[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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."

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[alancalverd]

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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".

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Hi again, umm what were we talking about?

[Bored chemist]

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

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

. 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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.