🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@pthenq1

I'm not offended, just saying the fact that light has only ever been measured two way is well established fact.

@seroom @Science

@MutoShack
use spacemacs and/or spacevim is my opinion. Easier to learn the keys, similar experience, still vim or emacs as the executable.

By our best estimates there is a 1 in 500 chance betelgeuse will go supernova in my life time. I really hope I beat the odds on this one!

@sneak Or to put it another way, dont want to get shot, dont break into peoples homes or property...

@sneak dont want violence used on you, dont steal other peoples shit, which is effectively forcing them to do manual labor for you for free. Its pretty simple.

@sneak Whoever said I agree with NAP? I have no problem with you being held at gunpoint for having data on your hard drive which I invented and you stole from me. Though as i said it depends on the nuance.

I might be aok with, for example, you coming up with the same "number" as me totally on your own, from scratch, using none of my private material. But if you had to steal from me to get it, then no I dont mind someone using violence to stop you.

It also depends on what you mean by number.. if its a commonly used number I have no issue with you having it as they will float around by chance anyway.. However if it is some gigantic number that would be impossible for you to have by chance and could only have it by stealing it from me, then no, large numbers are effectively data at that point.

When you break into my home to take something I create (or onto my computer or any other means) then NAP goes out the window, I have no problem you getting shot for that shit or threatened to be shot when its found on your computer.

@sneak Well legally you can, but I might agree with you that legally you should not be allowed to, that would depend on circumstances and nuance. I never said copyright law cant or shouldn't be tweaked in some ways, but i am perfectly ok with the general concept when properly applied.

@sneak I agree they are inherently violent... I have nothing wrong with violence when used to defend against what is mine.

@3ammo So yea in short, keep up the "spam" its more than welcome.. dont hold back.

@icedquinn

Yea though keep in mind that is also a very different effect than what I am describing. The sagnac effect is about the relative motion of the medium through which light travels and compares a two-way or round-trip path clockwise vs counterclockwise. So its still comparing two different two-way trips and at no point is it measuring a one-way trip.

@3ammo

@3ammo It isnt spam at all, your comments are more than welcome and shower them down at whatever rate you wish. Engaging the topic and exploring it is the whole point and you can never have too much of that.

@3ammo the knob thought experiment isnt really a relativity thing. It takes into account many different theories and is more of a general experiment than one you hear linked to any one theory.. For example even if you dont invoke relativity at all cosmological principles link the expansion of the universe to the speed of light in a fairly fundamental way (the rate at which the hubble sphere grows).

@3ammo the problem with that logic is that we already can experementally prove that relativity is correct so any conventional measurement is moot going in.

Moreover the idea that speed of light is a constant is not what is the issue. The speed of light **is** a constant when measured round-trip, that is experimentally provable. What is not a postulate and the part we cant prove is that the speed of light is a constant one-way regardless of orientation. We take that to be the case in relativity as a matter of **convention** not as a postulate. The reason we do so is because even if it is not symmetric it wont change any of the results, therefore any arbitrary convention works, so we pick the easiest one.

Regardless you still cant actually measure it one way, if you do so conventionally you wont account for time dilation at all and get an incorrect answer where using the relativity approach you will get a more accurate answer but it will be interently a two-way measure.

@pants Nah, but it implies the Chiffon Curtain of Singularity :)

**Another interesting fact of the day**: If I handed you a device with just a single knob and told you that by twisting the knob you would change the speed of light in a vacuum to a new value for all of time and space from the beginning of time, and then you set off to prove if the device did what I claimed. There would be no way to actually verify or disprove it.

The reason for this is by changing the speed of light you'd effect the apparent size of the universe and everything in it. If you slow down the speed of light to half its normal speed then you also shrink the space between everything to half, so the light takes the same time to move between two objects. Basically any change to the speed of light would cause an equivalent change to your "ruler" and thus would appear to be unchanged.

@pthenq1

No there isnt. This isnt my opinion, the scientific community agrees that so far no one has figured out any way to measure the one-way speed of light. If you have an experiment that can you'd get a nobel prize for it.

@seroom @Science