I experience similar tunnel vision artifacts everytime I see a pretty girl...!

We could enjoy this video... 20 years ago.

This video is relatively terrible.

well, it wasn't as interesting because of the crap quality and effects...

Photorealistic? Really? They could at least make more than 2 frames per second. And I'm pretty sure her voice is syntetic.

The phyiscs is correct though and I'd love to see it rendered properly.

Sounds like the wife of Stephen Hawking decided to make a video on relativity... Interesting science, but in this case I actually prefer a textbook to this horrible clip

PIECE OF MONKEY SHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What ever about the video the voice is sounds like a cat drowning slowly...

Interesting but #6 have to agree with you there

actually interesting to see what it looks like to travel that fast - in slow motion.

What the hell... glad i managed to stop the video before it was too late.

@LightAng3l: "The optical bending is caused by camera lenses.... you do not get that in real life... idiots... take this crap down!"

The optical bending is NOT caused by camera lenses. What happens when you're travelling at light speed is that all the light is traveling towards you from the front and in a decreasing matter from the sides, but not from the absolute rear.
When standing still light can hit you from every side, but as you are travelling ever faster the light in front of you is nearing faster than the light behind you, thus creating the red-shift seen in the vid. Since light is hitting you faster from the front the luminocity increases while it decreases at the back.
In the end, when travelling at light speed is that no light can come up from the rear (since you're moving at the same speed as the particles trying to approach you) and the light coming from the front is essentially hitting you at twice the speed.

I know this is old, but it's still pretty cool if u get it....

How can you still see the object after passing it? I could understand if you're going faster than the speed of light, because you'd be catching up with the "image" of the back face of the cube. But as you're going slower than the speed of light, the light making up the image of the cube's back face is moving away from you (relatively).

#14 the other way to think of this is that your mass is curving the space like a lens, so the light follows curved paths and even light from the sides can reach you at what appears to be impossible angles.

#14 "the light coming from the front is essentially hitting you at twice the speed."

Twice the speed of what? Not the speed of light certainly! Nothing travels faster than the speed of light, that's one of the cornerstones or relativity.

speed of light seems slow.

I studied light for so many years only to have my comment buried and #12 to give me a lecture...

#12 you are 75% wrong let me discuss your points:

1. "What happens when you're travelling at light speed is that all the light is traveling towards you from the front and in a decreasing matter from the sides, but not from the absolute rear."

Answer: Nobody ever said you were traveling towards the light source... you may travel off to the side, or you may be traveling away from it, in which case you would see nothing... so your theory about optical bending is invalid...

2. "When standing still light can hit you from every side, but as you are travelling ever faster the light in front of you is nearing faster than the light behind you, thus creating the red-shift seen in the vid."

Answer: This is only true in an omni-lighted environment(the light source is everywhere), which dose not exist in the real world.

3. "Since light is hitting you faster from the front the luminocity increases while it decreases at the back."

Answer: Correct.

4. "In the end, when travelling at light speed is that no light can come up from the rear (since you're moving at the same speed as the particles trying to approach you) and the light coming from the front is essentially hitting you at twice the speed."

Answer: Again... why do you assume the light source is exactly in front of you?

PS: Imagine you are traveling at light speed and your heart pumps blood, some blood would move from the back of your body towards your chest, so the blood cells would essentially be traveling at light speed plus the speed of the blood so in the end, faster than light itself.... wrap your head around that...

Might as well rate this comment down too...since you know best.

#20 lets put some light on the subject shall we

This clip is indeed very bad... Usually you watch clips like this to extend your knowledge in the field that is difficult to grasp by simply reading textbook... this "clip" does NOT offer any such extension. :-/

#20 I don't want to argue much on the topic of light here... enough people already do that, but I couldn't help but notice your great "explanation".

If you really did study light for many years, you should know that majority of experiments in this field (especially this certain topic) assume single light source directly in front of you... which doesn't make your points completely invalid, but being educated in this field, you should know better. You decided to correct someone who assumed something you, as a self-proclaimed educated person, should know is basic assumption for these experiments.

Next thing is, if you are travelling at the speed of light and still have some blood in your body to worry about (assuming you still have some body to worry about =)... then you probably can as well accept that your blood, that is pumped in the same direction your body is moving, is travelling faster than light... at least to an outside observer.

nose bleed to the maximum level!!!