Interesting Documentary on Physics

I've only today discovered RichPlanetTV and can see myself binge watching any episode I can find.

It's presented by Richard D Hall, and from what I've seen so far(the video above) I wouldn't call him a conspiracy theorist but rather a narrative sceptic if that makes any sense.

It's not the popcorn value of an Alex Jones rabbit hole, which is refreshing as it's easy to reach your threshold with Alex quite quickly.


Here he discusses the history of physics, how history is sometimes shaped to not present the most accurate picture of people and events and how the establishment might be using their understanding on the true nature of physics in places like Area-51 in black projects that have allowed them to achieve a military superiority that we can and do only speculate about.


Admittedly my knowledge of physics is extremely limited which is why I shared this video to allow the smart people of ATS help give a more accurate breakdown of the implications of what is being discussed and whether or not this is a rabbit hole worth pursuing.

Could it be that the speed of light isn't constant after all?

These are just one of the many interesting points raised in this video.


I was searching for another episode of his discussing the space program and will share it if I can find it, but this episode was interesting enough in itself to divert my attention.







For those interested, here's Rupert Sheldrake's banned TED talk that is briefly shown during the interview.

To understand the speed of light is to understand the speed of human thought. Have we reached that point in modern life?

a reply to: musicismagic

Almost the speed of light?

I'd hazard a guess that it's based on the medium any energy passes through, we can slow down light.

Can we speed it up?

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: musicismagic

Almost the speed of light?

I'd hazard a guess that it's based on the medium any energy passes through, we can slow down light.

Can we speed it up?

I'd have to see what Buddha says about it. It seems the minds of years gone by were not so polluted with stupidity .

a reply to: musicismagic

Buddha might say stupidity isn't a helpful word although polluted is.

Fog might not slow down light but it surely can obscure it.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Been aware of RDH a number of years now.
I hope he reinstates his talk tour in 2023

a reply to: 19Bones79

Rupert Sheldrake is not a physicist he is into paranormal subjects such as precognition, empirical research into telepathy, and the psychic staring effect. He has been described as a New Age author. Besides him giving his paranormal take on physics I don't see how he can formulate a believable hypothesis without knowing any physics.

a reply to: quintessentone

Thats not to belittle RDH.
He is known to debunk some of his own videos when faced with evidence or information to the contrary.

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: quintessentone

Thats not to belittle RDH.
He is known to debunk some of his own videos when faced with evidence or information to the contrary.

He is very much belittled by the scientific community.

how can anyone in the scientific community formulate a hypothesis in any field if they don't know anything about it?
My point being is that in a new field there are no concrete ways to achieve a result and all it is is like throwing spagetti at a wall and seeing what sticks. All we see in the newspapers and the journals are the successful experiments, I am will to bet that the number of failures greatly outnumbers the successes 10 to 1. a reply to: quintessentone

the idea is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, that's Einstein's special relativity. the speed of light does change depending on the medium, take for example water it slows light down to about 225,00 km/s from about 300,000km/s .
however in physics there is a way to sorta skirt the speed limit of the universe and experiments are being done to prove it, quantum entanglement look it up its a fun way to fry your brain trying to grasp it lmao. A reply to: 19Bones79

a reply to: coldisbest


I've heard about quantum entanglement, and it does fry my brain tbh.

But that's nowhere as mind blowing as particles behaving in a certain way depending on whether or not they are being observed.

Rupert Sheldrake is not a physicist he is into paranormal subjects

What type of normal would you ascribe to the results achieved by the double slit experiment?

Science is a FORD product... fix or repair daily.

a reply to: 19Bones79

The only thing which changes is the amplitude of its wavelengths... not its speed.

Take a cell phone and throw it into a lake, its wave will be small, so small it may not even travel to reach the shore before it dissipates.

Now throw 100lb object in the same lake, the wave will be larger and will make it to the shoreline, but the speed at which these two waves travel through the given medium are the same.

To get QM to work they need to overturn or get rid of Einstein, unfortunately the not-a-marxist Einstein is right, that's how nature works.

There is an order, a balance, a fine tuning to everything in the universe... nature is not subject to probabilities or whims, that would be absurd.

Theoretical physicists need to secure their day job... always keep that in mind lol.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

What type of normal would you ascribe to the results achieved by the double slit experiment?

Light is both a particle and a wave, what is only different is how we talk about it, the aspects of it.

The white light traveling through space as a particle at a constant speed becomes the electromagnetic wave which our eyes are equipped to see, when these/this particle strikes an object with a different chemical makeup and/or density it travels to our eye in the form of a wave in a given color in the visible spectrum (which we can discern)

There is a transformation in the light between it striking an object and it traveling to your eye.

a reply to: 19Bones79
quantum entanglement works on that idea, Schrodinger cat is what its called I think.