Can we, please, just go back to posting videos along with short descriptions of the content, like the OP intended?
4 Likes
OP does not say anything about text-only posts. I don’t see that much off topic discussion, it’s almost always about a video that has been posted, so arguably on topic.
Perhaps a rule could be added for this topic so people have to create a new topic to discuss the videos?
However this also seems to go a bit against the intent of the OP since the goal was to not have to make a thread for every video.
Perhaps someone who wants it can create a new thread with VIDEO POSTS ONLY rules.
1 Like
5 Likes
3:12 maidsafe
3 Likes
pinpointed.
3 Likes
The paradox of self-reference. Excellent new video by Veratasium. Hilbert, Godel, Turing and more discover the limits of mathematics.
“Not everything that is true can be proven. This discovery transformed infinity, changed the course of a world war and led to the modern computer.”
5 Likes
game of life in game of life!!! @29m:30s
2 Likes
Superb video, thanks @TylerAbeoJordan
4 Likes
Great video indeed!
Paradox of self-reference is an interesting topic also from psychological / spiritual point of view: Subject can never know itself as it is, because all knowledge comes a bit late, and is objectifying. To know me, is to stop the “process of me” into static definition, and the one doing the knowing is different from the known.
There is an interesting experiment one can do on the following video, that shows that you don’t actually have a head at all. To get the most of it you should actually do the experiments and not just watch the video.
1 Like
Interesting. When he first asks you to point at yourself he asks that you don’t identify what you believe should be there, but what you actually see. But a short while later he identifies this as an emptiness … to me though, that’s just another belief. I’d personally just stop with “I don’t know” what’s there.
All interesting to think about though! 
1 Like
This has blown my ever loving mind.
5 Likes
i really enjoyed the mind f*ck 
1 Like
I have never bought into the speed of light thing? I am still of the belief light accelerates and we know there is no such thing as a vacuum, well none we have seen in our “space”.
We see planets and using measurements involving time we always seem to believe these are more massive than we expect, however, if light did accelerate then these faraway planets would not appear so massive.
Anyway massless photons seems to contradict e=mc^2 unless we consider a photon as pure infinate energy and I am betting it’s not
3 Likes
See the top answer - I think it shows why photons can be mass-less and not violate general relativity. The short answer is that photons can be considered to have a relativistic mass, but that they do not have a rest mass:
1 Like
I understood the bit with boats. 
Super video @Nigel.
2 Likes
Yes, even though it was a Scottish laddie (Maxwell) that worked out the limit of c. I find the relativistic mass but no mass at rest thing to be quite a leap. Feinman showed in QED how photons bash into atoms dislodging more photons etc. It’s all fascinating tho as no rest mass woudl mean the photon that hits an atom to dislodge another is a wee wonder as it comes to rest relatively or just becomes part of the atom. So then you wonder at rest in an atom does a photon have a different structure, it’s certainly interesting.
1 Like
@dirvine Isn’t it thought that time is just the measurement of entropy? In the video, from what I’m understanding is that all particles have “clocks” with a set rate besides the photon which is set to zero. So I thought what if you could mess with the proverbial gears of the clock? Wouldn’t that affect gravity?
But if time is really a set rate of entropy I wondered if that was some better way to understand how to manipulate the “clocks”.
I don’t have the level of understanding the rest of you have but I do have a lot of fun trying to think about it.
I’m still trying to digest your first reply. Is there a deeper or clearer implication on your opinion of the speed of light? Or did you kind of agree with the video that it was just being looked at the wrong way?
Edit: I get what you’re saying about light acceleration now, I just haven’t heard of the examples you’re referencing. Cool insight
1 Like
Just one more reason not to give project timelines! Some things aren’t to be messed with.
6 Likes
The short answer is that it disappears entirely imparting it’s energy to the electron it interacted with.
Top answer again from below link … quoting a small part of the answer:
Photons are bosons and they are their own antiparticle so no particle number conservation law is violated when you create a photon. Specifically an accelerating electron can emit any number of photons, and the corollary of this is that an electron can absorb photons and be accelerated. This is what happens in the photoelectric effect. An electron in the metal absorbs the photon and its energy is increased by the photon energy (so energy is conserved). The electron will in turn collide with other electrons in its vicinity, and in a small percentage of cases enough energy is transferred to another electron that it can escape from the surface.
1 Like
3 Likes