Femto camera to measure for space, moving aether

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.

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").

Quote from: trevorjohnson83 on November 05, 2018, 01:12:10 PM

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?

The Femto camera can take a trilion frames per second.

Technically no. It takes photos at a very high frame rate, with a pulsing light source, setup with a slight offset and delay such that each frame has a different delay from the light source emitting.

But more importantly, your experiment is effectively just another attempt to measure the speed of light and see if it varies.
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.

If you don't think it would produce the same results as prior experiments, feel free to explain why.

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?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 05, 2018, 04:37:57 PM

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?

Quote from: trevorjohnson83 on November 05, 2018, 06:46:03 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 05, 2018, 04:37:57 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: trevorjohnson83 on November 05, 2018, 09:29:35 PM

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.

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?

Again, why would you expect different results?

Quote from: trevorjohnson83 on November 06, 2018, 10:09:37 AM

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...

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.

So you are just trolling?
Do you actually understand what your experiment actually entails? What the path of the light will be which you would be measuring? All the timing involved?

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.

That literally makes no sense at all.
With or without a medium you have the same issue. It doesn't magically make a centre.
All a medium would allow is a hypothetical absolute reference frame, but that would rely upon the medium to be static (e.g. it can't move relative to itself).
But this absolute reference frame doesn't make a centre. Without this medium it still doesn't make sense for any point to be the centre.
If you do want to pick an arbitrary point as the centre (such as where Earth is now), you can't just have that point to stick to an object. The object would be able to move away from the centre.
So if you decide to pick where Earth is now as the arbitrary centre point, then Earth will move away from it as it orbits the sun (and other factors).

And you need to distinguish between rotational and linear motion.
All linear motion is relative. The speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame, where these frames just undergo linear motion.
While some aspects of rotational motion are relative (e.g. it wouldn't matter if the stars rotated around us or Earth rotated, it would look the same), other parts are not, such as the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect.

The universe can revolve around you.
Nothing wrong with that.
Frame of reference is frame of reference.
However, the math is mindbogglingly overly complicated just to keep you in the center.
Far easier to have a different 0-0-0 point.

The universe can revolve around you.
Nothing wrong with that.
Frame of reference is frame of reference.
However, the math is mindbogglingly overly complicated just to keep you in the center.
Far easier to have a different 0-0-0 point.

Not quite. The universe can have any point, even one moving at a constant velocity, but rotation, even under GR, is not relative.

Though that is very deep question:

Physics, Is rotation a relative or absolute movement?
We may only measure velocity in relation to some other object, but this doesn't seem to hold for rotational velocity. Why is that?
This is a really deep question. I can't really give a good answer beyond no, rotational velocity is not a relative measurement.

The fancy-pants reason is that while velocity transformations ('boosts') are a symmetry of nature, rotational velocity transformations ('twirls'?) are not.

In Newtonian mechanics, if you 'twirl' into a rotating frame of reference, 'fictitious' forces appear that were not present in the original frame (e.g. centrifugal force); this is the sign of a non-inertial reference frame in which Newton's laws don't hold. (Modified versions that include the fictitious forces do, though.) This implies that there is some universal 'non-rotating' reference frame where all fictitious forces vanish. On the contrary, boosting into a moving frame of reference leaves Newton's laws invariant and all the forces are the same. (This goes over in relativity too, with the addition that the speed of light is also the same in all boosted frames.)

The deep part, at least to me, is that this universally non-rotating frame is also the one in which distant stars appear stationary. In any other frame, distant stars would appear to be moving (rotating around you) faster the further away they are. This is the sort of thing that's obvious until you think about it hard. Many bright people think that there is some deep connection here such as Mach's principle. By some accounts Einstein was trying to embody Mach's principle while formulating general relativity, but he didn't really succeed (he found that local matter determines local spacetime geometry, rather than distant matter like stars).

I'd better stop before having to call a philosopher. In short, that's the way the universe rolls (or rather, doesn't).

Put simply rotation involves acceleration which can be measured, presumably absolutely.
Or, if the earth were assumed stationary, the nearest stars would have to move around us at about 25 light years/day and that's a bit fast!

I won't try to get into "Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity" or "Mach's Principal" etc at this point, those a Google search might be productive.

Thats just what i mean.
The amount of corrections required is mindboggling

Thats just what i mean.
The amount of corrections required is mindboggling

It's more than just corrections. Here are some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle").

Here is the first part of that section:

Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")
What also attracted Einstein in this analysis was that it promised to remedy a defect he perceived in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.

In 1916, Einstein formulated this worry in a thought experiment. He imagined two fluid bodies in a distant part of space. These bodies, the reader quickly infers, are like stars or planets, which form roughly spherical shapes under their own gravity. Einstein further imagined that there is relative rotation between the two bodies about the axis that joins them. This relative rotation is verifiable by observers on each body, who can trace out the motion of the other body. Each would judge the other to be rotating.

It can happen in ordinary Newtonian physics that one of these bodies is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame and the other one is. In that case, the second rotating body will bulge but not the first. This effect arises on the earth. It rotates about the axis of its north and south poles. It bulges slightly at the equator as a result of centrifugal forces that seek to fling the matter of the earth away from this axis.

It would be entirely unacceptable, Einstein now asserted, were this to happen to two spheres in an otherwise empty space. For there is no difference in the observable relations between the two spheres. Each rotates with respect to the other. So why should just one bulge? The supposition of Newton's absolute space or of inertial systems, Einstein protested, was an inadequate explanation. Einstein demanded something observable to make the difference.
<< Then a discussion of "Mach's Principle." >>

And, as Newton predicted, the bulge in the Earth's equatorial radius is just what is expected for it rotating at about once per day.

And the discussions on whether rotational motion is or is not relative till hasn't stopped .

But for all practical situations in "our locality" linear motion is relative but rotational motion is absolute.

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.

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.

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.

Don't the femto cameras basically make what amounts to a stop-motion animation of light moving by making the frame rate ever so slightly out of phase with the light pulse, with each frame catching a different pulse of light just a tiny bit further ahead than the light in the previous frame?

Don't the femto cameras basically make what amounts to a stop-motion animation of light moving by making the frame rate ever so slightly out of phase with the light pulse, with each frame catching a different pulse of light just a tiny bit further ahead than the light in the previous frame?

Pretty much.
I think the only potentially important thing you left out (which is somewhat obvious) is that the frames are of very short duration, with exposure times so short that the light can barely move.

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

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 19, 2019, 02:18:30 PM

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?

The video is nothing more than a simulation and so is completely computer generated and Photoshopping is a term commonly used by flat-earthers for computer modified or modified images.

But since it is "nothing more than a simulation" it cannot be evidence of anything.

With regard to recent real physical measurements have a look at Physics World Constants and Units, Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet.

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:

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:

In most of Computer Graphics

Again, talking about what happens with computer graphics, not real life.

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!

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?

Quote from: trevorjohnson83 on May 19, 2019, 03:19:11 PM

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."

So, literally CGI then. Like Toy Story.

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

Path tracing is one method of rendering computer generated imagery.

Its a simulation based on a real camera's output.

No it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that.

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.

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?

Do you mind re stating that word salad?

What word salad?
Do you mind actually addressing what has been said rather than just repeatedly ignoring it?

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.