Through The Wormhole: Can We Travel Faster Than Light?

Through The Wormhole: Can We Travel Faster Than Light?

Ratings: 7.85/10 from 87 users.

Through The Wormhole: Can We Travel Faster Than Light?Prior to the day in 1947 when test pilot Charles E. Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier for the first time, people argued it wasn't possible for a plane to fly that fast. So, perhaps we shouldn't be deterred by the part of Einstein's special theory of relativity that seemingly bars traveling at speeds faster than light.

That said, cracking the light-speed barrier is vastly more complicated than going faster than sound. The aircraft that Yeager used to break Mach 1, for example, didn't have to change form. But according to Einstein, an object that attains light speed would be converted to energy itself.

Nevertheless, as some physicists point out, there are nuances of Einsteinian physics that might permit faster-than-light travel. While an object can't exceed the speed of light in space-time, space-time itself can be warped and distorted, as if it were a stretched-out bed sheet.

If a spaceship could harness something really powerful - like a bunch of super-dense matter from a neutron star - it might be possible to warp space-time enough to briefly pull two distant points together, the way that the edges of the bed sheet would come together if you dropped a heavy weight in the middle. Such warps in space-time - which are known as wormholes - in theory may occur naturally in some places, and a spaceship might be able to exploit them to travel enormous distances extremely quickly. List of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole.

More great documentaries

160 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to drusta Cancel reply

  1. Such a hole spins a centerized tunnel in the center of it. - is a myth. The hole woukld have to exist all the way through and a vortex has a closed end getting smaller and smaller to it. This is why Quanta Physics believes BH to be more working...

  2. FTL travel means time travel says Albert Einstein...

    The Universe is round like a balloon. Its diameter is 93 billion light years across measuring as a balloon 229,000 mil light years. A ship travels in any direction will travel rite back to the place it launched. A ship traveling at the speed of light can accelerate up to close to 450,000 miles a second if it had the engine capacity to do it. This does not violate relativity – it’s based on the universe’s length as a balloon (450,000 miles a second) which allows it. Space is warp not the celestial matter in it that doesn't change. But a ships speed can zoom to close that 2.7 light speed. Space is warp meaning that it was stretched, curved, bent and blown up creating a dark black hole that releases pressure from somewhere in the cosmos dark matter element. Matter survived without diminishing and lays on top of the warp space. What makes the matter in the universe to expand is the pressure from the hole in it. Space has been warp and as consisting as a empty expanding vacuum has a zero point vacuum ground density but since it doesn't consist as a close compartment as relativity insist it does – means that there exist no real limit to a ship velocity traveling on this expanding bubble. The galaxies orbit spreading at 2.7 miles a second per second away from each other at the edge of the universe. Physicists think that faster than light speeds in such a condition would illustrate a un-balance in the galactic orbitration speed meaning that the distance because of the expansion and its speed between galaxies is too much. We measure the distance between the galaxies and think how much they spread a part at 450,000 miles a second each second as way fast and way far a part. Its all happening at the edge of the universe. The room between celestial sphere at the edge is the oldest area of the balloon. As the balloon gets bigger and bigger more and more room is available making the velocity the sphere’s orbitrate giving them the velocity under the open pressurizing realm more freedom. We don’t feel this change in the realm pressure because we reside in its grip but we can measure it from a distance. The space it resides in – is warp from the beginning but retains as a emptyness. The speed a ship can travel through this warp ship can be measured a sum Quanta Physics Theory by this author Rod Kawecki has deciphered. We have measured the the speed between the galaxies and the velocity they expand at at the universe’s edge and divide that distance and separation velocity by the speed of light which equals 278,000 miles a second..divide this sum by the speed of light equals 2.7 thousand miles a second. This is how we decipher the available universal speed limit in the equation sum’s. Albert Einstein deciphered the universal speed limit saying it was the speed of light because light measures at both levels a mass scale and a non mass scale which fits well with measuring particle masses but does nothing for the universe’s speed limit. He deciphered these barriers with gravity and assume empty space as static electricity. He also assumed his speed limit with a close universe compartment or as a bubble that has limited realm equilibrium of space. And its not – we reside outside the balloon or bubble surface. Reading The Quanta Physics theory you can discover the equations that prove this and why. Einstein also considered the zero point vacuum energy of open space possibly by adding a zero to his light made of ship. He never looked at squaring the velocity as in his equations but others have like Star Trek engine propulsion possibilities. The difference between general relativity and special relativity using time travel as a barrier traveling pass light speed you will time travel – is beyond the real truth. I have written five books using these deciphered changes found in relativity and my sixth will include the realm of the universe as I have mentioned in short length here but more are shown. All my books decipher as theory with faster than light hypothesis deciphered equations and explain the differences and why. I think we have to acknowledge a new beginning in a commercial space environment future from earth. I always wondered if god made a cat animal heaven like us – what you think.

    A compartment is like a closed box - everything in it is subject to the environment in the box. New evidence in physics show we live outside this balloon - in a space environment that measures free and openly. All lifelike things all come to rest at some time even particles .. we reside on the blink of infinite enlightenment and have the ability to travel free of closed compartment limitations......

  3. If there is anything to be learned from the Apollo missions, it is that we have access to only 1 earth type planet, and although we may someday venture to other planets in the solar system, everything else we see in the sky has a high probability of being unattainable. That in itself should be a big enough motivator for us to look after the planet we inhabit now. Since the vast majority of people are far more motivated by short term pleasure, it is far more likely we will end in an evolutionary cul-de-sac before we achieve the highly improbable. A great documentary to ground everyone back on earth, check it out.

  4. Relative we can go faster than light. Stuff can but when it goes faster, we have no way to observe it.

  5. If we could move faster than light, wouldn't that break the causality, right? And if we moved almost at the speed of light, wouldn't even the largest distances feel like an instant (twin paradox)? What I'm trying to ask is, does light have a "speed" only in the eyes of a stationary observer? In a way that the speed would be only a limit of "the fabric of the cosmos" - really there wouldn't be a "speed": any distance would seem instantaneous if travelling at the speed of light. Of course it would be a one-way time machine :)

    But then again universe is already sort of breaking the speed of light (it's roughly 14 billion years old but we can observe it much farther than that).

    My head hurts.

    1. @Teemamu Kielinen:

      This link might answer some of your questions concerning the speed of light.

    2. Wikipeda always seems to have an answer. Nice to see that I was on the right track. (going faster than light does break causality and the life span of a traveler going nearly at the speed of light would be over thousand years, as far as we currently know)

      Thank you!

  6. change the video to public so that we can watch it every one is allowed to watch the video

  7. This one's down- it says "This video is private."

  8. hey i dont think its possible to move space like as your getting faster and faster to the speed of light the more mass you have so you would gett bigger and bigger and if your ship stayed in one spot in space and still travel its not possible beause the force that the ship is giving is 0 newtons right and the force that it is giving is 0 then the force you get back is 0 newtons and if there is no force there is no acceleration on the ship so the ship would stay still as to space would not move either

  9. why any thing can not travel faster than light?, the answer is that the speed of expansion of space time continum is the speed of light, the space is travelling with this speed, the time is also travelling with this speed, the universe is expanding with this speed, and this is the speed of energy, the energy travels in this speed, and only energy can travel with this speed, and thing which is not energy can not travel with this speed, the particles which have mass can not travel with the speed of light unless they become energy.

    1. Well, close, but at 10^43 sec. after the big bang, "inflation" was travelling much faster than the speed of C, and since the universe expansion is speeding up, space itself, akin to blowing up a balloon is travelling faster that the speed of C. pushing out the galaxies at the deep field of space faster than the speed of light.

  10. There was a girl named Miss Bright
    Who could travel faster than the speed of light
    She took one day in an Einsteinian way
    and came back on the previous night.

    Judge John R. Stewart

  11. There's one experiment that I don't get...?
    Not sure if it's in this doc...
    The one where they try and catch neutrinos, by setting there experiment far beneath the earths surface for example in mines.. They apparently do this because the neutrinos have to travel through a great deal of matter so they can be detected. This is probably stupid.. but if they were to carry out the same experiment at night in winter for example, on the earths axis wouldn't the neutrinos have to travel through the same amount of matter or if not more...??

    1. There are never stupid questions when a genuine interest in learning is expressed but unfortunately there are people who sometimes make you feel stupid for asking or for posting an opinion.
      just saying!
      There are some people here who are great at answering these types of question...i could name a few...but i will let them identify them selves.

    2. @thedilema:

      Argh! you are making me type Azilda, hate typing. Does not matter really how much matter neutrinos have to go through, they go though with ease. And through us humans with ease.

      420 billion per square inch with neutral negative charge, they go through regular matter unaffected, neutrinos might even have a trace of mass, but are 500,000 times smaller than an electron.

      The "Borexino" experiment has 300 tons of a special organic liquid surrounded by 2000 tons of water with mountains above it. Google Borexino experiment, fascinating info.

    3. You darn knew i was counting on you for that reply. Good one!
      By the way i have liked your little story on the monster doc about free floating on Okanagan lake. On my way back from Van the other day i was thinking about that...driving by lake Osoyoos, at least that one would have been warmer if you sank, the warmest fresh water lake in Canada and no Pogo lol.

    4. Now if i could make you dance.

    5. "They apparently do this because the neutrinos have to travel through a great deal of matter"

      ... like Razor said, it doesn't mater the amount of matter you put... neutrinos will go right through... it only works as a filter for everything else... so that the path ways they see on the solution will probably be of a neutrino, thus indirectly proof it's existence and study it´s properties.


    6. and one more thing... Einstein received the Nobel prize for his contributions for quantum theory... didn´t make him hated it any less... note ...his words, not mine.
      Check it if you don´t believe a boob

  12. Einstein commented on quantum theory... specifically regarding the uncertainty principle: "God doesn't play dice" .... it's actually his most famous expression ... up there with ... "the apple is only red when you look at it"... he eventually admitted defeat... if you had mention Heisenberg...

  13. we may not have calculated correctly when it comes down to the neutrinos, but IF they are going faster then light, then what does this mean? my guess is that if something as nearly 0 mass, then it can go faster then light, or if it weighs lets say a negative amount, such as -1 pound, what would that mean? well lets just assume that its putting weight on everything else instead, it repels gravity, then something may not work properly around it at all. thus E=MC^2 could mean something totally different. we have created anti particals, so why not negative mass? now i realize this doesn't seem even close to possible. But that's because we don't know everything. IF we knew everything we could say whether or not this was even worth it.

    1. My guess is if a math genius was to come with an equation that amounts to "it's possible" then it would be possible, otherwise it will slip in the crack.

  14. This week they claim in Geneve that they let nutrinos travel faster than light!

    1. The neutrinos traveled at 20 meters per second faster than light speed. This may be explained be the effect that gravity and a vacuum may have on light. The neutrinos would be traveling a "c" or the true speed of light but light would be going slower.

      Space is also known to be curved. Light must follow the curvature of space while neutrinos may take a straight path and not follow the curvature.

      Their observations may be correct but it may not have any effect on Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In other words, they didn't go faster than the actual speed of light.

    2. They compared the time the neutrinos took to c, (the speed of light in a vacuum). Your points aren't valid as you are talking about factors that slow down light when it isn't in a vacuum to a value below c.

  15. hang on even if we could travel faster then light we would first have to develop shields and a mega computer that can navigate at the speed of light. A speck of dust at the speed of sound can kill a human not to mention damage craft

    1. May be the purpose of vast space in the universe is that alien lifeforms shld never meet each other..........Mother nature

  16. no we can not!
    another thing -we can't even travel as fast as light!
    yet another thing - we can't even travel nearly as fast as light!
    conclusion: we are NOT going anywhere 'cause it would take us 10 000 year to travel just to the NEAREST star (only 4 l years) with current technology, and there are not many stars in at least 100 l years radius... so i suggest we start to EVOLVE and embrace our mother earth, 'couse it would take a lot more than 10% of our brains to even start thinking about going into universe (outside the solar sys)

    1. I agree 100% ... but eventually it may turn out to be a necessity not just exploration... there are other ways around the problem ... not just speed, or space folding... we may have to artificially change ourselves to endure space traveling... maybe in the next couple thousand years... if we survive that is... genetic engineering may turn out to be part of the solution, when we get around all the ethic and moral barriers ... we´re light years away from serious space exploration

    2. yeah you have a very good point. we have to keep evolving no matter what though. we cannot stop here. i hate my body :P

    3. don´t we all ...

  17. I can imagine a unicorn. Can man make me a unicorn?

    1. There is an answer other than no. I can make you imagine you are a unicorn. I don't know whether that is a paradox or not.

  18. gravitons and neotrinos are massless and so have no relative mass which means these particles can travel parallel to the velocity of light travelling in a vaccun FACT!

    1. gravitons are theoretical particles... no one has seen them yet, and neutrinos do have mass... almost massless ... but not quite

    2. True that.. However, at the quantum level most particles are theorised, and they do not obey the general laws of you know what..Like the particle zoo with theoretical particles teaming around close or at the speed of light (theoretically of course)

      The big guns in physics are the theoretical guys and most of the work we do is based around theory or proven by mathematics and so fourth. Einstein accelerated and opened up a new door of this area and I hate to say it but there are allot of wild theories out there that are theoretically proven but not all can be right, right?.. What I'm trying to say Ricardo is that " theoretically " your a boob.

    3. Just arguing your usage of the word ... Fact! You don´t have to explain quantum theory ... I pretty much have that covered... and theoretically maybe I´m a boob... but you calling me that it´s proof that you´re a mor*n... and that is a FACT!

    4. Well, Ricardo, you seem to be digging a theoretical hole for yourself here. Even though your a boob theoretically, it still has to be proven through a series of experiments. First of all you openly admitted that you are a theoretical boob, which is the first step of it becoming fact. Then you contradict yourself by calling me a mor*n, which you state to be fact. Its hard to comprehend where this argument is taking you. However, I refuse to waste any more time in this childish exchange of words. Its clear you are a person with limited creativity and knowledge of this subject. The only reason why I stated it to be FACT is because that is what I researched myself and I believe it to be fact from extensive research from the matter. However, I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong.. Oh and another thing. How can you say you have quantum theory pretty much covered when no one person, not even Einstein had it "pretty much covered".

    5. thedilema: For me someone that calls another person a boob for no apparent reason is in fact a mor*n. I didn´t admit to be a boob... I said maybe... for a scientist your not very accurate... And I don´t have to prove you wrong... You´re the one who has to prove something... when you say gravitons are a sure thing. And don´t get me wrong I would love to see that... oh and I´m the one with limited knowledge on the subject... Einstein... seriously!!... Einstein hated quantum theory to his bones... just be cool and don´t go insulting people just because they comment on something you said. you´re one of those "has to be right " all the time guys. I get that. just clam down a little. it´s not the end of the world when your not... and the sad thing is I agree with you... just one last thing, even if gravitons exist, and they and neutrinos travel parallel to the speed of light... so what... it´s the same that saying photons travel at the speed of light...just more particles to go around at the speed of ligth ... whats the practical point of your statement...

    6. Hello again Ricardo.. Okay, first things first. I take back what I said about your limited knowledge on the subject, but you continue to ridicule me in saying that I'm a "has to be right" kind of guy. That could not be further from the truth. A good scientist has an open mind to everything, apart from people who might be boobs of course(this was a joke incase you don't get it and get offended again). Yes of course I'm trying to prove something.. I do this because I love it and want to make some sort of tribute to science. You insinuating that my research is pointless is the biggest insult to me, my colleges and science. Do you think I'm that interested in the practical side? Everything moves forwards in small steps, including science, yes there is no practical side to my work yet, but at least I'm trying to make a contribution to science and maybe there will be a practical side to it, or maybe someone will use the results for there work, like you.. but I dout it, since evidently you cannot grasp the concept of this. Its about finding out new things, not finding a practical use for it. Well, that is my philosophy on the matter.. You are entitled to you opinion, and even though I don't agree with what you are saying, I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

      Did you know Einstein personally?, because to say that he hated quantum theory to his bones is a bit rude on his behalf. After all even he may have disliked quantum theory, however, he still embraced it and made contributions through arguments, questioning and debates.
      Don't get me wrong, I like you Ricardo, if you allow me to give you a bit of advice for the future, it would be this.. "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house".

    7. let me say something again... I didn't mean to offend your work... when I said: I would love to see you prove it... ... I meant it... if you can prove the existence of the graviton, and the Higgs... man would that be sweet!!! nobel prize on your bookshell...

      I'm a researcher myself I understand and subscribe to your point of view on the matter... sorry if I didn't explain myself properly... I was referring to the subject in debate... "Can We Travel Faster Than Light?" I never said your work is pointless... in fact I find it priceless... I mean that

      I find interesting your choice of using that phrase " Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house". When that is exactly what your doing here... you have no idea what I do what I know or don't know... I'll give you an advise to: don't judge so much.
      As for Einstein... you know exactly what I meant he is just not the one to point out when it comes it quantum theory... it was a nightmare to him... he didn't want caos... he wanted order and divine creation...

      and I still don't understand what is wrong in this sentence: "gravitons are theoretical particles... no one has seen them yet, and neutrinos do have mass... almost massless ... but not quite"

      still haven´t argue what is wrong about it... just the fact that I said it??

      in the end I guess I just like a good discussion ...


  19. Doesn't the very nature of gravity negate the argument that nothing can travel faster than light? Think about it, gravity is the only thing that has enough speed to escape a black holes grasp, it's the very nature of a black hole.

    1. Gravity travels at speed of light according to Einstein, Einstein deduced that "gravitons" are the carriers of gravity at light speed.

    2. Einstein said that gravity was the distortion of space-time itself, that's the foundation of general relativity. A gravity wave is like a ripple through space-time that travels at the speed of light, not faster. Gravitons are hypothetical massless elementary particles postulated by quantum physicists, because the standard model of quantum field theory does not include a complete theory of quantum gravity. Einstein hated quantum physics and spent his final years trying to discredit it as a science.

    3. @cooper doyle:

      Thank you for your reply, I do know everything you are saying, and yes, Einstein and Niels Bohr had a long standing disagreement that Einstein called spooky actions at a distance.

    4. you have to think of gravity like Einstein described it in general relativity... what happens is black holes deform space-time so severely that light gets trapped... thus the name "black HOLE"... it creates a "hole" in space-time and light can´t escape it ... almost like there is no pathway that light can follow away from it.

  20. Wow! Perhaps the most intriguing and mind warping episode yet. The program deals more with getting round the speed of light barrier rather than actually exceeding it. That Science is working hard on this seemingly insurmountable problem gives me great hope that we can explore the universe in greater strides than the tiny steps we currently take in the backyard of our pale blue dot. Straight after watching I caught the latest episode of the BBC’s brilliant Science program Horizon called “Seeing Stars” which deals with how we capture and see light. Hopefully Vlatko will have it here soon, don’t miss it.

  21. Excellent doc but no mention of teleportation

    1. Yes, it does. Remember the two scientists who teleported an atom? And they said in the near future they may even be able to do it with groups of atoms.

  22. Just for the other film-music lovers out there: About halfway through pt 2 of this one, Zimmer/Shea "quote" the main title sequence prelude from the '84 version of the film 'Dune,' which I thought was pretty cool, considering the subject matter. The note-values are shortened, it's buried a little bit in the orchestration, and he only does it twice, but it's definitely there, and I'm convinced it was intentional and not an accident.

  23. Ontop of his speed? I doubt it, because light does not gain speed by any means of further acceleration, not even gravity. Otherwise light around planets and stars would travel faster.

    1. Does not matter how fast a person is travelling, light will always be 186,000 miles a second from the source, the light is not gaining speed.

      Special Relativity incorporates that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.

    2. not sure about that -think about the boundaries of the visible universe, we now see the light supposedly emitted 13 billion years ago, and where would that object be 13 b y ago in the ever inflating universe -much closer, so the light would get to us much sooner if it has nothing to do with the source speed, right?

    3. I may be well traveled but sometimes when i come in contact with people well educated it makes me wish i had carried more scientific books in my pack!

    4. @Lex Lexich:

      I know what you are trying to say, but check the inflation theory, at BB the universe inflated 10^30 power exponentially.

    5. i understand that (bb theory, expansion, bla bla) i am just sayin' that universe is at least 13 billion years times inflation bigger than 13 billion light years (according to einstein and light gain no speed theory)... none the less i never liked einstein relativity theory 'cause it never 'felt' right, and recently i found out that Tesla said he was sure that Einstein theory is wrong, so now i have no doubts about it!
      by lex lexich

    6. @Alexander:

      The universe, taking into account the light we are seeing now has been in transit for 13.7 billion years means it is now approx 41 billion light years to the edge of the deep field of space, and is some 80 billion LY across.

      Do you have any data on Tesla saying that Einstein GR is wrong?

  24. @psychrealm11

    I guess you both are attracted to the black hole by the same amount, however as the light already travels faster, it might get into the black hole quicker. It's the same as if you get attracted by another massive object (jupiter?), light would still travel faster, at the speed of light. How ever, who knows how particles will act behind the event horizon. =/

  25. This may sound like a dumb question: If you are at the event horizon of a black hole and both you and light get captured by the black hole at the same time do you both get pulled at the same speed?

    1. There is no light travelling into the black hole, light cannot escape, that is why a BH. There is no resting mass for a photon, its the major bending of spacetime re gravity that does not allow the escape of light.

      But as an analogy say you were at the event horizon travelling merrily? into the BH, and you shot beam of light into the black hole, no matter what speed even up close to c you were travelling, your beam of light would still be travelling at 186,000 miles per second extra on top of your speed.

  26. im disappointed by the fact nothing can travel at the speed of sound, it is an upper limit to our universe that we can never aspire beyond except in fiction.

  27. Want to know why nothing can travel faster than light?

    Light has the largest velocity (and cannot be beaten) because it has no mass. This is crucial because to make mass accelerate it requires an increasing force which is then counter-acted (every action has a reaction) to equilibrium (forces equalling each other which creates a constant velocity or speed). As the mass travels faster, it takes increasingly more energy (or force) to make the mass accelerate. With a non-mass, such as light, no force is needed for acceleration and no force is therefore counter-acting which means that there is no slowing mechanism that stops light going 'full speed'.

    This is why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light..
    the mention of the speed of sound is pointless and misleading - it is a completely different mechanism with very different physics.

    Source: Physics A-Level

    1. so what about travelling just a fraction below the speed of light exactly optimum for the amount of mass the vehicle has? so to speak, would that be possible?

    2. I think so, from what I've read. And I think that's probably what we're going to have to settle for.

    3. yes it is possible... but the amount of energy you would have to generate it´s absurd (impossible for the next few hundred years I would say)... it then turns into a technical problem... there are some ideas growing about all sorts of new engines to do it... but it´s gonna take a wile :) ... interstellar voyages are a technical problem ... not a theoretical one... there are a lot of different approaches to it... speed is just one of them..

  28. That test @ 12 minutes with the two plates to test negative energy... I wonder if its also taking into account the fact that 2 objects that close will also cause gravitational effects on eachother, and pull eachother together.
    Just like how each of us ever so slightly pull the earth to our feet, as the earth pulls us to it.

    I like entertaining the idea of negative energy. I just hope hes measuring the correct forces.

  29. I think this was my favorite wormhole episode. I'll watch it again later. Question: How did we determine that light was the fastest thing in the universe? I MISSED that part.

  30. Anyone else notice in this series that Morgan Freeman was such a troublemaker when he was a kid?

    1. I was thinking the same thing!

  31. Great stuff as usual, cosmic strings a bit new to me, I do not know if there where different speed limits of light, inflation to me is the expanding of space itself which is not breaking any laws of physics, that is why the far galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light.

    So taking that in consideration and the speed of light and because the universe is not static in our linear time frame, in an expanding universe the objects that emitted the light has continued to recede during the billions of light years the light was in transit.

    Therefore the furthest galaxies are 41 billion light years away by now, even though the age of the universe is 13.75 billion years old, give or take 0.11 billion years. The diameter of the observable universe is approx. 82 billion light years across.

    1. you are a clever individual mr razor. that made complete sence to me and helped me understand further ,more so than analogys with wine glasses lulz. props

    2. I agree. When I'm confused about a doc I look for Razor's comments; 80% of the time they address what I was wondering about without haveing to ask.

    3. I'll have to reread that again when I'm not stoned on chocolate cake, but what if per chance the light was created from point A to point B IN TRANSIT?

      I've pondered two theological possibilities:

      1. That God being "Timeless" created the universe slowly (what else is there to do?) and the Genesis account is a reformation of the earth.

      2. The universe was created "in process" with some trees fully grown, some saplings, some seeds --- as were stars---some being born, some fully formed and some dying, and some dead (black holes) as to make the universe "perfect" for "our time". It would help explain why the unverse looks too similar in so many parts (like the wine classes all full at the same time in the doc) better than expansion would.

      Personally, I believe travel faster than the speed of light is a reality on a spiritual level. We just have yet to discover it and measure it scientifically (like dark matter)---it's a reality, but lacks solid "proof" to the most sceptical minded individuals.

      Peace to you

      Charles B.

    4. I don't know what you mean, created in process, that is your creationist conundrums talking. Nothing was created fully grown. Be it trees, stars, planets or anything else. 10^43 seconds after the BB inflation and then plasma. And then 13.75 billion years later, us humans.

      Again will tell you that religion and science do not and will never mix, sorry.

      Yes there is faster than speed of light, what Einstein called "spooky actions at a distance" Quantum Entanglement!

  32. omg im so loving the wormhole series

  33. I'd like to see those light speed highways mapped to see what pattern might emerge. Perhaps those highways are signs of something else.

    1. A gigantic Velvet Elvis, perhaps? Or aliens giving us the finger? (lol)

      Actually, seriously speaking, I wouldn't mind hearing whatever ideas you may have about them.

  34. You people must not keep up on the latest happenings in science. A week or
    two ago a team if Chinese scientists proved that can nothing travel faster
    than the speed of light. So this whole documentary is now worthless.

    1. You must not be well read in the nature of scientific theory. You can show something to be less probable or different than previously thought, but it is not able to prove something impossible.

    2. God didn't want us to explore other worlds hence the vast distance between them, well I like to think like that anyway.

    3. sorry I didn't mean to reply to you, i'm tired and off to bed now lol

    4. Atom: That's not a very good way to look at the universe. God has the best yet ahead for us---do what we can now and learn what we can now, and then see what else He has instore for us in the future. A view such as that sounds narrow-minded even to me!

      Peace to you

    5. @ blaxparx

      I saw that. I commented about it on another doc. But remember, one of the scientists in this one isn't actually suggesting breaking the light-speed barrier per se, but suggesting someday it might be possible to create a technology that expands space behind you while collapsing it in front of you, all while the ship itself remains motionless inside a warp-bubble (whatever that may be), which, technically, according to him, wouldn't be breaking the barrier. Personally, I think the only way we may ever be able to reach such distances will be how it has been done in some science-fiction: Through building large (really large) self-sustaining ships -mini-earths, if you will- and having people, or some variation of them, committed to the journey over the very long-haul. A lot of hard sci-fi (not the Gene Roddenberry variety, lol.) has tried to deal with more feasible solutions like this. Also, being able to reach even a substantial fraction of the speed of light would still make exploration of closer stars and planets a strong possibility for a planet committed to achieving such a goal, not to mention putting other places in our own solar-system right into our backyard.

  35. O_O was jean Roddenberry right?

    this is amazing - humanity needs to stop everything and work on this!

  36. Great knowledgeable series, I'm following wd joy! :)

  37. I'v been an avid fan of this site for years and have always enjoyed reading the coments before I watch the doc to get a good gauge of what it is like but have never felt the need to coment myself until now! C_and_N + Azilda please save you coments for your hippy circles, some1 please back me up on this

    1. I was seriously answering the question "Can we travel faster than the speed of light"? I believe so. Be nice. It's my birthday.

    2. Ha Happy Birthday

    3. happy bday buddy

    4. Happy Birthday, Charles!

    5. A happy day to you!

    6. Happy birthday @Charles.

    7. Hi Charles,

      Delayed but sincere Happy Birthday wishes!

    8. I will back you up. You're right @AlTheIrish

      @C_and_N and @Az, please if you have watched the documentary and you feel like you want to comment on what was being presented, please do so.

    9. Cheers mate, means a lot coming from you. Keep up the good work and congrats on your site.

      C_and_n + Azilda, you both seem like good people but this is not facebook

    10. I appologize, Vlatko for any extra stuff (but others have done so extensively--I feel singled out), but I was serious in my answer in addressing the question of travel faster than light (the topic being presented) as I think you know. It was on topic. And short.

      I've met several people that have met angels personally and physically face to face (who disappeared instantly moments later) and I've met people personally and face to face that have had soul traveling experiences, and two with near death experiences etc. and the soul does not seem limited by time whatsoever---but even 7 times around the earth in one second (as mentioned in the doc) would seem "instantanious" to the human mind, so we shall see.

    11. I watched the video this morning around 7am BC time.
      Be consistent, i have seen much worse comments that my hyppie shite!

    12. @ Vlatko too
      I understand what you mean. I like to read the comments before watching the doc too, and it would be nice if people stayed on topic with their comments. But when I consider some of the vile and nasty comments that I've read here from others, especially when talking about politics or religion, Az and C_and_N's comments aren't so bad, and are usually worth reading, but you're right, this isn't facebook.

    13. I'll back you up! comments are the only way to gauge whether something's worth watching or if you're going to waste an hour of your life, sometimes it's frustrating having to wade through the same old existential ponderings!

      Vlatko- seems you've built up quite a community here- maybe a forum would help?

    14. He had a "forum" two years ago, but it was like Siberia. No one hardly ever used them.

    15. Al, I live in Asia and teach online late. The stress is a lot. It takes me a long time to unwind, so I check the comments even if I don't watch a doc every night. I have no social outlet outside of Asian circles.

      I think I would have saved my "first comment" ever for an Arsehole or someone truly offensive. But, Vlatko has backed you up, so I'll bow out. But thanks for the birthday wish. I've always been partial to the Irish!

    16. Hi Charles, wha's up? someone giving you the gears? I've got your back even though you are a religee.

      Happy birthday!

    17. Alright mate, dont mind me I was hung ovr (living up to my stereotype I supose ha) Didnt mean to ofend ye n your right I should of saved it 4 some1 who actualy did ofend me. Happy bday again dude.

    18. happy?

    19. Ha good answer, your alright az ha

    20. Charles is a nice guy and Az seems nice too. You, on the other hand, seem quite mean.

  38. Indeed. Once I had an ant farm but them fellas didn't grow s***. I said: "Come on, how about some celery?! You guys don't farm! Plus, if I tore your legs of you would look like snowmen."

    1. Insects are actually some of the earths oldest farmers. Numerous species of termites have been found to "farm" fungi.

  39. Yes, we can. Angels can; souls can; we just have to find out how the spiritual aspect of reality can do so.

  40. i wonder what the wormhole series agenda is.

    1. I don't know.

    2. To educate, inspire, and challenge people to find that next step that a science show can report on.

    3. I agree, it is indeed very informative but it often leaves me with the impression that there is a "destination".

    4. To make money by disseminating scientific information and theories. Altruistic's good for everybody.

      Seriously though, I'd like to believe what KsDevil posted below to be the case. Maybe I'm a little naive.

    5. @Jack1952

      "To make money by disseminating scientific information and theories"

      You got that right. It's their primary objective, everything else is secondary.

      "Altruistic's good for everybody." Lmao

      No you're not naive but you are very funny! : )

      Unkeep the faith

    6. I've been wondering about that as well.

      The wormhole series seems to me, to have a kind of warm, fuzzy optimism to it, what with Freeman's dulcet tones, and his saccharine reminiscences an' all. Just the ticket if you're inclined to worry about the state that the world's in, and where it might all lead.

      It's a well made series, and I do enjoy watching it, but it does tend to leave me with a vague feeling that there's a sort of gentle propaganda element to it, that's designed to placate people. It almost feels like a sort of scientific opiate for the masses.

    7. although we get the Wormholes docs one at the time, the series must be already decided, thought, planned ect..
      That last phrase in the previous one (about God)...gave me the impression that the series is making an attempt to unite the natural world with the spiritual world in a sneaky scientific kind of way.

  41. i am out of here!
    Good Byes

    1. Ah, no. God did.

    2. I think she may be referring to collapsing the waveform, at least in part. Which wouldn't necessarily contradict the things you believe, from what I can tell.

    3. ciao bella!

    4. @Pysmythe
      bonsoir...I wish i could write in those terms but no my approach is not scientific although i find it passionately interesting to read.

    5. @ Az

      This sounds a little bit like the Omega Point of Pierre Chardin someone mentioned a couple of weeks ago: A maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe appears to be evolving.

    6. We are the Universe made manifest to understand itself.

    7. @ Az
      I believe I understand pretty well the idiosyncratic language you deliberately use to talk about these subjects, and some of the reasons for that, even if some don't. For example, I think you coach many of your comments in poetic terms in an effort to get others to think outside of the box, if possible, and I, for one, really appreciate that. I also think you do so in fairly neutral terms so as not to offend others sensibilities unnecessarily, which I also appreciate. Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but those are my impressions. I sure wish you'd stay...

    8. thank you @Pysmythe

      You are not wrong, and it is not always is who i am...also in real life!
      I did get a little over friendly knowing i was leaving for a while (last week)...and then i feel like leaving for ever(tonight)!
      (At times) I can read why people rather stay away and never comment on here...

    9. @ Az
      Over friendly? Not at all! You were gone a little over a week, and it seemed like a month... I'm glad you're back! :)
      [eat some "cookies" ;) and chill out... It'll be ok.]

    10. @Pysmythe
      If you ever get to the point of wanting to leave us...i'll be the first to find a hundred reasons why you should stay!

    11. I sure wish you'd stay too,... I like your comments.

    12. I got you under my attention. Thank you!

    13. @ az
      You're welcome! And thank-you for sticking around after that little problem. I know that my original reply to AlTheIrish and Vlatko seemed weak or even lame,(or at least I thought so) but I guess that's me all over. Trying to be diplomatic, so as to not ruffle any feathers, or getting myself into a pissing match, and I wind up being less than clear about my meaning.
      I'll try to do better in future.

      As for my avatar, or lack of an avatar, it's never come up before, and I never gave it a second thought. But now that it has come up, I'll have to come up with something, but it won't happen too quickly, and I may need help.

      Thanks again for sticking around.

    14. I always like to be diplomatic too as to not ruffle my own feathers.

    15. Az: My head is pounding from too much cake and icecream (seriously)---I've overdosed on chocolate! Getting too old to eat like I was 18, even on my birthday. I like your hippy ways, minus a few things---I'd love to backpack around Eurpose with you! I'm probably more fun than you think, and I'm sure you're fun! We're both highly sensory and emotional people. We'll skip Al in Ireland unless we change our mind later! :-)

    16. Hi Charles
      Backpacking through Europe together?
      I say why not use my gutsy attitude in a harder place, let's go to India. You wouldn't need to carry your bible there.
      One less heavy thing in your luggage.

    17. India? Ok! I would really love that. I actually thought about a missions trip to India with one of my pator friends, but it never happened. Why no Bible? The Muslims are usually the private Bible-banners, but I thought Hindus were less so.

    18. I meant you wouldn't want to carry your bible there. Don't you know what a lot of Indians do with thin soft paper?

    19. Heya Az,

      I sincerely hope you have a change of heart, as I always find your posts and opinions very refreshing, and more often than not, thought provoking and really quite intriguing. Your ability to approach subjects from sometimes seemingly quite oblique angles, and the way that you hint at shades of grey instead of always polarizing everything into black and white, is I think, of great value, and almost always gives me pause for thought.

      Best wishes,

    20. @ Earthwinger

      What you said was what I was trying to say... That's exactly it, and I hope Az realizes that.

    21. What? you are leaving? you travel all over the world and then you are scared of us boys?? Come on woman!

      I for one think you are an interesting person that have seen much more than anyone of us.

    22. I can only join others who would like you to stay... To me your comments are refreshing :)

    23. @Az, that was just a friendly advice. You know that.

      To be more specific:

      Personal chat becomes very tedious for other readers. When comments go off the topic they cause people to lose interest and they add nothing to the documentary. Comments are meant to enhance readers time on the site – not cause them to get bored with idle chit-chat.

      So don't get me wrong, there are couple of million people watching the docs, per month. And some of them read the comments.

      Sure there are nasty comments and idle chat on many docs left by various users, but whenever I spot those I react or ban users.

      If there were no people complaining, probably I wouldn't say anything about you.

      Again I hope you understand. There is no need to get out of here. If you feel offended I offer my apologize. Cheers.

    24. My hat down, Vlatko!

    25. The advice is taken...
      And how come no one is worried about Oz? Where the Hell (he would like that) did he disappeared to?

      I have had a problem on my hand, somewhere my help is needed a lot...will be back when things calm down...but still coming in the early morning.

    26. @ Az
      I am worried about him, and said so a couple of days ago at another doc. I hope he's just taking some time off...

    27. Well... to be honest I've emailed @Oz and politely "advised" him not to write long unrelated prose and poetry and not to overuse bold, italic and underline text. He said sorry and never commented since. Probably it was my bad.

    28. (At times) i see TDF like a soapy bubbly Opera. We are actors who have constructed our own role word by word.
      People with no real body, just word thoughts and personality (which doesn't fully express who we are).
      Since the new system started, it has allowed people to see who participates the most, and to a certain extend who is liked the most.
      Oz gets the most liked by a long long why ask that he changes his way?
      You fail to see that poetry is sometimes closer to expressing one's thought than a bunch of repeated bla bla words.

      I must say what bothered me the most (may be my bodily ego) is that you supported: "C_and_N + Azilda please save you comments for your hippy circles, some1 please back me up on this"

      First because my circle is much wider than hyppies and CnN probably doesn't have one hyppie as a friend (other than me).

      I hope Oz returns, he will be greatly missed. His contribution in the science forums equal that of Achems.

    29. Az, you made me laugh again! I don't have many "hippy" friends, you're right! But I do have one where the first time we met he tried to sell me weed. I have allergies--really looks like I smoke pot sometimes! We've been friends ever since. I'm sorry Oz got offeneded--he really is bi-polar I think. I'm much milder---I'm just mellow dramatic! ;-)

    30. hey i dont think its possible to move space like as your getting faster and faster to the speed of light the more mass you have so you would gett bigger and bigger and if your ship stayed in one spot in space and still travel its not possible beause the force that the ship is giving is 0 newtons right and the force that it is giving is 0 then the force you get back is 0 newtons and if there is no force there is no acceleration on the ship so the ship would stay still as to space would not move either

    31. I should ask Mr. @Achems once again at the table. This very young man has an opinion/ think you could untangle this one?

    32. Come on now Az, the child has asked you an important question, don't pass the buck. lol

      But will give you a hint, he is right about getting bigger and bigger, and the closer you get to C, time will seem to stand still to the observer that is observing the scenario, but to the one that is travelling, everything will seem as normal.

      Edit: do not know what is meant by Newtons though. Should be Einstein relativity.

    33. I answered 44 minutes ago, you 4 minutes ago and your comment is #144
      Now does that explain his question?

    34. Az, do not know what you mean, anyway as you probably know, TDF forums are not for little kids. Let him talk to his parents or teachers on the subject.

    35. I didn't think TDF had an age cap. I figure as long as they go to school, they are welcome to come here, especially if they are serious and not opinion is that docs are much better than playing video game for hours.

    36. Az, on that I disagree, there should be an age cap, TDF is basically an adult site, don't you agree?... "As long as they go to school"??...can go to school at 6 years old. I know it is hard to determine age on the net, but when underage is blatant, basically should be deleted.

    37. i meant High School....but you are right that may invite a lot of trolling. I suppose if a serious kid came with interesting questions and a thirst for learning...he would have some pretty good people to talk to here.
      I don't make the rules and you're the mod...
      I am happy the way things are.

    38. or TV..i've been reading this conversation and if i may, i wish i had TDF when i was a kid- there are some really amazing documentaries here and as a child i would have probably enjoyed the nature and science sections the most. definitely no shortage of adult ones, or at least adult level (conspiracy, politics and such) but kids will probably realize this and switch to another, more accessible docu.
      and remember kids are not the only trolls around.

      and im pretty sure internet scripture (lol) says something like:
      "be kind to the troll, for they are sad and lonely"

    39. You know, i could only confuse him with my answer, that's why i thought you'de be better at it. I rather confuse you.