics is weird as shit and challenges the idea that "there is nothing truly random in the universe" there might be, there might be allot of random shit in fact.

>to come back at my original question. WHY is c the limit? what about partical without mass? could they travel faster theoretically?

And now I just think you're trolling. This has been answered multiple times based on our current best understanding of the subject, what do you want to hear?

Relatistic mass is central to the question, so you can't just ignore it because it is complicated.

>GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle
ask anyone in the world and they will tell you it does. I understand why and how, and you don't.

>if i was to sit down and read a book, i'd take some effort to make sure it wasn't full of pure nonsense.
And the only way to find out if it's pure nonsense is to, that's right, read it.

>you have not spent five fucking minutes actually THINKING about time, space, matter, light, or causality.
No, I haven't spent five minutes. It's more like ten years.
I hope you realise that right now, you are attempting to undermine centuries of accumulated knowledge by the human race, and men and women vastly more intelligent than you, when you haven't even read a fucking introductory text concerning what you are talking about. Does that seem right to you? (points for the reference).

>GPS does NOT work on 'special relativity' principle. you fucking fool.
It does account for time dilation due to gravity and orbital motion in its calculations. It isn't fundamental to the concept, but it severely improves the resolution. You will of course just ignore or deny this, but just for completeness' sake.

Note by the way, that literally every modern physical theory is based on special relativity. In fact, electrodynamics (not even the quantum version of it) is a relativistic theory and basically 99% of every piece of technology you are using is based on it. But go on and deny this as well, I don't care.

Yea breaking causality would be getting hit by the stream from the gun before he pulls the trigger or something like that, he chose events that aren't even causally linked anyways.

p stupid on his part desu senpai.

Holy shit why are you so upset
Like I do not understand what the problem is, a dozen people have tried to point out exactly why you're wrong and you're just slamming all caps back

>'special relativity' hasn't been fucking tested.

Au Contraire. There are numerous direct and indirect experiments affirming the validity of SR
>Direct tests
Muon telescope experiments
Ives-Stilwell experiment
Hafele–Keating experiment (and it's derivatives)
Hughes–Drever experiment

>Indirect tests from quantum mechanics
Klein–Nishina formula

>Indirect tests from QFT
Prediction of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.
Klein–Nishina formula (again!) with higher order corrections
Explanation for, and prediction of, the Lamb shift

There's lots of evidence for SR.

>does the gravitational pull adds speed
No, it warps the space around it, so the light beam gets "stretched" out. It still retains the same speed, but it will appear to change wavelength, something known as gravitational redshift.

Relativistic mass is just an ancient didactic concept to make relativity more plausible. Ironically, it appears to have achieved the exact opposite. There is only one mass, it does not change. The dynamics are completely buried inside the Lorentz transformation.

It's not complicated it's just wrong. Relativistic mass has all sorts of unfortunate consequences that can easily be removed by getting rid of the concept and instead focusing on just energy-momentum. Hell even Einstein didn't like the idea and argued against it.

...

GPS doesn't work on 'special relativity'.

NOTHING DOES.

>It does account for time dilation due to gravity and orbital motion in its calculations

no the fuck it does not. it corrects itself to a master clock.

> It's more like ten years.

ten wasted fucking years. 100% wasted.

>undermine centuries of accumulated knowledge

accumulated error.

>men and women vastly more intelligent than you

if they think that there is such a thing as a relativistic 'reference frame' in which FTL events could 'break causality', then they are not more intelligent than i.

>introductory text

preliminary errors, you mean. you need smaller errors before you can work up to bigger errors, such as, 'the universe is 99% dark mass'.

they're causally related because i caused all of them on purpose. as far as you're concerned, if you actually think that the water squirt originated before the splash, congratulations, you've achieved a competency in trained error and it's justifications.

none of that fucking means shit, because you've established fucking nothing as a useful method of work.

>take some clocks
>fuck with them
>they drift off from another clock

"time is relative"

no, a clocks operation is flawed, you FUCKING idiot. time travel isn't fucking real.

a dozen retards who are incapable of consideration and contemplation. i am educating you worthless fucks.

guillotine for physicists.

I don't really know what else to say to you. At a certain point you can go no further, say some day in the distant future there's a complete and unified theory, that told us why space was homogeneous and isotropic. We've only move the question of "why" back a step (or several!) Why then does the universe follow this particular theory?

What this user is referring to is the Stress-Energy Tensor (or the Energy-Momentum Tensor) which is a pretty damn cool mathematical object that relates all kinds of things like mass-energy densiy, pressure, momentum density and flux and shear stress. It generalises the concept of what happens to a spacetime when you increase the gravity, or to an object when you increase its speed. Yaaay Einstein!

>Proof by denial
Good troll

>none of that fucking means shit, because you've established fucking nothing as a useful method of work.

You're so mad it's hilarious. What I have established is that special relativity reproduces all of what is observed. It's unification with QM then goes on to reproduce even more.

the burden of evidence for

>FUCKING TIME TRAVEL

is not on me.

I don't think he referred to that.

There are some things we can measure easily, but have no real explanation for. Why does Pi =3.14159? Why are there only 2 electrical polarities (+&-) and not three? Why do we have three dimensions of space and one of time? And of course your question about light.

Someday we might have clear answers for these questions, but for now they are at the limits of what we know.

Time dilation is not time travel.

no, you literally have not established that special relativity reproduces 'what is observed'. it's been a constant application of bullshit to conform to observations, which have many simple possible explanations, eschewed in favor of wildly implausible gibberish.

occams razor: special relativity is the greatest waste of time the human race has ever engaged in.

guillotine for physicists

You are literally just a fucking moron. Or you are a pretty convincing troll. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

I get what you mean, and eventually we will reach our species' limit of understanding. But there's no reason to assume that we have already stumbled upon something we can never answer in a meaningful way.

It's all out there, you just have to get your head out of your ass. It's certainly not the job of scientists to explain that shit to every single retarded conspiracist who actively fights against learning new things.