Видео

Nitric acid is unstable and loses its strength by decomposing into water and nitrogen dioxide. The process is faster when the acid is exposed to light, so you will extend its shelf life by protecting it from light.

Thank you, but i remade this tutorial with more details here: ruclips.net/video/NHBDXtn7pjA/видео.html

Just watch the tutorial!

What about it?

Not a big deal! In this video I do it with nitric acid: ruclips.net/video/NHBDXtn7pjA/видео.html

I've never tried PTFE membranes, but that could be a good alternative.

@@BlueMoonshine it is expensive and I bought it from amazon. What about Nafion? have you heard it before

@@geeljireoomaar6140 I think I heard about it, but never tried either.

For the case that you are describing, the twins have the same coordinate acceleration in Frame A, which implies that they also have the same proper acceleration. This also implies that the twins are in the same co-moving inertial frame at all times. In that case, the twins will age exactly the same. Note that things would be different if the twins were in a single spaceship with some acceleration, one at the front and one at the back. In such a case, the one at the front would age more than the one at the back, due to the fact that the front must necessarily have a smaller proper acceleration than the back.

@@BlueMoonshine In my first comment I have written that in frame A the spaceships always have the same distance d , both when they are stationary and also when they reach their final velocity! But, because when the spaceships are moving with their final constant velocity, then they have moved to another frame of reference B therefore in this frame the distance of the spaceships will be d * γ to have increased the proper distance this implies that during the acceleration the time, in one of the two spaceships, was passing faster!

@@Dimal-o3y I actually didn't make any mistake. As I said, for the case that you are describing, the twins have the same acceleration (and same time-dependent velocity) in frame A, which implies that the distance between them remains constant as seen from the frame A. This also implies that their proper acceleration are the same, since the proper acceleration is equal to the coordinate acceleration times the Lorentz factor (which is the same for both twins). Now, as seen from the rockets, the distance between the twins is indeed greater. Still, the twins age the same, since time-dilation depends only on velocity and acceleration (which are the same for both at all times), it does not depend on spatial separation. This is somehow analogous to the expansion of the Universe.

@@BlueMoonshine What I'm describing here I have achieved by myself, both the expansion of the distance between the two spaceships and also that during the acceleration the time in the front ship runs faster than in the rear ship! The reason for the expansion of the distance between the two spaceships is explained by the fact that the first ship reaches the final velocity faster. Even though the time interval of the acceleration is exactly equal for both ships. Google > math. ucr. edu. bell's spaceship paradox the first picture "The two rockets' clocks both read zero when they started out, so we see here that the blue (trailing) rocket measures the red (leading) rocket to be ageing quickly" {It is copied from the text}

@@Dimal-o3y What matters in the actual aging of the twins is their proper time. However, in the document you are referring to, they only describe how each twin observe the other's time. These are not proper times.

I still play it every couple years, so that I forget all the crucial details of the solution, and can rediscover them.

What do you mean by "dead links"? This video tutorial is about programming a keyfob, not about installing Techstream.

@ the links in the “caption” (ie the description) that you reference in your video :)

@@Voltechs Oh, I forgot about these. Yes, RUclips banned my tutorial on how to install Techstream.

Thank you. You may also want to watch this one about the Triplet Paradox: ruclips.net/video/Dy8fC2eVOeA/видео.html

I always had problems for breaking through the windows. I kind of had to move at random until it happens. I finally got it when I made this tutorial 2 years ago, but now I don't even remember how to do it.

Yes, here is a tutorial for a lead-acid battery in which I used that electrode: ruclips.net/video/0zQYJJz89Wo/видео.html

Yep, crappy ending!

I don't remember for sure, as it was several years ago, but I think the power was estimated to be around 50 Watts. It was able set wood on fire. When I wanted to try it on metal, the tube cracked (probably because I didn't leave enough gap between the aluminum caps and the tube, or because the sealing resin wasn't soft enough). I need to make a new one, and will make an experimental tutorial, but at the moment I don't have time for it.

"alot cheaper and ALOT easier" What is cheaper than virtually $0? Running water in the sink until it gets hot, or putting on a stove? How much energy are you spending? Also, the method you are mentioning gives poor results when cutting thick bottles.

Yes, you can make salt crystals with this method. But it is not really chemistry, as no reactions are involved.

Did you even watch the video? BlueMoonshine clearly says it!

I really play only the piano. For the guitar part in the song, I learned how to play it, but it wasn't sounding good, so I dubbed it with a synthetic guitar that I played on my piano.

Thank you! Merry Christmas!

Thank you, you too!

Thank you!

Thank you!

De rien, merci de partager la vidéo!

I don't know what you mean.

Yes, Epsom salt is MgSO4.

You're welcome. Please share the video!

RUclips took it down.

I see that you keep fleeing from the challenge I gave you: Point out a single wrong equation in the tutorial. Keep fleeing, coward!

@BlueMoonshine i see you have an ignorance problem. You can't correctly apply the laws of physics to the proper frame of reference. Keep repeating yourself. Your ignorance belies your arrogance. I expected nothing less from a Relativists. You are the one fleeing from reality.

@@stewiesaidthat Keep fleeing, coward!

​@@BlueMoonshineYou are such an ignoramus. You have been reported. I've repeatedly pointed out that you ARE INCORRECTLY APPLYING the laws of physics. You don't understand how to identify a frame a reference. You don't know anything at all about physics. You just keeping regurgitating mathematical nonsense that was debunked centuries ago. Before Einstein even showed up and bastardized science because he couldn't take being wrong. Just like his moronic followers. The clock is not in the same time frame of reference as the observer. What part about that do you not understand The Lorentz transforms does not apply to the observer's Time frame. It deals with the Transmission of information. Period. Your time-dilation is in reality information dilation. Learn how to correctly frame a frame of reference. Quit running from your ignorance. Embrace it. Just admit that you are stupid and go back and reevaluate. Why is one clock slower than the other if they use the same amount of energy? Why did Hafele-Keating not include this very important information in there experiment? Why didn't they mention the fact the cesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero. Unless they are in cryostasis, there is no comparison between the cesium-133 atom and the observer's atoms. None whatsoever. Now, quit being a dick and educate yourself. You were obviously taught wrong. Expand your horizon. Learn biology. What makes grass grow. Learn some telecommunications. Why is 5g faster than 4g? Why is blu-ray faster. Why are there repeaters in Fibre optic lines. You have a lot to learn grasshopper. As I showed you with F=G(m1m2)/R2, the science is not always right.

@@stewiesaidthat "You have been reported." LOL "I've repeatedly pointed out that you ARE INCORRECTLY APPLYING the laws of physics." I CHALLENGED YOU to point out WHICH EQUATION (at what time in the video) is supposedly wrong. So far you have failed to do this!

You're welcome. Please, share it if you can.

I use bottles from A1 sauce. They are dark and prevent the decomposition of the nitric acid by light. Also, the plastic cap is relatively good, however, it eventually start leaking after a few months so a new cap is needed.

Here is a full tutorial: ruclips.net/video/TMr25ouvpD4/видео.html

What does that mean?

​@@AndreaKarlis arrested usually

@@cubchoobii8350 God bless America! There is no law in the USA that forbids us to make nitric acid at home.

Very different... and very alike. All I can hear is Bobby McFerry!

@AndreaKarlis I know is similar but the Idea Is different the music have várious things made by the author that makes It different, so, thou they heve similar melodys they ara diffirent songs, and I think that is the why they don t had problems. But this is just my opinion.

I believe that it works to program a new master keyfob.

It will appear in the live playlist.

@ Ah ok thank you so much for the toturial❤️

@ By the way can i do this using only my phone..?

@@jeff6554 I really don't know. Does the software exists for phones?

I haven't tried, but yes, spiced rum or just white rum should give good results.

I'm not aware of any new patch. 6 months ago, RUclips banned my video and my website provider banned the page as well as the archive with the file. I don't have any copy of the Techstream files or the video.

> "Did you use Lorentz Transformation to calculate the elapsed time for the traveling twin?" I used the equations for accelerated frames that I derived rigorously. The Lorentz transformation is valid for inertial frames. Accelerated frames have at any time instantaneous co-moving inertial frames. Since this co-moving frames are inertial, the Lorentz transformation can safely be used in order to go from one of these inertial frames to another one. By integrating over time, the correct equations for accelerated frames can be obtained. > "When you realize that the non-inertial sections can be neglected" The non-inertial sections **CANNOT** be neglected, and I didn’t neglect them. As I already mentioned, I rigorously derived the equations for accelerated frames. If you want to claim that my equations are wrong, you have to point out a mistake in my equation, which so far you haven’t done!

If you want @Astrokevin92 to see your comment, you should reply to his comment so that he receives a notification, instead of starting a new comment. Just copying/pasting "@Astrokevin92" won't send him a notification. Don't you even know how to reply to comments?

"The fallacy in this video is using Einstein's equations to prove Einstein's theory." Unfortunately for you, I rigorously derived Einstein's equations as well in this video tutorial: ruclips.net/video/6N2mH3-khUg/видео.html I CHALLENGE YOU to point out a single mistake in that tutorial (tell which equation is supposedly wrong, at what time in the video). You can't? Then you lost the argument (as usual)!

Looking at your profile reveals that you are Marco Pereira. If I remember well, you are the crackpot who talks about himself at the third person on Quora, right?

​@@AndreaKarlis You are an idiot. :) Of course, I can talk about myself in the third person. When I do that, I emphasize who created the idea or argument and make sure idiots like yourself realize that I have more education than you do. Show some respect. It is just the correct way to present my contribution.

@@TheNewPhysics "It is just the correct way to present my contribution." Not a single real physicist has ever published his own research by talking about himself using the third person.

@@TheNewPhysics I see that you pretend to have studied nuclear physics, laser engineering, finance, molecular biophysics, that you have a PhD in physics, one in chemistry, that you are a professor of finance, a professor of molecular biophysics, a CEO at QuantSapiens... And yet, there is absolutely no trace on the net of you having held any of these positions. Also, none of the universities I have contacted know about you. This strongly suggests that you are an imposter and a liar. You don't have any degrees in science, at most you are just a freshman dropout!

There is no perpendicular motion in the problem discussed in this video tutorial. You obviously didn't watch it, so you have absolutely no clue what it is about.

Another proof that you are wrong in this 2nd part on solving the "Triplet Paradox": ruclips.net/video/WAoJ21giXMU/видео.html

Ridiculous