วีดีโอ

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, TH-cam 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: th-cam.com/video/6N2mH3-khUg/w-d-xo.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": th-cam.com/video/WAoJ21giXMU/w-d-xo.html

Ridiculous

I think the passcode was "Teschstream", but I no longer have the tutorial on how to install it, as TH-cam has 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.

I see your message!

​@@BlueMoonshine cool didnt mean to go on a tangent there just share co.ment section behavior, any who i like the channel, einstein imo seems like a very propped/pushed character like that jc mesia too. 😏 ill leave therr for this video, as to not long wind or distract

You're welcome. Please share the video if you can.

Thanks! Please, share the video if you can!

I'm not stopping chemistry, and Relativity is not garbage: Your GPS is using it!

@@BlueMoonshine it uses accelerometers, a coordinate system and cell tower triangulation, try again einstein lol

@@claudiosantana3320 The satellites that sends signals to your GPS make use of atomic clocks that needs needs to be perfectly synchronized. The satellites moves at different speeds and altitudes, and their clocks quickly get desynchronized. The GPS needs to take into account the time-dilation due to both high speed and gravitational field in order to re-synchronize the signal. Try again, flatearther!

@@BlueMoonshine mmmm someone with credentials" must be hurting for money, if willing to change from demonstrable reality chemistry to nasa fan boy unprovable make believe line , oh well

@@claudiosantana3320 "if willing to change from demonstrable reality chemistry to nasa" LOL, I've been teaching Relativity at the university for 20 years. Nothing is changed! I challenge you to point out a single mistake in my rigorous tutorial. If you can't, then shut up!

You can't see the other comments?

Likewise. No comments (except yours and the channel owner visible)

@@astrokevin92 That's weird. Maybe there is a delay between when the comments are posted (and counted) and when they become visible...

I think I know. Someone wrote a comment that contains the word "three - some", and I suspect that TH-cam is automatically censoring it, although I turned off the automatic censoring.

@@astrokevin92 No, bluemoonshine deletes ones he doesn't like.

It makes physics more attractive!

I do it with nitric acid in this video: th-cam.com/video/NHBDXtn7pjA/w-d-xo.html

Hello, I don't think I will be able to help you. I don't know what MCU is, neither do I know about ATMEL, and I never used Arduino.

I appreciate that

"learning about AC current and transformers" So, if he learned about AC current and transformers, that's the proof that he didn't invent them!

No, my laptop broke a few months ago. I don't have the software anymore. Sorry!

I'm sorry, TH-cam has 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.

I'm sorry, TH-cam has 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.

Your number is 24, good luck!

I didn't have this problem. I programmed my extra key about 8 months ago by following the tutorial, and so far I have no problem to report (I have a Prius 2011).

I don't know what ckt means.

Why not? It works perfectly well, as proven in the video.

I tried to stay polite, but you insist on being stupid! I already told you NUMEROUS TIMES that the Doppler effect has NOTHING to do with this problem. You are clearly incapable of dealing with calculus, so I CHALLENGE you to point out a single mistake in the resolution of the following simplified textbook problem, which requires no more than 8th grade math: Alice remains on Earth, Bob leaves from Earth at a CONSTANT speed of 0.6c and goes to a planet located at 1 ly (light year) which is AT REST with respect to the Earth. As soon as Bob arrives to the planet, he instantly switches direction and comes back to Earth at the same constant speed. To prove that there is no paradox, let us analyze the situation from Alice's frame, then from Bob's frame. Let us start with something that, so far, you have failed to do, namely define CLEARLY the events that we want to describe: E1="Bob leaves from Earth" E2="Bob arrives to the planet" Also, I'll let you check that the Lorentz factor that corresponds to the speed 0.6c is 1.25. 1) FROM ALICE'S POINT OF VIEW In Alice's frame, Bob's outbound trip has a length of 1 ly and is performed at speed 0.6c, thus the time for his outbound trip is (1 ly)/(0.6c)=1.667 years. By symmetry, Bob's inbound trip takes the same amount of time, so the total time for the round trip that Alice observes is 3.333 years. Now, events E1 and E2 are separated by 1 ly in Alice's frame, by definition, so the time that Alice observes for the inbound trip is not a proper time. However, for Bob, event E1 and E2 both happens at his own location. Thus the time that he observes is a proper time. Alice concludes that the time that she observed is equal to Bob's proper time dilated by the Lorentz factor. Therefore, she conclude that Bob's outbound trip proper time is the time that she observed divided by the Lorentz factor, namely (1.667 years)/1.25=1.333 years. By symmetry, the inbound trip time is the same, so the she concludes that Bob observes a roundtrip time of 2.666 years. So, Alice's conclusion is that the roundtrip lasts 3.333 years for her and 2.666 years for Bob. 2) FROM BOB'S POINT OF VIEW The distance between the Earth and the planet is a proper distance, by definition. In Bob's frame, the distance to the planet is contracted and equal to (1 ly)/1.25=0.8 ly. In his frame, during the outbound trip, it is the planet that is approaching at speed 0.6c. Thus the time that he observes is (0.8 ly)/(0.6c)=1.333 years. By symmetry, his inbound trip time is the same, so he concludes that his round trip time is 2.666 years. Now, Bob knows that his outbound trip time is a proper time because event E1 and E2 happen at his own location. Thus he knows that Alice will observe a dilated time equal to (1.333 years)*1.25=1.666 years. Since his inbound trip time is symmetrical, he concludes that Alice observes a roundtrip time of 3.333 years. So, Bob's conclusion is the same as Alice's, namely the roundtrip lasts 2.666 years for him and 3.333 years for Alice. Tell me where the paradox is? I CHALLENGE TO POINT OUT A SINGLE MISTAKE!

You are a real piece of sh-it! @BlueMoonshine proved you wrong in a reply to another of your comments, and he challenged you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that he proposed. Instead of answering, you are now starting a new thread full of non-sense, and totally ignoring his reply. There are no other words to describe you: You are a piece of sh-it!

Not a miniscule shred of evidence backs up your crude "sh-it" insults - whoever/whatever you really are!! See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense.

@@IraClarke-t9c "See my answer re the 'Prof''s Alice and Bob nonsense." Where is your answer? So far, all you have done is trying to involve some completely irrelevant gravitation, Doppler effect, and the non-existent "2nd order Lorentz factor". Once again, I challenge you to point out a single mistake in the simplified problem that I described above. But as usual, you are fleeing.

@@IraClarke-t9c I am still waiting for your answer, but I see that you are fleeing like the coward that you are!

This doesn't happen in Special Relativity. Space-time can oscillate in General Relativity due to gravitational waves, but this is another story which requires tensor calculus.

I haven't used the software in a while, but I remember it was extremely slow. Also, did it correctly detect the model and year for your car?

@@BlueMoonshine I solved it by switching to 64 bit windows 7 instead of 32bit

You're welcome, please share the video.

There is no mistake in this tutorial. I already explained it to you multiple times. Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides and understand what I say, or you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, but you have been proven WRONG for years! Go see a psychiatrist!

@ Either you are not intelligent enough to understand what you see on the slides = YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND what everyone accepts is true - that the Lorentz factor gamma is reciprocal - FACT! Reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration (or re-labelling) - FACT - at 16:10-> mins! OR you are just blatantly lying because you would like Relativity to be wrong, = YOU ARE BLATANTLY OBSTINATELY LYING because you would love Relativity to be correct - your vested interests prevail over your students interests. but you have been proven WRONG for years! = YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG - YOU (et al) ARE INCAPABLE OF REFUTING MY MANY UPVOTED ASSERTIONS eg. my unanswered challenge to you:- 1. How can the loss of the sign of v/c in gamma possibly fulfill the 2nd postulate? 2. How can that 2nd postulate not defy causality (eg. for 13 billion year old starlight)? 3. How can Pythagorus possibly apply when vectors r, r’, ct, ct’ and vt are all co-linear distances, aligned along the linear propagation path. Go see a psychiatrist! = SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

@@IraClarke-t9c I don't see any mistake in Dr. Rousseau's tutorial. You are clearly the one who don't understand anything. I see that you are using a lot of expressions that either have no meaning, or for which you don't understand the actual meaning. Like "reciprocity cannot be reversed by integration". There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this? I also saw on Quora that you claim that a laser beam will suddenly decide to come out of alignment with its mirrors, just because a moving observer decides to look at it. My question is: What does the beam do if the other observer who is at at rest with respect to the mirror look at it at the same time? Isn't such a claim insane? Perhaps you should consider the advice that was given to you: Go see a psychiatrist!

@ “There is NO RECIPROCITY in this problem since the problem IS NOT SYMMETRICAL. The traveler has a non-zero proper acceleration, while the stay-at-home twin is in an inertial frame at all time. What is so hard to understand in this?” It is perfectly easy to understand what you say but it is WRONG - simply BECAUSE gamma is reciprocal in the inertial case AND even when it changes incrementally. Gamma is just a scalar number - it is not intelligent at all - so please explain, in your vastly superior wisdom, just how it ‘knows’ whether the emitter or the observer actually changed speed by dv? NB If rocket twin is the observer then his/her local clock appears to run at normal local ‘proper’ clock rate and stay-home twin appears to age slower - t is increased by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally. In the reciprocal case, the stay-home twin is observer, so his/her own local clock runs at normal ‘proper’ rate (by definition). It is unaffected by the antics of the rocket twin - accelerating or not - and hence his/her “ELAPSED” time cannot change by factor gamma - even if gamma changes incrementally - asserting otherwise is “insane”. The gamma factor is always reciprocal - it always applies to the REMOTELY observed (twin’s) clock - even on the accelerating rocket. That invalidates the conclusion in the video. The fundamental physical reason is that the finite propagation delay is irrefutably reciprocal - so the observer ‘sees’ an earlier version of the remote clock. But also gamma, as a supposed INVERSE factor, is invalid and SUPERFLUOUS - because independent Doppler red- and blue-shift scale factors, AND their separate INVERSE factors, are perfectly adequate - with no twins paradox, unexplained contraction of spacetime and speed limit etc. Regarding the mirror clock - re-read what I said - you have reversed my logic - the mirror clock ‘proof’ of gamma is all “insane” nonsense because remote observers cannot affect the speed of light within the clock. Even if pulses bounce off a few particles between the mirrors, light is scattered at the prevailing speed of propagation one-way towards each observer whatever direction etc. The sawtooth pattern only exists if there is a ‘stationary’ reference ether and the clock is moving relative to that. Each observer cannot exude a separate ether (Universe wide?).

@@IraClarke-t9c Man, Special Relativity is not only about the gamma factor. The fact that the gamma factor takes the same value in two inertial frames does not imply that the entire problem is symmetrical. As Dr. Rousseau told you many times, you need to understand the difference between PROPER time and COORDINATE time, and you need to define clearly which events you are trying to describe. So far, you have failed to do this, which is the sole reason why you don't understand anything.

I don't know, I am not familiar with this IC.

What you have to do depends on the model of your car, but it is clearly indicated by the software.

Thank you for sharing it!

I'm about to make a similar tutorial for the triplet paradox.

​@@BlueMoonshine Looking forward to it. FWIW - I made a relativity disproof debunking video a couple of years ago. I;m thinking of making another, but these things take so much time! th-cam.com/video/MmJgnRY1uMM/w-d-xo.html

It's very good, nicely done! I will definitely give the link when I find someone who mentions this apparent paradox.

The conclusion in this ‘rigorous’ video is WRONG - it is clearly NOT tutorial so should be taken down because:- The ‘Prof’ absolutely refuses to accept that he has made an obvious mistake at 16:10 mins onwards in his supposedly rigorous video - accusing me of being a "liar", "senile", "psychiatric" ....... He switches the vailid interpretation of dt from:- a time-dilated remote observation of the object rocket frame - viewed from the perspective of the Lab frame stay-home twin to:- mistakenly, an elapsed time on the Lab frame twin’s local clock - viewed from the perspective of the object rocket frame That switch of interpretation does occur after integrating dt to t and dt’ to t’ but that is merely a summation of many dt and dt' - that does not justify the reversed interpretation - the Lorentz factor (gamma) is still reciprocal, even after integration.

In principle the cathode can be any conducting material, but the anode has to be made of a non-corosive material. Either lead-dioxide, platinum. Carbon can be used, though. It will corrode, but the corrosion can be filtered out, as it won't dissolve in the sulfuric acid.

Thanks! Please, share the video if you can.