Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?

Share
Embed
• Published on Feb 25, 2015
• If you were driving at the speed of light and turned on your headlights, what would happen?
Instagram: instagram.com/electricpants
Sources and extras below!!
“The Life of the Cosmos” by Lee Smolin: www.amazon.co.uk/The-Life-Cosmos-Lee-Smolin/dp/0195126645
“In Search of the Multiverse” by John Gribbin: www.amazon.co.uk/In-Search-Multiverse-John-Gribbin/dp/0141036117
“The Pig That Wants to be Eaten: by Julian Baggini: www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pig-That-Wants-Eaten/dp/1847081282
Relevant MinutePhysics videos:
thexvid.com/video/IM630Z8lho8/video.html
thexvid.com/video/NnMIhxWRGNw/video.html
light slowing down in glass: thexvid.com/video/FAivtXJOsiI/video.html
a different perspective from Sixty Symbols about light slowing down: thexvid.com/video/CiHN0ZWE5bk/video.html
Why is “c” the speed of light?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/c.html
Car at light speed:
van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1355
Light speed is the same in all inertial frames of reference:
van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2605
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html#c1
doppler shift:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XYCoordinates.gif#mediaviewer/File:Doppler-velocity89.jpg
Relativity:
www.refsmmat.com/jsphys/relativity/relativity.html
www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/quest7.html
Light speed and catching-up to light.
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1571
van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1354
Other good relativity resources: newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/
Light echo footage: www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic0617a/
“fine-tuned” universe:
io9.com/5989467/how-does-the-anthropic-principle-change-the-meaning-of-the-universe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Irrational numbers: mathworld.wolfram.com/IrrationalNumber.html
a million digits of pi: www.piday.org/million/
THERE'S MORE VSAUCE!!
Vsauce2: thexvid.com/user/Vsauce2
Vsauce3: thexvid.com/user/Vsauce3
animated drawings by Guy Larsen twitter.com/guylar
rocketship animation by Eric Langay twitter.com/ericlanglay
• Science & Technology

• Andronikos Kapsalis 5 hours ago

Deep down , you know this is horse manure , don't you ?!

• Paolo Azzini 17 hours ago

what if the programmer is using us to evaluate irrational numbers?

• H3nry_16 19 hours ago

What if we create a simulation and look at how they solve the problems that happen nowadays, we just let the conditions be the same as here.

• CDO 21 hour ago

One of the best TheXvid Videos I've ever seen. I'd known for years all of the facts presented but never managed to draw all the lines between the dots. Thanks, Michael!

• Balaso Mane 2 days ago

• xXTAKOSAREGODXx 3 days ago +1

Vsauce, Michael here! Why is what?

What drugs do you take MICHAEL?!?!

• UpAndOut 4 days ago

This one will take a while to think through.

• lucid inc 5 days ago +1

If they can make a hyper developed simulation they can make procedural generators for irrational numbers

• lucid inc 2 days ago

Random number generator

• nvcnvn 5 days ago

if a simulator can work as this level of details, maybe our creator will soon know how to build another university

• Canavi Arcadius 5 days ago

I heard something weird at 6:45 , 6:51

• Sy G 6 days ago

What about sound? A train moving at the speed of sound and firing a gun?

• Heri Eystberg 7 days ago

One of the first philosophical questions a child tries to grasp!

• mason hammers 7 days ago

Programming irrational numbers is relativly easy as far as I know. Just program some process for finding some n'th term of an irrational number and you can do that. How else would the first million digits of pi be produced.

• Terry White 7 days ago

You wouldn't need your headlights because you would have arrived at you destination more-or-less instantaneously.

• Dapperbot 7 days ago +3

This man deserves a Nobel prize just for being this knowledgeable

• Dan Pitre 9 days ago +1

Me: *watches this video to learn*

Me: *ends up questioning my own existence* Thank you Vsauce, very cool.

• bubba_y 9 days ago +3

The reason light moves at c is because we have no magic in our universe.

• THE NO ONE 10 days ago +1

LIGHT CPEED

• Scotty J 10 days ago +1

Steven wright called....he might want a job.

• deflarance 12 days ago

Time only doesn't pass for the photon right? Roughly said, "the photon doesn't age?" but the outside world seen from another inertial system passes on normally? And the photons only appear for us to be moving at the universal speed limit, but when we would BE the photon ourselves, the time passed from the big bang to the end of our universe would be equal 0, if i understand correctly.

• deflarance 12 days ago

+See U Later damn, Einstein was a fucking genius! Seem from us, the photon should be infinitely long, and seen from the photon, our universe/space is just not there, because the size is 0

• See U Later 12 days ago

Yes no time passed for you
because the the length of the entire universe has shrunk to zero at light speed
the distance from you to me is literally nothing

• deflarance 12 days ago

Well shit, that's one hell of a thought 😅

• Isn't the speed of light different in different media? That's what refractive index is based upon.

• Kevin 13 days ago +2

"Some of them involve you watching this video... but Earth has one Sun."
Wait what

• xl 13 days ago

What if I run towards a clock ?

• Michael Smith 14 days ago

Well.. the other earth with 2 suns would have a slightly diffrent vsauce video where you would of said 1 sun.

• dude i thought we were the only universe but you just proved that mine is different. multiple SUNS

• Riccardo Wright 14 days ago

Irrational numbers are like the indetermination principle: not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of things to be known.
As Kant pointed out, there is no limit in space nor time to be known. In this sense, the whole universe is a "irrational number".
This is also the reason why we can't demonstrate the existence of God.
Descartes believed that the existence of God proves the existence of the world. But, it turns out that the very lack of God proves the reality of our world. ;)

• Riccardo Wright 14 days ago +2

Photons are the only thing that do not experience time.
God doesn't experience time.
God is light.
ChEcK MAtE aThEIsTs

• rey bibleteng 15 days ago

NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE NINE point EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT

(c) Ali G 2003

• Jason B 16 days ago

Hey light....where's the fire? Slow down....live a little.

• bridogg154 16 days ago

"A photon doesnt feel time?"
I beleive life is light slowed down... our brains are just slimy matter that trap photons and .... calculates

• zack chacon 16 days ago

Confuse

• CATS YAH BRO 16 days ago

What?

• Al the Alligator 16 days ago +1

*4:33** Yes but what if you were on .99c? Since from your perspective, time would appear to be much slower for Rest, wouldn't your headlights totally outspeed Rest's? So what actually is it? Are the headlights at the same distance or are they completely uneven?*

• Jack Daniels 16 days ago

​+Al the Alligator

"In the first part, you say c is the same for all observers. I already knew that, the thing is this only means distance/time is the same relative to all observers, however, time runs more slowly relative to other observers. As in, light in another frame of reference will appear slower to you. So the first part disagrees with this principle.

The second part, however, says that light cannot be measured until it enters something's frame of reference, making it the same from all perspectives. The thing is, this fact agrees with the same principle that the first part of the reply disagrees with. It (2nd part) acknowledges it. Why would you do that? Both parts disagree with each other (at least I think so, if I'm wrong, then tell me precisely what part is wrong).
"

The time distortion does not come on its own. The Lorentz principle states that this distortion in time will come with a distortion in space as well. Distance/time = c will hold because both distance and time are distorted. If time is moving more slowly, light won't be able to travel the same distance, but that's not an issue, because distance is contracted as well. This is shown at 3:58 in the video. Keep in mind though that the Lorentz principle describes motion AS IT APPEARS from a certain frame of reference. In absolute terms, namely where the frame of reference is the universe/space-time, light will always travel c meters in 1 second, thus the definition of c.

With regards to my mention of frame of reference, I was trying to show that c is constant regardless of time and space distortions. Be it at the emission phase or the observation phase. Light emitted from something moving at 0.99c will travel at c, move through space at c, and reach an observer having traveled at c the entire way. The distortion observed will not mean they see the light moving at anything above or below c, but rather that space-time itself is contracted by the object traveling towards them and emitting light.

"Object A and object B are both equipped with a clock and are immobile relative to each other. At 0:00, they will start moving relative to each other. They will stop moving once 2 hours have passed from their own perspective. It is is 0:00 and they start moving. After 2 hours, from A's perspective, A's clock says 2:00 and B's clock says 1:00. However, from B's perspective, A's clock says 1:00 and B's clock says 2:00. What do the clock actually say? What am I missing that's making me not understand this?"

Twin's paradox. Look up a video by minutephysics about this. The ship which travelled faster will see the slower moving ship seem to skip ahead in time at the point of acceleration post movement, assuming the acceleration is instantaneous.

• Al the Alligator 16 days ago +1

+Jack Daniels its*
*After writing what comes next, I realize that I sound oddly hostile throughout, just know that I don't mean to be, lol.*
OK. Well as far as I can tell, the first part of your reply disagrees with the second part:
In the first part, you say c is the same for all observers. I already knew that, the thing is this only means distance/time is the same relative to all observers, however, time runs more slowly relative to other observers. As in, light in another frame of reference will appear slower to you. So the first part disagrees with this principle.
The second part, however, says that light cannot be measured until it enters something's frame of reference, making it the same from all perspectives. The thing is, this fact agrees with the same principal that the first part of the reply disagrees with. It (2nd part) acknowledges it. Why would you do that? Both parts disagree with each other (at least I think so, if I'm wrong, then tell me precisely what part is wrong).
I wasn't talking about directly SEEING the light, I meant what it truly is like relative to another perspective. To an object A moving relative to an object B emitting light, that light from B is slower than to light emitted by A, from A's perspective. This doesn't require seeing. I'm talking about what it is at this instant. Sure, as soon as that light reaches A, A will measure it to be the same speed as its own light. At least that's what I gather from everything I know about Relativity and this video as well.
*Nevermind, that last paragraph was wrong. Here's my problem, what I don't understand:*
From Rest's (the ship) perspective, Rest's light and .99c's light travel at the same speed because .99c's light's boost relative to Rest caused by .99c's movement relative to Rest is slowed down by .99c's time's slowing down relative to Rest caused by .99c's movement relative to Rest. The thing is, the changes happen both ways: from .99c's perspective, Rest appears shorter and its time slower. *HERE: So from Rest's perspective, .99c's time slowing down is letting Rest's light catch up (in speed, not distance) to .99c's light, **_BUT_** from .99c's perspective, Rest's time slowing isn't making Rest's light catch up (in speed, not distance) to .99c's light, like it does from Rest's perspective, but it instead is making it lag behind even more.* That's issue, that's what I don't get.
I'm sorry if I completely missed your point and this whole freaking article I wrote was useless, but if this is the case then try to explain it better for my feeble brain to understand. *Let me put the same issue from a scenario easier to understand, if what I wrote didn't make enough sense:*
Object A and object B are both equipped with a clock and are immobile relative to each other. At 0:00, they will start moving relative to each other. They will stop moving once 2 hours have passed from their own perspective. It is is 0:00 and they start moving. After 2 hours, from A's perspective, A's clock says 2:00 and B's clock says 1:00. However, from B's perspective, A's clock says 1:00 and B's clock says 2:00. *What do the clock actually say? What am I missing that's making me not understand this?*
It's basically the whole clocks run slower on the ISS than they do on Earth because the ISS is moving faster than Earth and therefore time runs slower for the ISS from Earth's perspective, but since the same changes apply the other way around, shouldn't Earth's clocks be slower too?
Unless I've basically found the explanation to quantum uncertainty and the many worlds theory and essentially the Theory of Everything, what the hell am I missing?

• Al the Alligator 16 days ago

+2T-Review Well no shit Sherlock, that's what's causing the problem. "Rest" is the name of the ship, as is ".99c." Rest is the object moving in this case, relatively. You didn't answer my question. From .99c's perspective, Rest's time is running slower and Rest is shorter. Therefore, from .99c's perspective, .99c's headlights are completely outspeeding Rest's.
*This is obviously wrong, so what am I missing?*

• Jack Daniels 16 days ago

Light cares not about relative velocities. Light you emit will appear to travel away from you at c. Light coming towards you from a source moving at speed relative to you will from your perspective appear to be moving at c. This is because you cannot measure light before it reaches you, and therefore cannot ascertain it's speed until it's in your frame of reference, because nothing travels faster than c. This means any light you observe has already travelled to you, and in order to reach you - and be observed by you - it must join your frame of reference.

• 2T-Review 16 days ago

the first principle of relativity are not possible to tell which object is moving and which object is standing still
you can research the twin paradox
If I sit on an airplane, from my point of view I can say that my plane is standing still and the earth is the moving

• bob bob 18 days ago

2:49 when Hitler was informed on the seize of Berlin

• Ethan Rowlette 18 days ago

In regards to the last thing in this video. Saying that irrational numbers give evidence to reality not being simulated. I think that is an irrational statement. If we were simulated we would inherently be incapable of ever possessing enough computation power to calculate Pi to its completion. So assuming that being unable to find the end of pi gives evidence to our universe being an irrational universe which would be incapable of being simulated would be a great folly considering a simulated universe is inherently incapable of ever finishing its calculation. There are infinitely diverse ways to disguise a simulation from it's inhabitants.

• Jack Daniels 16 days ago

If one takes it as an exclusive property rather than confirmatory, then could one not say that being able to compute all the digits of pi removes the possibility that this universe is a simulation? That is, rather than saying not being able to compute all of pi confirms that this is a simulation. I know it ultimately comes to the same conclusion, but the differentiation I hope to make is that the logic in this argument holds, but it still won't solve the problem.

In truth though, I agree that being able to compute all of pi would not prove that this isn't a simulation. All one need do is define the laws of this simulation (mathematics), and pi will occur naturally. What I mean is, since pi can be defined in a simple formula, such as the Gregory-Leibniz Series, then from the point of view of someone creating a simulation, one need only store the law, and call it when it's needed.

I'd say a much greater sign that we are in a simulation comes from the point where the universe ends. Planck's seems like a really convenient way to delineate what would be a never-ending sequence of perfect edges in the real world, thus making the computational problem of infinite divisibility in every aspect of existence null.

• Neil Slade 18 days ago

A NEW MUSIC AND ART TEST OF EINSTEIN'S THEORIES- thexvid.com/video/qwKwgwMIrLA/video.html to tickle your amygdala...

• Al the Alligator 18 days ago +1

*EVERYONE I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I NEED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT, LIKE THE COMMENT SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. AND YES I WILL SPAM THIS TO GET AN ANSWER:*
So my problem is that I don't understand if energy is only relative or absolute. Matter is absolute, as in it exists relative to ALL other things, no matter which direction they are moving in.
Let's say m=E. Imagine A, B, and C such that all have m=1 and A and B are moving in the same direction and C in the opposite direction with E=1. So A has 0E relative to B and 1E relative to C, B has 0E relative to A and 1E relative to C, and C has 1E relative to A and 1E relative to B.
Since energy can be converted into matter through nuclear processes, doesn't that mean that 3m can be generated relative to A, B, and C now that they are all at a mutual relative 0E, when this energy was nonexistent from A relative to B and vice-versa? How can this be explained? What am I missing?

• Jack Daniels 16 days ago

+Al the Alligator

"So you're saying energy that can be converted into matter isn't the same as energy manifesting as motion? As in, they aren't interchangeable? That would make matter and energy, which are the same thing, and energy, which is movement."

It can be the same. The issue is that kinetic energy is also a scalar, not a vector. Two objects moving through the universe, but with no motion relative to each other both still have the same kinetic energy. A third object moving at the same speed in the opposite direction would have the same kinetic energy. Which brings me to what I think is the issue:

You are misinterpreting a few concepts that are key to understanding how energy is transferred and transformed.

First, mass is not relative. It is absolute. So too is the energy of motion, kinetic energy. An object cannot have different masses depending on your point of view. The mass-energy conversion is bound about the entire universe. To put it another way, c is a universal constant, meaning when it comes to motion the distance in distance/time is distance through the fabric of space. Remember, distance is a scalar quantity.

Second, the bounds I mentioned above refer to thermodynamic boundaries that one applies to a system they're investigating. Absolute variables like mass, and absolute constants like c, are bound about the entire universe and cannot be considered from the frame of reference of another non-absolute variable, like the position or velocity of another object traveling through space. For this reason, you cannot combine them with relative measures like motion relative to another object.

Whenever you wish to use a mass-energy conversion you must keep in mind the fact that the variables in question are absolute and therefore relative to the universe's frame of reference, and not some object within it.

• Al the Alligator 16 days ago

+Jack Daniels So you're saying energy that can be converted into matter isn't the same as energy manifesting as motion? As in, they aren't interchangeable? That would make matter and energy, which are the same thing, and energy, which is movement.
Upon rereading your reply... That's my question. To two objects that have 0 energy (movement) relative to each other, this energy does not exist, since it is equal to 0, as they are not moving relative to each other. Even if, to the relatively immobile objects, matter cannot be created from this energy as it is nonexistent, their energies existing to an object moving relative to these two objects can be converted into matter, which exists relative to all three objects. In other words, matter/energy that was previously nonexistent to two objects now exists relative to them. But "matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed," so what gives?

• Jack Daniels 16 days ago

One can relativize velocity and momentum, but not energy derived from mass. In the equation E=mC^2 which details the conversion between mass and energy, none of the properties inherently have a directional component, so one cannot refer to two objects of equal mass and composition having different mass-energies because of their relative motion.

• Al the Alligator 18 days ago +1

*EVERYONE I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I NEED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT, LIKE THE COMMENT SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. AND YES I WILL SPAM THIS TO GET AN ANSWER:*
So my problem is that I don't understand if energy is only relative or absolute. Matter is absolute, as in it exists relative to ALL other things, no matter which direction they are moving in.
Let's say m=E. Imagine A, B, and C such that all have m=1 and A and B are moving in the same direction and C in the opposite direction with E=1. So A has 0E relative to B and 1E relative to C, B has 0E relative to A and 1E relative to C, and C has 1E relative to A and 1E relative to B.
Since energy can be converted into matter through nuclear processes, doesn't that mean that 3m can be generated relative to A, B, and C now that they are all at a mutual relative 0E, when this energy was nonexistent from A relative to B and vice-versa? How can this be explained? What am I missing?

• Al the Alligator 18 days ago +1

*EVERYONE I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I NEED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT, LIKE THE COMMENT SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. AND YES I WILL SPAM THIS TO GET AN ANSWER:*
So my problem is that I don't understand if energy is only relative or absolute. Matter is absolute, as in it exists relative to ALL other things, no matter which direction they are moving in.
Let's say m=E. Imagine A, B, and C such that all have m=1 and A and B are moving in the same direction and C in the opposite direction with E=1. So A has 0E relative to B and 1E relative to C, B has 0E relative to A and 1E relative to C, and C has 1E relative to A and 1E relative to B.
Since energy can be converted into matter through nuclear processes, doesn't that mean that 3m can be generated relative to A, B, and C now that they are all at a mutual relative 0E, when this energy was nonexistent from A relative to B and vice-versa? How can this be explained? What am I missing?

• Al the Alligator 18 days ago +1

*EVERYONE I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I NEED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT, LIKE THE COMMENT SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. AND YES I WILL SPAM THIS TO GET AN ANSWER:*
So my problem is that I don't understand if energy is only relative or absolute. Matter is absolute, as in it exists relative to ALL other things, no matter which direction they are moving in.
Let's say m=E. Imagine A, B, and C such that all have m=1 and A and B are moving in the same direction and C in the opposite direction with E=1. So A has 0E relative to B and 1E relative to C, B has 0E relative to A and 1E relative to C, and C has 1E relative to A and 1E relative to B.
Since energy can be converted into matter through nuclear processes, doesn't that mean that 3m can be generated relative to A, B, and C now that they are all at a mutual relative 0E, when this energy was nonexistent from A relative to B and vice-versa? How can this be explained? What am I missing?

• Al the Alligator 18 days ago +1

*EVERYONE I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AND I NEED AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT, LIKE THE COMMENT SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN ANSWER IT. THANK YOU. AND YES I WILL SPAM THIS TO GET AN ANSWER:*
So my problem is that I don't understand if energy is only relative or absolute. Matter is absolute, as in it exists relative to ALL other things, no matter which direction they are moving in.
Let's say m=E. Imagine A, B, and C such that all have m=1 and A and B are moving in the same direction and C in the opposite direction with E=1. So A has 0E relative to B and 1E relative to C, B has 0E relative to A and 1E relative to C, and C has 1E relative to A and 1E relative to B.
Since energy can be converted into matter through nuclear processes, doesn't that mean that 3m can be generated relative to A, B, and C now that they are all at a mutual relative 0E, when this energy was nonexistent from A relative to B and vice-versa? How can this be explained? What am I missing?

• Prince Tamrac 19 days ago +1

Amazing video

• Designs By Philip 20 days ago

Irrational numbers could also be a glitch in a not perfected simulation, so they don't offer proof either.

• Alex Deja 20 days ago

Micheal hits the woah 0:05

• JorritMorrit 20 days ago

Then how cant we see the outer parts of the universe because they're moving away from us faster than the speed of light?

• Steven Anthony 20 days ago

What if hypothetically, when we die, energy can not be created nor destroyed so it leaves our physical bodies and does in fact travel the speed of light which is why the human eye can not detect it leaving. Then our energy enters this void of nothingness that VSauce was mentioning where you are no longer aware of yourself until you are born.

• tad valente 21 day ago

• Bluedashu 21 day ago

I got a boner when you said “thank you irrational numbers. For keeping it REAL”

• H501 21 day ago +1

I was wondering if one could drive an h2r at night actually

• MissKisKis 22 days ago +7

"some of multiverses involve you watching this very video but Earth has two suns"
Would be fun if you said "only one sun" instead.

• ThugLifeRacer 22 days ago

How would you see an object coming towards you at the speed of light but you are traveling at the speed of light too? Would you see that object like it's going 600k km/h?

• Skiller51 Music 21 day ago +1

You wouldn't see anything. Time would stand still for you because you're traveling at the speed of light. Through the eyes of light, you would be everywhere, because to light, everything has already happened, and it is everywhere. Literally.

• Embler 22 days ago

0:50 bit you said that during the day, new york city weighs 170kg more than during the night BECAUSE of the light. So do they have mass or not ?

• Skiller51 Music 21 day ago

It's not the light that weighs, it's that the light is pushing on the earth, forming the illusion of weight on it.

• Diana Ross 22 days ago

Always interesting these science facts. Humans limit their potential by not asking the questions or trying to be funny with stupid useless comments!

• Henry Carmichael 23 days ago

Radditz can doge things at faster than the speed of light.

• CaroLovesJimin 23 days ago

What is the speed of time?

• Rei Mici 24 days ago

Man...there was no need to give me psychosis

• Lynch 24 days ago

I’m. Fucking. Lost.

• yaco faco 24 days ago

wtf, can we please stop teaching people that light is energy yet also has no mass ffs. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. If mass is given as 0, then energy will be 0. Please please stop telling people light has a mass of 0

• Redstone Reshiram 24 days ago

"we dont know how to make universes"

• Zom Bee Nature 25 days ago

I think this is related to why the universe's expansion seems to be increasing over time.

• coltmerg 420 25 days ago

Twice as slow .

• Ds player 27 days ago +1

plotwist:the irrational numbers are the only real numbers

• CreeperSky 27 days ago

1:07 When I was younger (like 10yo), I used to re-watch his vids again and again and wonder "he didn't conclude whether or not we're real? "

• ScorponokRemiZz 28 days ago

this video makes no sense to me

• Turtlemurderer Dude 28 days ago +6

Driving fast makes you live longer kids

• My Email 29 days ago

9:12 whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????????????

• Tasruba Anwar 29 days ago

THATS THE BUZZFEED UNSOLVED MUSIC

• HO LAM YIU Month ago

Wait.
If we do indeed live in a simulation, then why can't the programmers of the simulation simply extract irrational numbers from their own, real universe, and implement the numbers into our fake universe?
Say in their universe exists an irrational square root of 2.
Why can't they simply take the number and put it into our simulation as the square root of 2?
Or why can't they take a random number generator and simply generate more digits?
And, well, if you're in the universe where you're watching this but there are two suns, hello. We're from an alternate universe where there only exists one sun.

• I TURBOROSCOEMAGUE am part the 99.9 percentile

• Impossible, Georgia State Troopers, would Stop you an take you to jail. Thanx for sharing Michael. Carry on

• Conbonji Month ago

Not sponsered by Steven Right... xD

• The people who programmed us could easily have set boundaries on how we calculate pi ensuring that we never get to the end. Or, if we do reach the end, pause the simulation and add some extra digits. Or creating an algorithm that would always feed the simulation with the same number of digits any of the sims would reach +1. The possibilities are endless. Irrational numbers is a very weak argument against the simulation theory.

Surah Al-Nur [verse 35] Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things.

• Robert Conde Month ago

-460 F? no mention...

• ShroomZed Month ago

Is it worth it to ask at this point why all the constants of our universe are how they are? Philosophically sure, but scientifically no.

I honestly do not think it is particularly helpful to come up with conclusions as fantastic as we are simulations or in a multiverse when they have no little to no relevance to anything we can actually deal with presently. They may be amusing on a careless day lying under a tree, but they don't actually solve anything. Perhaps as our knowledge increases this will radically change, but this is not in the realm of science presently.

• Kevin Miner Month ago

Our universe is barely a spec of a sliver of a fraction of time in a nother dimensions particle collider.

• Guitars and Gaming Month ago

Talking about whether or not we are real WHAT is going on why happened to the cars

• Amateur Anime Month ago

My question is: A creature traveling at near-light speed, experiences time differently mentally, but do they experience time differently physically?

• Beautiful explanation

• PLaGuEzZ Month ago

Im not the best at these things but i always wondered. Would antimatter make it possible to travel at the speed of light if we had the same amount of regular mass with it? I know theres already theories about making a warp field. but that isn't technically moving at the speed of light . On paper though as long as -1 + 1 = 0 wouldnt that technically make us massless? Or atleast the object?

• BigNewGames Month ago

If it were true that light traveled at a constant then the shift that occurs to the spectrum of light would not occur. Light would always travel at c no matter how fast the observer was traveling relative to the distant galaxy.
Plus the velocity and direction of the Earth traveling through space could easily be measured by simply measuring the speed of light in every direction from a stationary source of light. That experiment was actually done and it was determined that the Earth was sitting motionless in the vacuum of space. Thus evidence that the speed of light is not a constant at all but instead is dependent upon the motion of the light source.
Light travels at c on Earth in every direction. If a galaxy were traveling at 180,000 mi/s to our movement light from that galaxy would be traveling at c+180,000 mi/s out in front of the galaxy and c-180,000 mi/s trailing behind the galaxy and the light would not shift at all along a path parallel to our movement. This is why light shifts in spectrum when an object is measured moving to our motion. If the galaxy is moving towards us its light spectrum shifts in the blue. If the galaxy is moving away from us its light spectrum shifts in the red. The more the light shifts in spectrum determines the velocity of the galaxy relative to us. If light traveled the same everywhere in the universe without regards to motion then the spectrum of light would not shift at all.

• PinkySuavo Month ago

2:28 wait, if I move, the time flies slower for others? Wasn't it other way around? If I move around c, everything around me will be old as I stop. So I guess MY time goes slower?

• ROBO_GAMER123 Month ago

9:12 some of them involve me writing this comment but with 1 less cell in my body, some pf them involve me writing with 2 less cells,
some of them
Nvm im tired of typing

• STRS Month ago

@Vsauce Maybe our world is the matter of a bigger world. Where our galaxy is the molecule and our solar system an atom.

• Slash687 Month ago

So if the government/some entity knew how to travel near or at the speed of light, they could be billions of years ahead of us and we wouldn't even know?

• Mark Lewis Month ago

Don't you love how Michael always stays on point and NEVER digresses?!

• maschneider93 Month ago

Name of music at very beginning?

• Sean Aidan Month ago +8

Came to see whether headlights can work in the dark but I find out that:
1. My fridge moves
2. We have 2 suns
3.I could be living in a simulation
And finally , yes they can

• HuddyBuddyGreatness Month ago +2

Instead of mentioning the earth with two suns, you should have said an earth with one sun. To make the viewers question everything

• You need more subscribers.

• Jacob Reinhart Month ago

What if there is a God that is light and operates outside of time? That has no mass but is all powerful.

• Anonymous Month ago

how long was he showering?

• Michael awdry Month ago

What the fu-

• CS CS Month ago +1

If we live in a simulation and our creators created us to see how people live in universes with different physic laws, maybe in their universe, the real one, it's easy to fit an infinite number in the simulation because needing memory to fit in these numbers is just a thing they created for our universe...

• Fidelio Month ago

I got the mental click at 4:34

• Surya Raju Month ago

Thank IRRATIONAL numbers for keeping it REAL? Good one.

• Jason Molnar Month ago +1

Ive always thought that if our universe was a simulation some microbe would have learned to exploit its faults by now...so cheers to that

So... basically, no matter where we go, we're still in the same place.

• zwanzgerr Month ago

Just a day ago we found one more blackhole. So new universe soon orrrr?

• Timmy Taylor Month ago

We didn't find a new black hole, we photographed one that we already knew about.

• MemerWiener Month ago +1

Nobody:
Vsauce: Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?

• chaosMusic Month ago

It was actually Einstein to make this question, if I am not wrong.