Help me understand the speed of light

"Light" actually travels infinitely fast, relativity is a made up rule of the simulation

This guy explained it well enough. Though I'm sure some retard will soon zoom in and bitch about some useless semantics that make no difference at all.

The point is that light has no speed, what we observe as the "speed limit of light" is not really the speed limit of light. It's just the speed limit of any and all information in the universe, as said. Light "moves" literally instantly. And indeed like the poster I quoted above said, from its perspective not a single unit of planck time would have passed. A photon is born, travels to its destination, collides and dies all at the same time. While from our perspective that process could've taken 13 billion years. It's a literal binary existence.

The only thing that can "move" faster than the speed of light, is space itself. And space isn't moving either. It literally is the fabric everything exists in. The theoretical alcubierre drive mentioned above uses this by contracting the space in front, and expanding it behind the traveler. The ugly truth here is that so far, we have no evidence at all to support the idea that FTL travel would ever be possible. In fact, with all we know now, it's likely that we will never be able to cross the speed limit of light. Science fiction would obviously be quite boring without a convenient way to explore other planets and galaxies, so they dealt away with that bit of realism a long time ago. But current estimates are that if and when mankind ever truly starts expanding to the stars, it will be in the form of robots and nanobots - possibly carrying human embryos, likely not even that - rather than big, bulky ships with food, waste disposal, gardens, excersize quarters and entertainment rooms and cool cryo units.

Alcubierre drives might be a thing soon, i guess we will find out.

it's an artificial limit which we need to make our incomplete system more complete. There's multiple examples of information travelling beyond speed of light. Einstein called the light speed barrier the black void which he wouldnt discuss, because it's fucking bullshit.

this isn't correct at all.

light does not move instantaneously. that's retarded.

Would you be willing to elaborate on your thought process here? I don't mean whatever theory you've cooked up with which is clearly wrong since you don't agree with the established, tried and insofar proven scientific consensus. I mean the process which made you read through it and then proceed to post what you just did.

I mean, I'm no genius, much like pretty much everyone else here. But I'm still smart enough to generally absorb what I've read, consider it. And if and when I find myself in disagreement, I will go out and do at least some basic, cursory research on the subject to find out whether he, or I was wrong, and why. But I would never in a million years read something and then just up and proceed to be stupid enough to disagree with it "just because", ignore any instinct to find out more about it, and finally go all ape-child-mode and enter a state of denial while spewing insults every which way.

I'm not blaming you for being stupid. It's not your fault any more than it would be true that I somehow "earned" my considerably above average IQ of 139 in the ~99:th percentile or so. We were both born more or less this way, and neither deserve credit or blame for it. But I am genuinely interested what an average, or below average intellect like yours goes through when you make a post like that one?

Please, indulge me. I honestly want to understand.

...

holy shit new pasta

well, photons are timeless--that is, they do not evolve. i guess it's not completely wrong to say from the perspective of a photon, departure and arrival occur instantaneously. or another way of thinking of it, time dilation goes to infinity at the speed of light. so we see light as taking time to get somewhere, but no matter how we look, for a photon, 0 time has passed.

this is retarded. if I was moving at the speed of light, I would be moving at a particular speed. it would take me years to travel from planet to planet. sorry, but you're the one who's misunderstanding the theory by thinking it's more complicated than it is. dunning-kruger in action.

light does not move instantaneously. end of story.

Lol ok. Go back to reading facebook pictographs mate, what are you doing in /sci anyway?

The faster you move, the smaller physical space appears to you. When you hit the speed of light you are at all 3 dimensional points simultaneously and your journey is a traversing of time rather than 3 dimensional space.
If the issue was just getting from point A to point B, science could do this, not at the speed of light, but at a significant percentage of the speed of light. However the key isn't just getting there, it's getting there and not having thousands of years have passed outside your ship when you get there. This is why systems that break the rules are needed. Even if from your perspective it takes 1 year to get somewhere it doesn't help when 10,000 years have passed in the normal space perspective.

The point is that if you were to travel at exactly the speed of light, time would stop for you. You would literally appear instantly wherever you wanted to go. But as you appeared, you would be as many years in the future, as many light years you traveled.

So you if you were to go to the Andromeda galaxy for instance - which is roughly 2 537 000 light years away -, traveling at light speed you would seem to teleport there instantly. If you then were to travel back at the same speed, you would again seem to appear back here instantly. To you, only an instant would have passed. But here, to us, for mankind, 5 000 000 years would have gone by. That's if we don't consider the fact that Andromeda is actually moving towards us, and would continue to do so during that time.

So in that instant, you'd come back to see our sun as a red giant, with likely no trace of any earth left.

This is because the time dilation is literally infinite, at the speed of light. Now if you were to travel to Andromeda at the speed of, say 99.9999999999999% speed of light, then while the same ~2.5 million years would've passed for us, around 41 years would have passed for you, on the ship.

This is not opinion, there's nothing to debate here. It's fact. Tried, tested, proven, in a million different ways. This fact, and factoring it into the almost insignificantly small time dilation of earth's gravity compared to our satellites is what keeps the every day GPS working, for instance.

Correction, the sun will go red giant in a billion years, not million. *Minor* fail on my part there. :)

.... 5 billion years. God damn I need to go get some sleep.

If light just move at a speed and that is, if C is no special value, can you please ilustrate us on why light is always moving at that speed, regardless on how, when and where we look at it?

In theory this might make sense, but photons don't move at 100% the speed of light all the time. Like, it's ony 70% or so of lightspeed when traveling through water, as example

>Wrong. Causality can't exceed c without getting really, really complicated.

So yes then... but you say no because you're too brainlet to into quantum? Lmao check this guy out anons

The brainlet obviously doesn't understand relativity. If they want to be involved in this discussion, they either need to educate themselves on the topic, or accept the informed opinions/knowledge of others.

They are interacting with the water though; the instantaneous velocity of all photons will always be exactly c, even if the light beam slows down through the medium.