Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:01:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   • justafool

   Apecial Relativity discussions here

   @zeccano

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:12:12 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Interpritation doesnt really matter too much in the QM world, there are many different ones that can work.

     What matters is the math, and only the math. If the math can be proven to be true consistently, then it is true, if it isnt, then it isnt. Math tells us what to expect from things and how they behave. It is what matters.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:29:24 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano In the end all of that is just hyperbole to me.. If someone predicts that something will behave in a certain way, and state an equation that dictates how it will behave, that is all that is important. From a functional standpoint you can now use the effect to your advantage and "wield" it.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:32:16 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @zeccanoI have a few degrees actually. None are in physics or QM though. I studied them in school and do the math more as a hobby, it is not a topic I have published on directly.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:39:35 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano No i didnt say a physics paper is hyperbole not to be taken literally. I was refering to the things you said about math not being the language of god, and all that... its mostly just noise that misses the point.

     What we care about is can we describe a system in a way that helps us make accurate descriptions about how that system behaves. If you can, and if you do, then your theory is validated and becomes a model.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 23:54:26 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano
     If you have an experiment that cant be explained by einsteins models but can be more accurately predicted by your own model then im all ears.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 00:02:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano
     Im not sure what your saying. Do you think einsteins equations oredict what will happen in useful ways or not. If we observe something will we or will we not measure its length to have changed?

     I am not too concerned with what mental framework you need to use to visualiE the why. If the oredictions work and are valid then we have success.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 00:14:30 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano
     The hypothesis is "i propose that if x happens then y will be the result.", The expwriment texts x and see if y happens.

     Thats all that matters to me when proving a model true. What abstract ideas you or einstein used to trt to visualize in your own mi d what is happen may have value but is not what defines if a theory is valid or not

     Again do you agree that if something ia moving near the soeed of light that a stationary observer will measure the obiect to be shorter? Is this assertion true or false?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 00:23:09 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano
     Then you are incorrect and oulking that out of your butt. Its been done cou tkess times and oroven to be the case. Hell ive personally dont relativity experiments and co firmed them to be true.

     If you think that is the case prove it with an experiment or propose an experiment that someone else coukd do to prove you correct.

     The experimental evidence overwhelmingly disagrees with you. In fact a lot of thinga in the world would not be able to work if we dont account for relativity.q

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 08:02:59 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano
     Dont be a condescending jerk, it wont serve you well on qoto, with me or the others.

     Usually when people dont have a leg to stand on they resort to personal attacks. Shows a lot about your position really.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 08:12:21 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Fair I should have been more tactful. After just talking to a flat earther for most of the day to hear you say something is false that can be tested and proven and has been sounded absurd. I should have been more tactful in my wording of that.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 08:25:15 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano No you seem to be missing what I just said.

     No one claimed it is made of casio watches. We create names for what we know and what can be proven by math, but thats it.

     We define waves as things with certain mathematical properties, if something is shown to have those properties then it is a wave, at least until someone can prove otherwise. Any interpretation beyond that, if not shown directly by math proven to be true, is not part of the theory but rather just ones personal mental framework used to understand the theory.

     More importantly you claim things dont get heavier or change size relative to the observer when they have velocity.

     We can show and prove this isnt true by experimentation, by mathematical equations proven to be true. Whether you think it is made of fairy dust ior perriwinkles is external to any such theory.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 08:28:16 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano A very obvious one that many people have done, for example, is taking an atomic clock to different altitudes and seeing how the passage of time changes due to the effects of gravity. Something I have done for fun and to personally prove the theory. Nothing official though, just fun easy experiments anyone with access to some resources could do.

     If you think such experiments have been done consistently incorrectly and all have the same results anyway youd have to show either how/why such a conspiracy would exist or how the experiment is flaws and show an experiment that would contradict it.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 19:41:06 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano The "interpretation" are little more than mental models, they arent the theory. The theory is that when something accelerates or changes its distance to some large mass time dialates by a very specific amount.

     You are claiming it doesn't (correct)?

     So the way to prove you have the superior answer isnt through any logical gymnastics, it would be through and experiment or a criticism of existing experiments that might explain how/why they are erroneous.

     If you feel you can do that im all ears.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 19:56:24 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Yes I am a scientist.

     I have no need to use einsteins words or gymnastics for anything. He defined a very specific equation that defines how we expect things to behave. So far all the experiments show it to be true. Which means you need to either disprove those experiments by showing why they are failed experiments, or device your own.

     You can play on words all you want, try to insult people and act childish in a vain attempt to look like you have some position of strength.

     ITs all just noise until you actually say what you propose and exactly how one can test it.. until then your just wasting air on insults with no content.

     hell you didnt even get to the point where you share any actual ideas, nothing with which to counter, and your already lashing out with personal attacks.

     If anything it appears you are the one who doesnt have the mind for holding civil or productive conversations.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 20:09:43 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano For all the talking you did the past few days you chould have just shared your paper on a theory, including whatever math and proposed way to test it, and then we can discuss it.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 20:12:33 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Tricks of science fraud? Then how do you explain the fact that when ive conducted the tests myself personally they matched einsteins predictions perfectly.. How would this be possible if it was fake?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 20:15:43 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Several over the years. A good example of one we can easily discuss is taking an atomic clock to different altitudes then comparing against a reference clock later.

     The difference matched those predicted by einstein very closely.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 20:36:09 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Well this was an experiment did several times over, it wasnt a single trip. But for the most impressive trip was when we took one up to the grand teton's Two-peak mountain.

     I have access to a lot of hardware, and did the experiment many times with different hardware. At first it was loaned hardware, later hardware I owned and use for my EE work (unrelated to these experiments). So luckily I had ready access to several atomic clocks for a few years before selling them since I no longer need it for the work I do currently.

     As for the accuracy, the accuracy and maximum deviation is known and easily confirmed. The variation is extremly small much.

     Moreover if this were simply random deviation, a fine (though incorrect) assumption then it would be easy to distiguish. A random variance would be the same and inconsistent between trips at high altitutde and low. In both cases it would deviate in either direction.

     Even if this wasnt true and there were some effect that made speeding up and slowing down as a mechanical problem specifically due to air pressure or something, then we would still expect that the results would not match exactly with the predictions of SR. Yet in every test, dozens of times, the results were always nearly exactly what you expect according to SR/GR

     None of your dismissal or explanations seem to be able to explain away this.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 21:15:53 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano My science labs and notebooks are in my USA home, I'm currently in my europe home. So I dont currently have my lab notes on me. However you'd be better served looking at actual peer reviewed papers done under scrutiny. My results were the same, but it was done more for fun and personal validation than anything, and of the thousands of actual journal papers will go into far more detail for you.

     I can take pictures of my lab notebook if your curious though next time im at that home, but again the peer-reviewed data here is going to use even more expensive equipment and controls anyway.

     You were the one who seems to think you can disprove his theory despite the fact that everything we do appears to agree with it...

     Its been over a day now, if you think you have some way of disproving his equation as accurate im all ears...

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 21:57:45 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano I already answered this, the lab notes are at my house with the labs, not with me.

     Again much better and more accurate data is availible in actual peer reviewed studies, so if you want actual data with which to draw conclusions then those studies are a better source.

     I certainly dont mind going into the details of the experiment with you as i remember it, but going off memory witout my notes on it probably isnt going to be as useful as using data from profressional experiments.

     Please answer **my** question rather than piling on your own. IS there a reason you refuse to use actual peer reviewed experiments. They certainly agree with the numbers, do you think it is some world wide conspiracy, or is there some other explanation for the consistency across experiments?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:01:19 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Ahh sure, yea I think we can go through that equation , thats not too hard to calculate that part, just need to check what the exact altitude was where I did it

     It will be very small number, but much smaller than the rated accuracy of the atomic clocks, if that is what you wish to check.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:29:12 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dialation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dialation to due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}}\)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:30:37 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{r_s}{r}}\)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:32:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} }\)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:32:46 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} } \)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:33:08 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} } }\)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 22:33:39 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

     1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

     2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

     In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

     \(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} \)

     If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

     https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

     Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 23:25:49 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano No helicopter, it was a jeep equiped with snow tracks. was a 2 week trip.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 23:48:25 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano enjoy

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 19:37:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano direct being the keyword, there are many indirect ones. and those indirect ways further confirm the equations.

     Again if you want to say SR is wrong you need to replace it with something that explains thr behavior of light, what is that something then?

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 19:45:01 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano The idea that a quanta of light has no mass is incorrect. There are two types of mass every object has one is called rest mass, the other is called inertial mass or relativistic mass. Usually if we talk about mass it is the relativistic mass.

     The mass of light is therefore relative to its frequency, higher frequency light has more energy and since energy is equivelant to mass, has more mass.

     moreover, again, experiments demonstrate all this. So while I can understand that you **think** it is wrong, and you **think** you can disprove it, becaiuse all experiments prove it to be true we know you are wrong. So instead of wasting time on an idea proven to be wrong its far better to try to understand how it must be true.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 19:55:28 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano bullshit, again i have measured the speed of light in my own lab (and it isnt hard...

     Or are you going to assume it is again just "coincidence" that the results prove that the speed of light is a constant?

     Man you are really just pulling stuff out of your ass now.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:06:51 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano it doesnt matter how recent the claim is, thats just nonsense and makes no sense. It is a claim that is experimentally proven thats all that matters.

     In every place where it is predicted we would need special relativity equations, we do, and when we apply them it gives the correct answer. There are countless examples of that.

     You can say its wrong all you want but you cant get around the fact that it works, and is needed to make a ton of technology work at all, something that is tested every day in practical ways around the world and proven.

     You can say its all wrong all you want but considering it is experimentally proven in countless ways you cant really gripe.

     Still waiting on your explanation for the gravity clocks, you havent had one you notice that is acceptable.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:10:47 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano What?

     It was measured from two different frames of reference (relative speed) thats all you have to do to prove the paradox.

     Man you really dont even understand the basics of what I'm saying it looks like.

     Why are you still acting like it is in doubt when you couldnt explain away the gravity clocks?

     At this point you have enough information to know the theory is experimentally proven (unless you have can come up with an explanation for the experiment which you cant).. So if you still are going to act like it isnt proven then I'm pretty much doneith you because you arent trying to really learn or change your assumptions at all.
     
     I dont want to be rude but you said your 61 and its too late to learn math, apparently its too late for you to change your mind on relativity too.. But I want to just leave you with this, do your eally want to be that 61 year old that is too old to learn? Because personally I beleive you arent too old, but for that to be true it will take a change in the way you think, so its up to you.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:15:09 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano That makes no sense, why would one an equation simple for being non-linear be expected to approcimate exactly the time difference expected.

     The equations tell a specific number of seconds that is expected to be off by.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:20:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano No i said pretty much the exact opposite of that. We know how a light beam shoots out of a moving laser (and its not the nonsense you suggested in your video).. your arguing absurdities at this point.

     I think you've just invested SO much time on this lie and your so old that you cant change your mind now, no matter how much proof there is your wrong.. I dunno, looked like you might be getting it for a bit there.

     I guess i need to exit the conversation now.

     If you want to try to learn some of the basic math let me know we should try the basic thought experiments, the math, and even some experiments yourself sometime, its really easy stuff you can understand if you try i think.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:22:08 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano you measure the sme beam of light from two perspectives one moving faster than the other, thats what is meant.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:25:54 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano So even if the shape of the equations resembled the blot of gravity (it actually doesnt and has a different shape) that wouldnt explain why you'd get exactly 420 ns as an answer out of the equation for a certain input rather than some other number...

     Thats not how equations work. I think your own lack of math knowledge is really blinding you to what would be a simple problem to understand otherwise.

     I can teach you if you want.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:35:55 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano You are the one claiming light has no momentum contrary to everything else in the universe, so the obligaligation is on you to show it doesnt.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 20:58:04 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano Let me know if you need help reasoning it later, as long as your open to it being true

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 21:10:27 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano light doesnt have infinite mass, no, it has a very specific mass, determined by its frequency

     It has no rest mass, it does have relatistic mass.

     Why is it you dont have time to learn the math (which wouldnt be too hard to be honest) but you do have time to ask these questions, they take just as much time to answer as the math, and would be more useful.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 21:12:29 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano No i can explain the rational behind the physics, once you accept that the experiments give specific results, then the rational behind the physics becomes clear, you just have a lot of foundational knowledge you arent clear on.

     You hae to start at the basics. Start by understanding why C is a constant, just focus there for a while.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 21:16:56 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano I think that way of working may have worked well for you on simpler ideas. But because this is a hard idea for many people to really understand I think the math will serve you well. Math is an amazingly powerful tool and I think it would really help you in life to understand it a bit better.

     As I said this stuff is even simple math so I'm sure youc an learn it without much effort.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 21:35:28 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano yes but i think if you want to get that deep and really have an efficient way to speak we will have to cover some math at least. but yea experiments showing relativistic mass of light is easy, there are a ton of them, like light sails

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Nov-2019 22:03:32 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • justafool

     @zeccano A good example is the damaging effects of UV radiation. This is due to the fact that UV light has a higher frequency and thus a higher relativistic mass. this means when it hits molecules it has more momentum and thus it can more easily nock an electron out of place. this is why it is harmful and can cause skin cancer.