Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - trevorjohnson83

Pages: [1]
1
There's proof out there that lightning strikes and storms are controllable as well as shaping clouds. I wonder if there isn't a way to control  the warming of the earth through the mind. Doing this in a short timeframe may be impossible. I have a strong notion that lightning can be controlled by rambling in thought and the emotion caused by that thought can be drained by adjusting your inner ear whistling by blinking in conjunction with a voluntary control of your slight 'anxious' movements as well as your tail bone causing dizzyness in your  vestibular. Doing this is the best way to cause a lightning strike.

3
The point is that it is a simulation.
You can't say in reality we would expect X if Y is true. This simulation shows X. Thus Y is true.
All it would do is show Y is true in the simulation, NOT REALITY!

"Luckily, 2D light transport does not have this problem: Since the entirety of the path is always visible to the camera, adding a finite shutter time simply amounts to "cutting out" the part of the path that falls within [t0, t1]. This leads to an embarassingly simple algorithm that we can add on top of our existing 2D renderer with only a few lines of code."

So the camera used is a virtual camera, read up on those, its basically computer animation mixed with reality like a weatherman uses. It's still a real camera that creates the algorithm sampling from real images! like that of light moving across objects.

4
There is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate it used any real photos or the like.
There is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate it is anything other than a simulation.

So the algorthms used to dictate the simulation were made up at random  Do you even know what a 3D model is?

5
It is purely a simulation where the only thing tying it to reality are the laws of physics as understood by the developer of the simulation.
The only appeal to a real camera is when pointing out that for the purposes of computer graphics, which normally renders quite small objects, the path length is short enough that light will be able to travel the entire distance while the camera shutter is open to capture the image and as such light speed can be taken as infinite.

Do you mind re stating that word salad?

6
Did you even read the article that came with the video? https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html Mind pointing out where it says It's a photoshop?
Did you read it?
Mind pointing out where it says this is a real video of something from reality?

But as you seem to need to have it pointed out for you:
Lets start at the beginning:
Quote
In most of Computer Graphics
So this article is likely going to be talking about computer graphics, like in games, not photos of real life.
This follows up with:
Quote
In most of Computer Graphics
Again, talking about what happens with computer graphics, not real life.
Quote
To find out what this looks like, I modified my 2D light transport simulator to render transient effects.
Now here it is explicitly stating that it is a simulator, i.e. NOT REAL LIFE!
Quote
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.
Here it is with the start of the description of how this simulation/rendering will work.

And so on.

From reading the article it is quite clear that this is a simulation, and a 2D one at that.

So just what part of this made you think it was reality?
That it appeared to agree with you, even though the 2 sides weren't the same medium?

Oh boy it took me a long time to figure out how to quote and I forgot what I was going to say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_tracing
"Three-dimensional (3D) models represent a physical body using a collection of points in 3D space, connected by various geometric entities such as triangles, lines, curved surfaces, etc. Being a collection of data (points and other information), 3D models can be created by hand, algorithmically (procedural modeling), or scanned. Their surfaces may be further defined with texture mapping."

Its a simulation based on a real camera's output. They're just be crafty and making light travel this way in there computer simulation techniques, it says that in the first two paragraphs,
"In most of Computer Graphics, light speed is assumed to be infinite: Light sources illuminate their surroundings the instant they are turned on. Since light speed is a lot faster than the average camera shutter speed, this is a reasonable approximation. But what happens when we remove this assumption? If we created a virtual camera that was fast enough, we could capture light as it spreads through the virtual scene! To find out what this looks like, I modified my 2D light transport simulator to render transient effects.

The idea of capturing light in slow motion is not new - in fact, the Femto-Photography project succeded in doing this with physical cameras, which is an impressive feat. Jarabo et al. applied the Femto Photography idea to 3D rendering and rendered beautiful imagery of light moving through virtual 3D scenes. Building on my previous experiments with 2D light transport, it was my goal to apply this concept to 2D rendering."

7
Yes, I mean they made it up.
Why would it be a perfect circle?
It isn't a point light source radiating outwards.
It is light interacting with a barrier and particle medium. It will behave in a different manner and not produce a perfect circle.

Did you even read the article that came with the video? https://benedikt-bitterli.me/femto.html Mind pointing out where it says It's a photoshop?

8
Well, your measurements should be in pixels as all you have is a video.
That video is a mere simulation, so it is proof of nothing.
And more importantly, you have 2 different mediums.

So all in all, you have nothing.

So by simulation you mean they just made it up? If it were a simulation then it would make a perfect circle which it doesn't. Anyways virtual camera's which they are using here, take a real situation and put fake animation to it, 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=10ahUKEwi9tNn03qfiAhUOeKwKHReOBa8QMwhHKAgwCA..i&w=1280&h=720&bih=706&biw=1531&q=virtual%20camera%20images&ved=0ahUKEwi9tNn03qfiAhUOeKwKHReOBa8QMwhHKAgwCA&iact=mrc&uact=8

9
well here it is, a video that can be used to prove my theory in the OP.


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.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Wagging your tail makes you dizzy
« on: November 12, 2018, 12:08:22 PM »
So I haven't figured out specifically what makes the human tail wag other then its tied to emotion but that's known about dogs as well. wagging at different speeds seems to be related to attention. When your tail is wagging, and it slows down and then stops, its a sign you that you have become distracted . It doesn't matter if you are out in public or home alone, it will wag either way, As long as you are sitting or standing still, you will feel it. It doesn't matter if you are thinking or not it will wag either way. It doesn't matter if you are calm or emotional it will wag either way. It will sometimes wag when you want it too and other times it won't. It wags frequently along to music then without. When I'm driving I feel it wag almost every time i'm sitting at a red light, then I don't feel it at all while moving. It doesn't matter if I'm talking to someone it will wag or not. If I'm walking I can feel it move around, but it more swings around and I can put a momentary glitch in it so it swings slower or differently. That your tail swings when you walk is also true for dogs and is related to balance. Just focusing on you tail is meditative. It doesn't matter if you watch it or not it will wag either way. Subtle gestures while standing or sitting still may be related to moments when your tailbone might start swinging around, Watching yourself flicker a pen in your hand or a bouncing emoji might relieve the dizzyness in your ears. If your standing in public and you move your legs while you're standing still looking at something, you're already trying to keep your tail still probably to try to avoid getting dizzy around people. In your brain you may or may not already have implications of what that dizzyness means and it may seem like anxiety. It is true that sitting alone your tailbone will start to wag and you can feel the dizzyness at moments when you would not like to recollect the reason why your tail is wagging. I have labeled this moment a diversion tail wag because it comes as a dizzyness when your thoughts have been heavy but stop because of a anectdote to them that you would rather forget the whole thing then recall the thoughts. In the silence afterwards you can feel your tail as dizzyness.

11
Well a spinning gyroscope will appear to weigh more when you hold it in your hand and move it around. Get one and try it. If you spun one hard enough, I imagine this 'artificial weight' could become like a gravity field. It's the energy of space moving past you as you continuously stand on a burning rocket engine that gives you artificial gravity. Although your gravity remains the same in the ship, space goes past you faster and faster causing time dilation. So it's the energy of time dilation localized in the gyroscope that creates it's field of 'hearing' or artificial gravity field.

12
Your first thing loosely describes a pumped storage hydroelectric dam, with exception to use of explosives and the amount of energy needed to pump the water up would exceed the energy created from the dam.

Your second thing makes no sense.  Can you write that out in English?

No I got the numbers of energy in energy for fission and fusion on another forum, all other explosives are not economically viable except for fission and fusion which release up to 630 times the amount of energy it takes to refine those fuels.

13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: weight elevator
« on: November 06, 2018, 01:53:49 PM »
It's called a complex pulley.

Not quite the same, a pulley system uses longer rope length to lighten the load. That's not what's going on here.

14
Again, why would you expect different results?
It's a lot simpler then those other experiments. No complicated math. Just an image and a ruler. I dare mention the math because You'll take it as a chance to rape me with how the results of the MM experiment were proven with the math you understand. Why would the science world lie to you? Why? Probably to sell you a three hundred page book and college credit hours.
Good thing I never paid for those $300+ textbooks. But more importantly, that shows you don't understand how the science world works at all. Do you know who gets basically all the profits from those textbook sales? The publishers. The scientists making the book get very little, although they do typically get a free copy of the textbook.
Regardless even if they did go to the scientists it would require a conspiracy so large it is insanity to think it is real. If just one scientist tried it other people repeating the experiment would have found different results and discredited the scientist, so no money for them, and their credibility is shot.

I already understand the math behind it. You want to measure the speed of light by measuring how far it propagates in a given time. With the apparatus you are using (a femtosecond camera) it is just as complex as the other methods. Do you understand how a femtosecond camera works?

If all you have going for you is that it is allegedly simpler, then you don't really have anything going for you.
Again, why would you expect different results?
I wouldn't expect different results. I'm just wording what I say to egg you on into making an arguement over someone else's much more complicated, far easier for you to explain, experiment. Because without a medium to the universe then any point may as well be its center, and if Earth is the center then we look bad having not yet proven that everything in the sky revolves around us. Ahh but then Einstein came up with relativity where the motion of an object is only relative to an observer. Sort of like a crime witnessed by two different people and what's relative to one person may not be to the other who witnessed it. So if you fall to the earth then I guess the earth's position in relativity came up and hit you in the face. Right...

15
Here's two methods for using explosives to create energy. The method on the left involves blasting water in a large water cannon up into the loop, and using pressure to spin the turbine at the bottom. The method on the right involves pre cutting the earth above an underground explosion that lifts the monolithic piece out of the ground into the sky and lands nearby. The piece of land can then spin a turbine lowering the weight back into the crater it created, or the crater can be used for whatever purpose. My experiments with fireworks showed the water cannon to be 8-20% efficient with weight alone, and the pre-cutting to be 4-8% efficient.

16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: weight elevator
« on: November 06, 2018, 10:47:33 AM »
1) what are you talking about?
2) your images are upside down
3) stop spamming with new threads that don't seem to have a point
4) seriously, what are you talking about?

Sorry, not spamming, just listing my different gravity inventions, I only have one more then I'll stop.

17
Gyroscopes were discovered as microphones in 2014. They're yet to be gyroscope mics or speakers(my invention) for sale. Because a gyroscope creates an artificial gravity field, which makes them hard to move around when you hold a spinning, The vibrations of a speaker may be heard by your balance system and not your cochlea. This effect may feel unlike any previous human experience as well as turn your spaceheater into a clock radio while its off.

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / weight elevator
« on: November 06, 2018, 10:37:29 AM »
 In the image the 2 lb weight pulls up each of the 1 lb weights one at a time. Then the three 1 lb weights together pull the 2 lb weight back up. It could be made pretty easily even with cinder blocks.

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Zero gravity slinky free fall box
« on: November 06, 2018, 10:31:18 AM »
By holding a slinky up in the air and dropping it, you can put something attached to the bottom of the slinky into a free fall state that weighs >2/3 the weight of the slinky. From this you can attach many slinky's to a platform and using computers and machine's build a free fall platform where the platform is in constant free fall and you would get an out of body experience standing on one.

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Wagging your tail makes you dizzy
« on: November 06, 2018, 10:13:50 AM »
Ever feel dizzy while sitting alone thinking? or when you lay on your stomach? Or while you are standing in public? Take notice of your tail bone. Wagging it makes you dizzy. Controlling it and recognizing when it will wag takes months. Music will make it wag and you can practice watching it as a dizzyness in your ears this way.

21
Can I not have credit for what appears to be one of only two experiments at present to test for the aether?
Not really.
There were multiple experiments to try and test for the ether, MM is just the most famous as it was used to quite conclusively show it doesn't exist. But amazing it alone doesn't do that. Stellar aberration is another. Sagnac can also do it. And then there are just more direct measurements of the speed of light where you time how long it takes for light to travel some distance (time of flight).

Your experiment is just the final option in a more fancy way. You are effectively measuring how quickly light propagates from point A to point B, just watching the effects of that propagation frame by frame. The only real difference is you are no longer using a mirror and thus need to address possible issues of timing.
Here is some reference material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Time_of_flight_techniques

If you want credit and any chance to get access to the equipment you would need to explain why this is original and why it should produce any different result.

It's a lot simpler then those other experiments. No complicated math. Just an image and a ruler. I dare mention the math because You'll take it as a chance to rape me with how the results of the MM experiment were proven with the math you understand. Why would the science world lie to you? Why? Probably to sell you a three hundred page book and college credit hours.

22
All experiments so far have found the speed of light in a vacuum to be constant in any inertial frame. So no, you wouldn't expect any shift.

What other experiment do you refer to other then Michelson and Morley and versions of that?
How about we start with MM. Why should your idea produce different results?

Can I not have credit for what appears to be one of only two experiments at present to test for the aether? It's a valuable experiment and should given attention to. I would try to fund it myself but haven't gotten through to MIT that owns the half million dollar camera.

23
All experiments so far have found the speed of light in a vacuum to be constant in any inertial frame. So no, you wouldn't expect any shift.

What other experiment do you refer to other then Michelson and Morley and versions of that?

24
Using a femto camera one could measure for the earth's movement through the galaxy, space-medium, the aether, etc.. The Femto camera can take a trilion frames per second. By freezing a frame where light has been emitted from a source and is partially illuminating the objects around, you can measure the length of illumination to the middle of the light source. Wind is known to speed up sound waves that travel with them, and slow them down when pushing into the wind. One would expect for the speed of the galaxy,space, aether to create about a half centimeter difference per one hundred centimeters at two points perpendicular to the movement of the galaxy. The importance of this is that space be proven to exist as a medium at all which at current is declared nil.

Sure,
      "One would expect for the speed of the galaxy,space, aether to create about a half centimeter difference per one hundred centimeters at two points perpendicular to the movement of the galaxy."
except for one slight problem, "relativity".

So where are the results of this "Femto camera to measure for space, moving aether"?

In any case, why is this any different from the many hundreds of "Michelson–Morley" type experiments performed since 1898?

One of the most recent returned a null result to within Δc/c < 10-17. Can the "Femto camera to measure for space, moving aether" get precision like that?

Many of those experiments are listed in Michelson–Morley experiment.
It is still a very on-going field of research because of some of the possibilities of anomalies in GR or some other unknowns (the dark matter "problem").

Are there any experiments that aren't based around the Michelson Morley experiment?

26
Using a femto camera one could measure for the earth's movement through the galaxy, space-medium, the aether, etc.. The Femto camera can take a trilion frames per second. By freezing a frame where light has been emitted from a source and is partially illuminating the objects around, you can measure the length of illumination to the middle of the light source. Wind is known to speed up sound waves that travel with them, and slow them down when pushing into the wind. One would expect for the speed of the galaxy,space, aether to create about a half centimeter difference per one hundred centimeters at two points perpendicular to the movement of the galaxy. The importance of this is that space be proven to exist as a medium at all which at current is declared nil.

Pages: [1]