Notices by 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 121

@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.

@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.

@leyonhjelm

A regulation demanding drug companies must include the chemical formulae with the drugs they sell is absolutely a regulation which creates safety.

@p @design_RG @teknonomicon

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

@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.

@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.

@sda Was this meant for me?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@leyonhjelm

You are missing the point, A soft drink, or other food is not something of a nature you would want to patent, a drug is, these are apples and oranges.

A drug asa a matter of safety must give away its chemical formula whether it is patented or not, so they dont have the option of secrecy as coca-cola might (which never patented the formula). So when we talk medication patents are really the only way they have to protect Intellectual Property in the first place.

@p @design_RG @teknonomicon

@p

I'm familiar with the pattern, and for some things it actually works. It stems from the fact that in order to patent something you must make the details on how to make it public knowledge. That means people have a time to experiment with it and once the patent lapses release their own formulation using your idea as a starting point.

For this reason patents arent always a good choice.

However sometimes they are, it really depends on the details of what you are patenting. When it comes to medication parents are your only real option because you have to make the chemical formula anyway because, well, its a drug, as a matter of safety the molecular formular need to be shared with the community to verify its safety. Could you imagine if drug companies started to have the right not to tell you the chemical formula of the drugs you took, I shudder at the thought.

@design_RG @teknonomicon

@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.

@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?

@zeccano enjoy

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

To all you new people in the Fediverse. Don't forget to active being listed on the user Profile Directory if you want people to be able to find you.

To all you new people in the Fediverse. Don't forget to active being listed on the user profile if you want people to be able to find you.

@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.

@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.