Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 21/09/2017 20:19:42
-
Femto photography allows for a trillion frames persecond and can capture light as it moves across the room. http://www.highpants.net/femto-photography-capturing-individual-photons-in-motion/
My experiment to detect for the aether would involve taking a picture of a split light beam, then measuring from the dead center of the split, use a computer ruler and focusing to find out if the light is faster in one direction over the other. One would expect it to be shorter on one end as long as it isn't measured while moving perfectly perpendicular to the earth's movement through the galaxy, and the galaxy's movement around other galaxy's.
-
I get irritated when they call this trillion frame per second photography.
The bus goes past my house at exactly 8 a.m. every day.
If I take a picture at 08:00:00 today an at 08:00:01 tomorrow and 08:00:02 the next day and so on, then edit all the pictures into a video, have I take a 1 frame per second video?
-
The science world is so backwards. On the one hand it pushes relativity and the idea that space is not a medium. Then they set out to prove gravity waves which are waves in the medium of space by itself. pretty silly
-
My experiment to detect for the aether would involve taking a picture of a split light beam, then measuring from the dead center of the split, use a computer ruler and focusing to find out if the light is faster in one direction over the other. One would expect it to be shorter on one end as long as it isn't measured while moving perfectly perpendicular to the earth's movement through the galaxy, and the galaxy's movement around other galaxy's.
No matter how great the difference is between the light and the apparatus in opposite directions, you won't see any difference in the results even though the relative speeds are radically different. The differences are always masked by Lorentzian relativity.
-
The science world is so backwards. On the one hand it pushes relativity and the idea that space is not a medium for light. Then they set out to prove gravity waves which are waves in the medium of space by itself. pretty silly
Fixed that for you.
-
My experiment to detect for the aether would involve taking a picture of a split light beam,
No need for that, you would be wasting your time. Your light beam is travelling through the earths magnetic field.
-
I get irritated when they call this trillion frame per second photography.
The bus goes past my house at exactly 8 a.m. every day.
If I take a picture at 08:00:00 today an at 08:00:01 tomorrow and 08:00:02 the next day and so on, then edit all the pictures into a video, have I take a 1 frame per second video?
Your discussion here is as number salad as on the other thread as well. :)
-
I get irritated when they call this trillion frame per second photography.
The bus goes past my house at exactly 8 a.m. every day.
If I take a picture at 08:00:00 today an at 08:00:01 tomorrow and 08:00:02 the next day and so on, then edit all the pictures into a video, have I taken a 1 frame per second video?
Your discussion here is as number salad as on the other thread as well. :)
So, what you are saying is that you can't read or don't understand a digital clock.
Perhaps you should be looking to walk before you try to run.
Come to think of it, if you are really at that level, you need to learn to crawl.
-
So I assume your prediction for the results of this experiment would show no moving space-medium? I think looking for the space-medium will be a lot easier because we can say for sure that the light will be longer or shorter at its ends, rather then if the trip out and back creates fringes where there seems to be confusion on whether that works at all.
-
I just found the perfect video for my experiment! And at 5 seconds I measured the light on the screen and it is in fact faster in one direction then the other! I measured 16.4 cm on the top half and 16.7 cm on the bottom!!!!!!!!!! HOLY
-
And at 5 seconds I measured the light on the screen and it is in fact faster in one direction then the other! I measured 16.4 cm on the top half and 16.7 cm on the bottom!!!!!!!!!! HOLY
That animation is computer-generated. It isn't a video taken with an actual camera (hence why the video is titled "Virtual" Femto Photography): https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html
How is your proposed experiment any better than the other ones that already looked for an aether?
-
And at 5 seconds I measured the light on the screen and it is in fact faster in one direction then the other! I measured 16.4 cm on the top half and 16.7 cm on the bottom!!!!!!!!!! HOLY
That animation is computer-generated. It isn't a video taken with an actual camera (hence why the video is titled "Virtual" Femto Photography): https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html
How is your proposed experiment any better than the other ones that already looked for an aether?
The animation is not fake. It says in the description and on this website https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html , link in the description that this is "A laser pulse entering a participating medium (milk)". there is computer animation overlaying the film, but it is a true film.
what other experiments?
and by the way my repeated measuring showed over and over again that the the bottom and the left side have a radius of 20.4 to 5 cm, while the top and right side have a definitive 20.7 cm. So the difference of about 1 to 1.5 mm give or take per 20cm means the earth is actually moving faster then expected. Google says we're moving at 1.3 million miles per hour which is close to .2% the speed of light while the femto camera experiment would suggest we are travelling closer to .5 to .75% the speed of light, or about 4-5 million mph.
-
It's an animation.
It is not real.
Do you not understand that?
-
It's an animation.
It is not real.
Do you not understand that?
Thank for your expertise in the matter genius but I'll take the word of the description in the link thank you :)
-
It's an animation.
It is not real.
Do you not understand that?
Thank for your expertise in the matter genius but I'll take the word of the description in the link thank you :)
There is no part of that description which says other than that the video is an animation.
It's not a matter of " I'll take the word of the description" it's a matter of understanding it.
Would you like to quote the bit you think says you are right?
-
It's an animation.
It is not real.
Do you not understand that?
Thank for your expertise in the matter genius but I'll take the word of the description in the link thank you :)
There is no part of that description which says other than that the video is an animation.
It's not a matter of " I'll take the word of the description" it's a matter of understanding it.
Would you like to quote the bit you think says you are right?
Yet again your profound expertise of the semantics of the word 'virtual' in a three word Youtube title has showed me the way!
Do you even understand how computer animation works? You would either need a picture of animation in question or have to make a hand drawing of it. Are you seriously suggesting this is a hand drawing? And if it were an animation all the sides would be the same radius to the center, computers don't screw up making circles, trust me.
-
Do you even understand how computer animation works?
Better than you do.
I have made computer animations of things that didn't exist and which I never drew.
Would you like to quote the bit you think says you are right?
-
I have made computer animations of things that didn't exist and which I never drew.
LOL. I bet. So you just what, said to your computer, "uhh, draw what a laser beam going through milk looks like, and your infinite computer just happens to know what that looks like , somehow, pfft, you are ridiculous.
-
So you just what, said to your computer, "uhh, draw what a laser beam going through milk looks like, and your infinite computer just happens to know what that looks like
No, nothing like that.
More or less the opposite, because it was long ago when computers had poor graphics, but I got it to produce an animation of a rotating cube.
I never hand drew any cube.
So, rather than misrepresenting what I said:
Would you like to quote the bit you think says you are right?
-
So, rather than misrepresenting what I said:
Or rather please give the reason you are so sure the three word title of the video is completely clear in meaning what you say it does?
Your cube? I took Computer drafting for four semesters. There is no computer program out there that is going to know what to do if you tell it to draw a laser beam through milk in slow motion.
-
There is no computer program out there that is going to know what to do if you tell it to draw a laser beam through milk in slow motion.
Nobody said there would.
You made that bit up.
Would you like to quote the bit you think says you are right?
-
Let's look at what they actually say.
"we created a virtual camera that was fast enough"
"we could capture light as it spreads through the virtual scene"
" 2D light transport simulator "
"Monte Carlo raytracing"
"we assign our virtual camera"
"To keep track of time along light paths, I will be using a slightly modified geometric optics model"
"on top of our existing 2D renderer with only a few lines of code."
"we use a conventional 2D renderer"
"We annotate each vertex on these light paths with a timestamp"
"store these in memory"
"we iterate over all segments"
"splat the line segment to the screen"
"we could do it in a vertex shader"
OK, all of those show that the article is talking about computer graphic simulation, not anything real.
But the most interesting line is "Note the strong color separation in the first video: Because the index of refraction depends on the wavelength, different wavelengths travel at different speeds through the glass and begin to separate after the first refraction."
Because that's what explains the fact that the image isn't circular.
One side has a higher refractive index, so the light spreads less far.
-
Nobody said there would.
You made that bit up.
Yes you did you said that's a computer animation of a laser beam going through milk, for no real reason either.
-
Nobody said there would.
You made that bit up.
Yes you did you said that's a computer animation of a laser beam going through milk, for no real reason either.
You just saw my reasons for saying it's a computer generated animation but...
OK, if it's a film of a real laser hitting real milk, how come the milk starts off as a vertical line?
In the real universe it would form a a chain of drops and fall down.
-
Let's look at what they actually say.
"we created a virtual camera that was fast enough"
"we could capture light as it spreads through the virtual scene"
" 2D light transport simulator "
"Monte Carlo raytracing"
"we assign our virtual camera"
"To keep track of time along light paths, I will be using a slightly modified geometric optics model"
"on top of our existing 2D renderer with only a few lines of code."
"we use a conventional 2D renderer"
"We annotate each vertex on these light paths with a timestamp"
"store these in memory"
"we iterate over all segments"
"splat the line segment to the screen"
"we could do it in a vertex shader"
OK, all of those show that the article is talking about computer graphic simulation, not anything real.
But the most interesting line is "Note the strong color separation in the first video: Because the index of refraction depends on the wavelength, different wavelengths travel at different speeds through the glass and begin to separate after the first refraction."
Because that's what explains the fact that the image isn't circular.
One side has a higher refractive index, so the light spreads less far.
Ok I bet you know what every thing you just quoted means from your cube drawing days. It's a real video of light through a virtual scene. Or I guess for all you know (which seems to be everything) there using a camera and its shudder to film the video they made on the computer.
"In Monte Carlo raytracing, Femto Photography is very simple to set up. First, we assign our virtual camera a time interval [t0, t1] during which the shutter is open. Rather than rendering all light that reaches the camera, we now only allow light that took between t0 and t1 seconds to reach the sensor."
sounds like they're filming light with a camera to me. Or maybe like you said they're making a film out of drawrings they made.
-
OK, if it's a film of a real laser hitting real milk, how come the milk starts off as a vertical line?
In the real universe it would form a a chain of drops and fall down.
What?
-
filming light with a camera to me.
And it sounds like they are doing monte carlo ray tracing to me- because that's what they say they are doing.
And ray tracing is a way to make computer generated images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_tracing
If you had real pictures, you wouldn't need ray tracing.
Do you realise that virtual cameras have virtual shutters?
What's really remarkable is that you quote this "we assign our virtual camera" as evidence that the camera is not virtual, but real.
Do you have to get up early to practice that sort of broken logic?
Ok I bet you know what every thing you just quoted means from your cube drawing days.
No, I learned it more recently. Most of those techniques weren't widely used back then- not enough computing power.
But they are used today.
And they are used in that animation- which is why the accompanying text says they are.
-
There are, of course, other things that make it clear that the video isn't really light entering milk.
For a start, you don't get a vertical line with milk on one side and air on the other, because milk is liquid.
Also, on one side the light goes through air, and on the other side, through milk.
But the scattering by air is tiny compared to the scattering by milk.
The light from the milk should be vastly brighter than that from the air.
It's not.
-
And it sounds like they are doing monte carlo ray tracing to me- because that's what they say they are doing.
And ray tracing is a way to make computer generated images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_tracing
Your article says "When combined with physically accurate models of surfaces, accurate models of real light sources (light bulbs), and optically correct cameras, path tracing can produce still images that are indistinguishable from photographs."
So though its partially animated its based on reality.
-
But the most interesting line is "Note the strong color separation in the first video: Because the index of refraction depends on the wavelength, different wavelengths travel at different speeds through the glass and begin to separate after the first refraction."
Because that's what explains the fact that the image isn't circular.
One side has a higher refractive index, so the light spreads less far.
It says light at different wavelengths travel at different speeds, why would light of the same wavelength be bent by diffraction more in one direction then the other?
-
And it sounds like they are doing monte carlo ray tracing to me- because that's what they say they are doing.
And ray tracing is a way to make computer generated images.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_tracing
Your article says "When combined with physically accurate models of surfaces, accurate models of real light sources (light bulbs), and optically correct cameras, path tracing can produce still images that are indistinguishable from photographs."
So though its partially animated its based on reality.
The models are, indeed, based in reality- stuff like Snell's law and the reflection law. Do you understand what they mean by "model"?
They mean a set of mathematical equations. They do not mean glue and cardboard.
That is not the same as saying they are based on a film of real light or that they use a real physical camera.
Not least, because as I explained much earlier, they can't actually take trillion frame per second video.
So the video you posted is, whether you like it or not, a computer animation.
-
But the most interesting line is "Note the strong color separation in the first video: Because the index of refraction depends on the wavelength, different wavelengths travel at different speeds through the glass and begin to separate after the first refraction."
Because that's what explains the fact that the image isn't circular.
One side has a higher refractive index, so the light spreads less far.
It says light at different wavelengths travel at different speeds, why would light of the same wavelength be bent by diffraction more in one direction then the other?
Nobody mentioned diffraction here. Did you mean refraction?
If that question is related to me saying "One side has a higher refractive index, so the light spreads less far.
then the answer is simple, there is milk on one side, and air on the other.
-
So the video you posted is, whether you like it or not, a computer animation.
Well of course what you really mean is the video is fake to satisfy your need to be unconditionally right. You know its a little insulting to listen to a pompous POS like you about a topic you only learned about as I pointed it out to you. Why don't you step back.
-
ou only learned about as I pointed it out to you.
LOL
As I pointed it out, I knew it ages ago.
You, on the other had, seem to not understand it yet.
Well of course what you really mean is the video is fake to satisfy your need to be unconditionally right.
No, I mean it's a computer animation, because it can't be anything else.
Have you found out how to read a clock yet?
-
You know its a little insulting to listen to a pompous POS like you
That's interesting.
It is more than a little insulting to be called a pompous POS by someone who has pretty much failed to get anything right yet.Why don't you step back.
Because I'm right (and you know it).
-
what other experiments?
The Michelson-Morley experiments, for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
This much more recent one as well: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
-
I think most of us are having difficulty reconciling these 2 statements:
I took Computer drafting for four semesters.
Do you even understand how computer animation works? You would either need a picture of animation in question or have to make a hand drawing of it.
I’ve worked with a number of computer animators and video companies to make illustrative videos to explain new concepts. None of them ever use a picture or hand drawing as input to an animation, they either enter formulae or use a GUI to define coordinates and object size, add rendering etc.
This is an animation not an overlay to a real film, and the author is very clear about that, all the terms he uses are computer graphics ones. He even says “In Monte Carlo raytracing, Femto Photography is very simple to set up. First, we assign our virtual camera ......”.
So though its partially animated its based on reality.
It is completely animated.
Not necessarily based on reality. The problem with all simulations is that the accuracy of outcome depends completely on the accuracy of the inputs and of the assumptions built into the computer code. There are a couple of examples in this part of the forum that illustrate this point.
-
I think most of us are having difficulty reconciling these 2 statements:
I took Computer drafting for four semesters.
Do you even understand how computer animation works? You would either need a picture of animation in question or have to make a hand drawing of it.
No problem at all.
He took the class, but didn't understand it.
But the daft thing is that, even if some of it was real film footage, the bit that matters to his argument can't be real.
It's like saying that Star Wars contains some live acting, so the Millennium Falcon must be real.
-
Colin, Kryptid, and Bored Chemist, You guys provide zero useful information the two years I've been on here and you expect me to believe you on whether this a fake or not? ITS OFFENSIVE!!
-
Nobody mentioned diffraction here. Did you mean refraction?
So refraction makes the image an imperfect circle. But wait, The light is a different length from center to top and from center to bottom in the same medium. Could it be? The laws of nature defy the laws of bored chemist? pouring his ego down my throat like a baby birds mother vomiting down its chicks throat? That's kind of what your writing on the page looks like Bored chemist, a bunch of sh1t.
-
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FO50KGjWC3dQ%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DO50KGjWC3dQ&docid=3N4E3fmh4mzCzM&tbnid=Ujzae4SKJlIrnM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwih1enV3KfiAhVI-qwKHYwwCqUQMwhHKAgwCA..i&w=1280&h=720&bih=706&biw=1531&q=virtual%20camera%20images&ved=0ahUKEwih1enV3KfiAhVI-qwKHYwwCqUQMwhHKAgwCA&iact=mrc&uact=8
A virtual camera looks like a real camera to me. I guess Bored Chemist thinks its imaginary or something.
-
And none may see again the shimmering of Avalon
Or know the fates of all the races man has cursed
Long gone are the ages of the alchemists
Now there are none who know the secrets of the earth
Lament the passing of the auroch
And the slaying of the ancient wyrm
Would you dare meet the gaze of the basilisk
Or face the flames as the phoenix burns?
-
I don't know why you put so much emphasis on the video. It doesn't even follow the methodology of your proposed experiment.
As I posted already, other experiments searching for the aether either came up with ambiguous or negative results. So again I ask, how is your experiment superior to those that have already been performed?
-
As I posted already, other experiments searching for the aether either came up with ambiguous or negative results. So again I ask, how is your experiment superior to those that have already been performed?
Maybe because the technology of a femto camera is a little more advanced then that of an inferometer. That's like coming up to me with a vacuum tube cell phone. And anyways why don't you try to boast with the world more to have your inferometer experiment recorded with a femto camera so you can once and for all be the first to know what's truly going on there. It would be smarter then all your math equations that supposedly prove you right.
-
Colin, Kryptid, and Bored Chemist, You guys provide zero useful information the two years I've been on here and you expect me to believe you on whether this a fake or not? ITS OFFENSIVE!!
OK, to kick off with, you mean "IT'S". If you are going to shout it, make sure you get it right.
Your inability to use the information we provide isn't our fault.
Your inability to read a digital clock, likewise, isn't our problem.
I don't expect you to believe me, or the others.
But, since this is a science page, I should be able to expect you to believe the information.
All the information tells you that it's not a real video.
On the other hand, nothing tells you that it is.
And, though you may not understand it, there is no real femtosecond camera.
A virtual camera looks like a real camera to me.
That says more about your ignorance than about anything else.
Why do they use the word "virtual"?
That's kind of what your writing on the page looks like Bored chemist, a bunch of sh1t.
It may look like that to you.
It isn't getting the same level of criticism from others- those who understand the subject- would you like to speculate on a reason for that?
pouring his ego down my throat like a baby birds mother vomiting down its chicks throat?
Let's' get this straight
You are telling three different experts that they are wrong and you think I'm the one with the big ego.
Would you like to think that through again?
Maybe because the technology of a femto camera is a little more advanced then that of an inferometer.
Maybe; maybe not.
But, since they didn't use one it hardly matters.
What they actually used wasa software simulation of the image.
So how could it matter how well the femtosecond camera (on a shelf, somewhere else) works?
You seem not to be happy with the use of logic here.
And anyways why don't you try to boast with the world more to have your inferometer experiment recorded with a femto camera
That's probably as close as you have got to saying something sensible.
It would be interesting to get a trillion frame per second camera to record an interferometer in action.
It is such a pity that no such camera actually exists.
-
Maybe; maybe not.
But, since they didn't use one it hardly matters.
What they actually used wasa software simulation of the image.
So how could it matter how well the femtosecond camera (on a shelf, somewhere else) works?
You seem not to be happy with the use of logic here.
Says right here "In Monte Carlo raytracing, Femto Photography is very simple to set up. First, we assign our virtual camera a time interval [t0, t1] during which the shutter is open. Rather than rendering all light that reaches the camera, we now only allow light that took between t0 and t1 seconds to reach the sensor."
-
Maybe; maybe not.
But, since they didn't use one it hardly matters.
What they actually used wasa software simulation of the image.
So how could it matter how well the femtosecond camera (on a shelf, somewhere else) works?
You seem not to be happy with the use of logic here.
Says right here "In Monte Carlo raytracing, Femto Photography is very simple to set up. First, we assign our virtual camera a time interval [t0, t1] during which the shutter is open. Rather than rendering all light that reaches the camera, we now only allow light that took between t0 and t1 seconds to reach the sensor."
Yes, it does say that.
It says they are running a monte carlo simulation.
Do you think the "shutter" is real?
Have you not realised, it's a software parameter?
-
Maybe because the technology of a femto camera is a little more advanced then that of an inferometer. That's like coming up to me with a vacuum tube cell phone.
Bored Chemist already explained in the first reply to this thread that femto cameras don't work like that. They don't record a single event at one trillion frames per second.
And anyways why don't you try to boast with the world more to have your inferometer experiment recorded with a femto camera so you can once and for all be the first to know what's truly going on there.
How is any camera supposed to see the laser beam when it's traveling through a vacuum? There's nothing in a vacuum for the beam to reflect off of towards the camera lens.
It would be smarter then all your math equations that supposedly prove you right.
You mean "than", not "then".
Math doesn't prove anything in science anyway. It's the results of experiments that are important. That vacuum interferometry experiment I posted found no sign of a speed difference of light dependent upon the Earth's movement down to the 1 in 10-17 level.
-
Well, I got bored...
So I contacted the web site owner and asked if he'd like to explain things.
Should we all just wait for the one guy who we can all accept actually knows the answer?
-
Interesting video, which clearly states that it is a virtual representation of light entering a medium, and the background text explains exactly what the guy has done. He uses important words llike "model" and "monte carlo" to make it absolutely clear to anyone who can read simple English, that this is a computer simulation, not an actual experimental film.
I think this is an inappropriate forum for continuing the discussion. There are people in the Magic Circle and pretty much every religious establishment in the world, who make their living out of other people's credulity, but dealing with people who prefer their own prejudices to clearly stated facts is a job for a psychiatrist, not a scientist.
-
He uses important words llike "model" and "monte carlo" to make it absolutely clear to anyone who can read simple English, that this is a computer simulation, not an actual experimental film.
Those filming techniques are still based on real scenes. So please answer why light is moving up faster then down on either side.
-
He uses important words llike "model" and "monte carlo" to make it absolutely clear to anyone who can read simple English, that this is a computer simulation, not an actual experimental film.
Those filming techniques are still based on real scenes. So please answer why light is moving up faster then down on either side.
While we wait for a real answer, perhaps you could spend some time learning the difference between "then" and "than".
-
So please answer why light is moving up faster then down on either side.
I'm not sure, but it doesn't have anything to do with the aether. Prior experiments have demonstrated that any speed difference in the speed of light caused by a putative aether would be far too small to detect in a Youtube video.
If I had to guess, the difference in the progress of the reflected light has to do with the turbulent nature of the liquid surface.
-
My best guess is an imperfection in the modelling.
It's not designed as a physics experiment (or any other experiment).
It's just meant to look pretty.
-
Hi again, umm what were we talking about?
-
Hi again, umm what were we talking about?
Well, you were telling us that a cartoon is real; and the rest of us were saying it isn't.
Even now, a few years on frome when you are being absurdly wrong, the fastest cameras actually only shot at about a million frames per second.
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/ultrahighspeed/v2512
-
Well, you were telling us that a cartoon is real; and the rest of us were saying it isn't.
Even now, a few years on frome when you are being absurdly wrong, the fastest cameras actually only shot at about a million frames per second.
https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/ultrahighspeed/v2512
Aww yes now i remember you stuffy armchair physicists were... whatever. Since then I've learned that the only thing that a virtual simulation is going to do to an actual video is add color or small effect like it does.
Are you saying this fabricated 'cartoon' as you put it just happens to compensate for the measurement I was looking for which it does have?
-
. Since then I've learned that the only thing that a virtual simulation is going to do to an actual video is add color or small effect like it does.
So, in all that time, you learned one thing, and it's wrong, or rather irrelevant.
There is no "actual video" of the event depicted in that simulation- not least because the fastest cameras in the world are a million times too slow.
-
So, in all that time, you learned one thing, and it's wrong, or rather irrelevant.
There is no "actual video" of the event depicted in that simulation- not least because the fastest cameras in the world are a million times too slow.
Alright forget that for a second and step outside your relativity box which is full of like minded bitchy pompous people, and answer me, what is the problem with people and discussing the other side to the matter? For me its that you people start off as intelligent persons who have an interest in science and space. Then when you study for a long time and spend big money you grow an attitude. When I was 12 I first studied quantum mechanics through a magazine in Astronomy. Up til I was 16 I read these magazines with articles about photons and gravitons. mainstream science seems geared toward accepting results from the very first tests that are seriously outdated, and making a runaway with GR fantasy.
-
what is the problem with people and discussing the other side to the matter?
These people have no evidence to back up their ideas.
So it isn't science, and should not be allowed to clutter up a science site.Then when you study for a long time and spend big money you grow an attitude
I never had the opportunity to spend big money.
Do you see what I mean about your lack of evidence?
mainstream science seems geared toward accepting results from the very first tests that are seriously outdated
Are you kidding?
Things like GR are tested regularly. Sometimes by accident- the fact that the GPS network does it's job shows that GR is right, even though it was (obviously) not designed as a test of GR.
But there are still experiments to verify GR to ever greater precisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
So how did you come to the conclusion that mainstream science seems geared toward accepting results from the very first tests
Did you just not look?
Again, the evidence shows that you are absurdly wrong.
-
Alright forget that for a second and step outside your relativity box
The speed of the best available camera is barely related to relativity.
Nor is the fact that a simulation is not actually real.
So how have you got the idea of relativity muddled into this?
-
step outside your relativity box
Why would you want us to step outside empirically-observed reality?
mainstream science seems geared toward accepting results from the very first tests that are seriously outdated
Mainstream science does not do that. Replication of experimental results is considered very important in science. Many of the experiments supporting relativity have been performed many times over the decades with increasingly accuracy. They still show relativity to be correct.
and making a runaway with GR fantasy.
If general relativity was a fantasy, its predictions would not have matched up with reality. So far, they have (to very high precision). So it isn't a fantasy.
-
It's not a cartoon fools! basic F*ing photshop 101. Maybe we should study art a litlle more or I guess studying something tangible would be mind boggling.
-
.... Maybe we should study art a litlle more ...
Spelling is an art.
basic F*ing photshop 101. ... I guess studying something tangible would be mind boggling.
Is there anything less tangible than a computer simulation?
It has no presence in the real world.
It's not a cartoon fools! basic F*ing photshop 101.
Yes, as you say it's photoshop 101.
And the thing about photoshop is it lets you make pictures of things that are not real.
If you make lots of pictures of things that are not real, and put them together, you can make a video of something that is not real.
They did.
And you somehow still think it is real.
-
Yes but I freely admit with my intellect in photoshop that virtual could simply mean they added the line that shows the laser and that would be virtually alternating the REAL WORLD. End of discussion for me.
-
End of discussion for me.
Bye
The rest of us know it's impossible, because there simply isn't a fast enough camera for it to be a real film, and the makers of the film are careful to point out that it is a simulation.
As I said earlier.
"we created a virtual camera that was fast enough"
"we could capture light as it spreads through the virtual scene"
" 2D light transport simulator "
"Monte Carlo raytracing"
"we assign our virtual camera"
"To keep track of time along light paths, I will be using a slightly modified geometric optics model"
"on top of our existing 2D renderer with only a few lines of code."
"we use a conventional 2D renderer"
"We annotate each vertex on these light paths with a timestamp"
"store these in memory"
"we iterate over all segments"
"splat the line segment to the screen"
"we could do it in a vertex shader"
-
Whether or not the video is a simulation is a moot point: we already know that the experiment proposed by the OP would come up null because several experiments that looked for the exact same aether have come up null as well (which are much more recent and far more sensitive than the original Michelson-Morley experiment). But the OP seems to be a conspiracy theorist when it comes to scientific results, so I doubt there'd be any convincing him of that.
-
Well like I said this isn't the only site where people argue about this experiment with me. In fact I've yet to find someone who doesn't argue. I honestly believe that all the arguements come from people having to overcome mainstream thoughts and swim against the current. Be the first to amaze me world! This experiment is the cornerstone of my proof for gravity fields and EMR being density on the space medium. Again it is science fiction I'm writing but like other ideas I've written about this one does seem to be backed up by experiment. Anyone have the guts to agree with me? trust me its not a fun journey other then moments of enlightenment, its all people arguing, and I''ve talked to THOUSANDS of those fish that pretty much swiming in all directions. Maybe chaos is the mainstream consensus on space as a medium.
-
In fact I've yet to find someone who doesn't argue.
That's because you are clearly wrong.
This experiment is the cornerstone of my proof for gravity fields and EMR being density on the space medium.
It's not an experiment, it's a cartoon.
this one does seem to be backed up by experiment.
Where?
All you have shown here is a computer graphic.
Anyone have the guts to agree with me?
It doesn't take "guts", just determination not to let balderdash go unchallenged.
-
I'm keeping this post live for discussion. The one truth that can be said is that it bears repeating in order ffor the experiment's results to truly be a proof. Nevertheless if it proves true that the experiment does show light moving along space as its medium, I think its time to move forward on the subject to it implications in science.
-
The one truth that can be said is that it bears repeating in order ffor the experiment's
It's not an experiment, it's a cartoon.
-
I'm keeping this post live for discussion.
Then discuss.
Comment on my observation that you seem to have mistaken a cartoon for a real experiment.
Up to now, you have not discussed anything you have just ignored reality, and repeated yourself.
-
I'm keeping this post live for discussion.
Then discuss.
Comment on my observation that you seem to have mistaken a cartoon for a real experiment.
Up to now, you have not discussed anything you have just ignored reality, and repeated yourself.
Nobody else on the internet argues that its a cartoon. You are alone on that one. Repeating the experiment is the biggest arguement.
-
Repeating the experiment
It's not an experiment.
It is an animation- a cartoon in other words.
The guy who made it said so.
You are the only one trying to argue that it is an experiment.
The man who made the original video is a specialist in computer simulations.
https://benedikt-bitterli.me/
If you really think that you are right, it's very simple.
He has contact details.
Ask him if it's real.
-
Nobody else on the internet argues that its a cartoon. You are alone on that one.
I suppose that depends upon how you define a cartoon, but it isn't real in either case. It's computer-generated.
-
Nobody else on the internet argues that its a cartoon.
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rsz_img_0030_2_32.png)
Yes Trevor, it's an animation.
-
Nobody else on the internet argues that its a cartoon. You are alone on that one.
I suppose that depends upon how you define a cartoon, but it isn't real in either case. It's computer-generated.
I would call it an animation, but cartoon is ok and used for drawings as well (eg da Vinci).
No matter what you call it, it isn’t real.
-
So y'all are suggesting that someone drew in the dimensions that I'm looking for in a frame by frame animation? Is this a legitimate science forum? Where am I?
-
So y'all are suggesting that someone drew in the dimensions that I'm looking for in a frame by frame animation?
No.
Everyone except you realises that the use of words and phrases like these
"we created a virtual camera that was fast enough"
"we could capture light as it spreads through the virtual scene"
" 2D light transport simulator "
"Monte Carlo raytracing"
"we assign our virtual camera"
"To keep track of time along light paths, I will be using a slightly modified geometric optics model"
"on top of our existing 2D renderer with only a few lines of code."
"we use a conventional 2D renderer"
"We annotate each vertex on these light paths with a timestamp"
"store these in memory"
"we iterate over all segments"
"splat the line segment to the screen"
"we could do it in a vertex shader"
Make it utterly obvious that they used a computer to generate the animation.
I'm also still saying this
The man who made the original video is a specialist in computer simulations.
https://benedikt-bitterli.me/
If you really think that you are right, it's very simple.
He has contact details.
Ask him if it's real.
Don't bother coming back until you have at least tried to do that.