Relativity Linear Thread

[sjw40364]

As I posted in Silly Einstein, debates about clocks are useless as they ARE NOT ticking at the same rate:

This discrepency[sic] of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal..

If you truly believe your statement here, please supply some proof. IMHO, you seem to be confused as to exactly what Einstein did to confuse the situation.

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt.

No, the doubt remains.

Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not ocillating[sic] at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also occilating[sic] at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not occilate[sic] differently depending on surounding[sic] conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating[sic] at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating[sic] at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

So, where is your source for your claim that "Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration?" This statement of yours, which you just keep repeating, seems to be just something you imagine to be true.

Particularly the part about: "nearness to an EM source." What do you want us to believe about that? Do you mean your cell phone? The Sun?

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms occilate[sic] at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

When people begin to "shout" in all caps, I just turn the page.

GPS has already proved it. To an observer on earth does a clock on board a GPS satellite tick the same rate as one on Earth? The answer is no. Does that same clock say light travels at c at its receptors? The answer is yes. So c is two different velocities at the same time, or a hundred if you have one hundred differently situated clocks??? Ridiculous. It appears the same for every observer because the receptors where light is measured are at the same location as the clock and shares the same vibrational rate as the clock. This is why no matter your velocity c is always c as the atoms in the clock, receptor and all sharing that location or velocity all vibrate at the same rate. Yet GPS has shown that to every other observer they tick at different rates.

The clocks change rates with distance from an EM source which lessens energy input or velocity which increases energy input. You notice no difference at each clock because all your detectors at those clocks share that energy field. The only other alternative is that light magically changes speed to remain at the same velocity when yours changes. Magic or clocks are not constant, which to choose?

[Goldminer]

As I posted in Silly Einstein, debates about clocks are useless as they ARE NOT ticking at the same rate:

This discrepency[sic] of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal..

If you truly believe your statement here, please supply some proof. IMHO, you seem to be confused as to exactly what Einstein did to confuse the situation.

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt.

No, the doubt remains.

Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not ocillating[sic] at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also occilating[sic] at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not occilate[sic] differently depending on surounding[sic] conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating[sic] at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating[sic] at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

So, where is your source for your claim that "Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate[sic] at different rates depending on thier[sic] nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier[sic] acceleration?" This statement of yours, which you just keep repeating, seems to be just something you imagine to be true.

Particularly the part about: "nearness to an EM source." What do you want us to believe about that? Do you mean your cell phone? The Sun?

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms occilate[sic] at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

When people begin to "shout" in all caps, I just turn the page.

GPS has already proved it. To an observer on earth does a clock on board a GPS satellite tick the same rate as one on Earth? The answer is no. Does that same clock say light travels at c at its receptors? The answer is yes. So c is two different velocities at the same time, or a hundred if you have one hundred differently situated clocks??? Ridiculous. It appears the same for every observer because the receptors where light is measured are at the same location as the clock and shares the same vibrational rate as the clock. This is why no matter your velocity c is always c as the atoms in the clock, receptor and all sharing that location or velocity all vibrate at the same rate. Yet GPS has shown that to every other observer they tick at different rates.

The clocks change rates with distance from an EM source which lessens energy input or velocity which increases energy input. You notice no difference at each clock because all your detectors at those clocks share that energy field. The only other alternative is that light magically changes speed to remain at the same velocity when yours changes. Magic or clocks are not constant, which to choose?

Either that or a light pulse from a moving source is simply c+v or c-v depending upon approach or recession. The GPS system depends upon all clocks being regulated to run at the same speed. Distance from an EM source (what ever that is) does not change the rate. A light or radiation pulse from an isotropically radiating source radiates in a spherical-hemispherical shell centered upon the source. GPS depends upon it. The processing of GPS signals takes into consideration the Doppler change in frequency of clock rates as satellites pass over the user.

[sjw40364]

Either that or a light pulse from a moving source is simply c+v or c-v depending upon approach or recession. The GPS system depends upon all clocks being regulated to run at the same speed. Distance from an EM source (what ever that is) does not change the rate. A light or radiation pulse from an isotropically radiating source radiates in a spherical-hemispherical shell centered upon the source. GPS depends upon it. The processing of GPS signals takes into consideration the Doppler change in frequency of clock rates as satellites pass over the user.

And why should I be interested in trying to decide what GPS clocks tell me "after" they have been adjusted mathematically by man? That just tells me they don't tick the same rate or they wouldn't need adjusted in the first place.

Because c+v or c-v would only apply to light emitted from a moving object, not to light emitted from objects at different velocities. If I am traveling at 50mph and you at 100mph and we both throw a ball a third observer measures two different speeds for the balls, not the same speed for both, unless you are purposing that all stars, planets and bodies in space are traveling at the same velocity when they emit photons?

So I can't accept light is a variable, but neither can I accept that light remains the same value whether you are traveling at 100mph or half of c. Unless and only if your measuring device has changed along with your detector in a relationship based upon the energy input, which when you measure light you are measuring just that.

[Goldminer]

Either that or a light pulse from a moving source is simply c+v or c-v depending upon approach or recession. The GPS system depends upon all clocks being regulated to run at the same speed. Distance from an EM source (what ever that is) does not change the rate. A light or radiation pulse from an isotropically radiating source radiates in a spherical-hemispherical shell centered upon the source. GPS depends upon it. The processing of GPS signals takes into consideration the Doppler change in frequency of clock rates as satellites pass over the user.

And why should I be interested in trying to decide what GPS clocks tell me "after" they have been adjusted mathematically by man? That just tells me they don't tick the same rate or they wouldn't need adjusted in the first place.

The atomic clocks on the satellites are not perfect, just more precise than other types of clocks. They still need adjustment, some more that others.

Because c+v or c-v would only apply to light emitted from a moving object, not to light emitted from objects at different velocities. If I am traveling at 50mph and you at 100mph and we both throw a ball a third observer measures two different speeds for the balls, not the same speed for both, unless you are purposing that all stars, planets and bodies in space are traveling at the same velocity when they emit photons?

Can you please explain the difference between " moving object" and "objects at different velocities?" I see no difference.

The only conclusion I can gather from the above paragraph is that you don't understand the principle of relative motion.

So I can't accept light is a variable, but neither can I accept that light remains the same value whether you are traveling at 100mph or half of c. Unless and only if your measuring device has changed along with your detector in a relationship based upon the energy input, which when you measure light you are measuring just that.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Do you proof read your posts before you press "submit?"

[sjw40364]

It is simple Gold, if you are moving at 50 mph and I at 100 mph and we both throw a ball at 10 mph, a third observer measures two different velocities for the balls (60 for yours, 110 for mine). Yet that same observer observes light emitted from the two of us traveling at c, so light cannot be velocity dependent on the source as is a ball. Therefore light is not a variable due to velocity (c+v or c-v).

Now You accelerate to 1/2 of c and I will accelerate to 1/4 of c. You say light travels at c away from you, I say light travels away from me at c, the third observer says light travels away from you at 1/2 c and 3/4 of c for me. Are you telling me light has three different speeds? it must if you want it to travel at c away from you and me both, and a third observer.

Can you please explain the difference between " moving object" and "objects at different velocities?" I see no difference.

So in your world a ship traveling at 1/2 of c with no thrust and one traveling at 100 mph with no thrust, would impact a planet with the same force? Their energy content is completely different, thier clocks tick at different rates. Those that think velocity through space is irrelevant need to run into a wall at 1 mph and at 5 mph and tell me there was no difference. Clocks moving at different velocities all read different times, plain and simple, a proven fact, free-fall has nothing to do with it at all, only velocity. And since there is no stationary object, you have no base from which to calculate your current velocity, or the rate of change of your clock. But because all atoms sharing your velocity vibrate in rythum, c will always appear c to you, but no other observer will agree your clock is right. This is what you willfully ignore, that two clocks differently situated do not tick at the same rate.

[Goldminer]

It is simple Gold, if you are moving at 50 mph and I at 100 mph and we both throw a ball at 10 mph, a third observer measures two different velocities for the balls (60 for yours, 110 for mine). Yet that same observer observes light emitted from the two of us traveling at c, so light cannot be velocity dependent on the source as is a ball. Therefore light is not a variable due to relative velocity (c+v or c-v).

Yes, this is the contradiction of Einstein's theory, (It's a contradiction, not a paradox) because his first "postulate" otherwise know as an opinion, states that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial reference frames. This means that a pulse of light radiates from a source such as a laser, at the speed of light we measure here on Earth, which is such a reference frame. This makes the source the reference for the speed of light measurement. It also makes light a variable due to velocity (c+v or c-v).

Einstein leaves the rails with his relativistic train right when he takes the basis for his formulas from the "Galilean Transformation" diagram, which he and Voigt agree is a diagram depicting the instantaneous nature of light understood by Galileo Galilei. It does not contain any reference to the finite speed of light, therefore, theoretically moving the reference frame at relativistic speeds compared to another reference frame cannot introduce the finite speed of light into any formulas formulated from "distances" and "times" taken from said diagram. It is a bogus start to his fantastic story.

His next step in the fantasy is "finding" a diagonal going "photon" in his "Light Clock Gedanken." My essay. IMHO, puts the lie to that fantasy.

Sorry for your rant about clocks, the proof only requires clocks in the source reference frame.

[Goldminer]

Jose Rodriguez Re: The Spaceman Emulator December 1 2012, 11:06 AM

If one assumes that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers, the phenomena of relativity
(Length contraction and time dilation) follow as a mathematical certainty."

No, you have it backwards: Einstein concluded that there is an imaginary photon that has to move diagonally in any reference frame other that the source reference frame, and that this imaginary photon can only travel at his postulated constant speed of light in said "reference frame other than the source reference frame."

It is this imaginary photon, that (according to Einstein) has to move diagonally, that is the cause of his imagined length contraction and time dilation.

You cling to Galilean concepts for which there is not experimental support. So certainly if you describe a situation using Galilean logic it will conflict with relativity. "As the computer wonks say, 'Garbage in - garbage out."

Galileo supposedly thought that light transmission was instantaneous, so yes there is no experimental support for that. Now, if you review the "Galilean Transformation" diagram, which diagrams instantaneous light transmission, and from which Einstein took his famous equations, you will see that Einstein himself did not use anything but "instantaneous transmission of light" as his foundation for STR.

So . . . as you say "Garbage in - garbage out."

Einstein's true believers constantly argue that "anti-relativists" are using "Galilean concepts."

First of all, those who see the contradictions in Einstein's theory are not necessarily "anti-relativists." For example: I understand that everything in the Universe seems to be in relative motion with everything else; therefore, there is no way to establish an absolute reference point. Consequently, I am not an "anti-relativist."

Secondly, "Galilean concepts" are those involving instantaneous transmission of light and radiation. Therefore, since I have continuously pointed out that light pulses 'travel" about a foot per nanosecond, I do not subscribe to "Galilean concepts."

Thirdly, Einstein's constant use of "stationary reference frame" and "moving reference frame" conflate the idea of "relative motion," which is the main subject of his essay. Had he realized that the source reference frame is primary, and that any observer not at rest with the source is in another reference frame, he might not have pursued so many rabbit holes.

Einstein's true believer, consensus promoters are easy targets to hit with a little logic and actual evidence! So, if you enjoy discussions with said "True Believers," as I do, do not allow them to label you as an "anti-relativist" or one that "uses Galilean logic," since it appears that Einstein himself did exactly that.

[Goldminer]

Quote from :

" . . . Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place . . . an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place. For example, the motion of planets around the sun may be described in a particular type of spacetime, or the motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime. The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time."

See how the Einsteinians play slight of hand? Reference frames are now "Spacetime arenas." The ". . . motion of light around a rotating star may be described in another type of spacetime."

You see, Lorentz, Einstein, Voigt, et al try to describe the "motion of light" as a single point, transformed into various reference systems, which are now called "arenas."

Please note, from the above quote: "an event is a unique position at a unique time"

This definition means that an event cannot be an expanding sphere of light. An expanding sphere of light does not occupy a "unique position at a unique time." (i.e. a single point set of coordinates within a reference frame) The sphere is not a single point.

The surface area of a sphere is given by 4(pi)r2. The radius of the leading edge of an expanding light sphere is an ever increasing length, increasing at a foot per nanosecond as measured from the source. A radius, being a length, has two locations, those being each end of the length. A light sphere radius length *does* have a specific length at a specific elapsed time from its initiation. The source end of the radius has "unique position at a unique time," but the surface end of the measured radius is not unique, since it is an equal distance from the source anywhere on the surface of the sphere at a specific elapsed time.

It's ever increasing surface area is specified by 4(pi)r2 where r2=(ct)2: where ct is a distance increasing in length at a foot per nanosecond and t is the increasing elapsed time in nanoseconds from the initiation of the light pulse. But you have to remember that the radius is not a unique location because its measured ends are given by two coordinate locations, one of which is continuously changing as time passes.

The important point is that none of this is included in the "Lorentz Transformation."

The only thing transformed in the Lorentz Transformation is the source, and the "source" remains fixed in one reference frame, and continuously changes position along with its origin to which it is attached, in the opposite reference frame.

[Goldminer]

Jose Rodriguez: Re; the Spaceman-Emulator, December 15, 2010, 5:17 PM

:

"The important point here, cre, is that none of this is included in your "Lorentz Transformation."

Anyway, trying to deal with the maths that he gave. Cre starts from assuming lightspeed as constant and gets the absurd result that clocks are operating differently. Its standard maths that if assume something and derive an absurd result then logic dictates the assumption is false. So lightspeed constancy is a false assumption by reductio ad absurdum:

reductio ad absurdum
n
1. (Philosophy / Logic) a method of disproving a proposition by showing that its inevitable consequences would be absurd.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reductio+ad+absurdum


so instead of (1) -(2) it's: (1a) x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 and (2a) x'2 + y'2 + z'2 = c'2t2 and have c' different to c when v non-zero, and proceed from there. Instead of setting up malfunctioning clocks from his (1)-(2)-onwards.

Jose says: Yes, anon, cre, et al are guilty of circular reasoning. Your comment concerning "t" being non-primed is also right on. However, in my humble opinion, it is unnecessary to prime c. The speed of light is only concerning the actual light sphere that is expanding around the source. The moving observers, no matter what reference frame to which they are assigned, all observe only a tiny portion of the same expanding sphere (remembering of course that the sphere is continuously expanding, t being the elapsed time from initiation of the light pulse, and the radius being ct, is also lengthening.)

"v" represents the speed of any particular reference frame with respect to the source. Thus, all observers assigned to said moving reference frame have the same direction and velocity. All observers with zero v with respect to the source are assigned to the source reference frame.

The overlooked fact is that the velocity of any observer is relative the source. The velocity of any observer within their own reference frame is zero. Their positions within their own reference frame have nothing to do with velocity. All these observers have, relative their own origin, is a distance and direction from their own origin.

(No one "sees" the expanding sphere, it is the sphere that carries the light pulse to the observer. What we see is the source. If one is moving linearly towards or away from said source, the source appears to grow larger or smaller. This is true for all observers no matter to which reference frame they belong. Of course, those observers in the source reference frame do not see the size of the source change continuously, but the size is relative to their distance from the source.)

The object of the exercise, it seems to me, is to determine the coordinates for each observer, in the moving reference frame, with respect to the said observer's reference frame coordinate origin, of said observers co-located around the surface of the expanding sphere at the elapsed time and length of the radius of said sphere, radius being ct (t being the elapsed time from the initiation of the light pulse).

"vt" is merely the actual distance between the moving origin and the source, provided we co-locate the source to the source coordinate origin. (An observer at the location of the relativistically moving origin is faced with the problem of determining this actual distance, since the light from the source is aberrated and Doppler shifted. These problems arise at the detector. The observer's motion does not affect the source's space and passage of time. We know this because if the observer suddenly changes speed, Doppler shift and aberration would instantly change also.)

So, what we have concerning the sphere at radius ct, are moving observers at that distance, spaced around the source, all moving at v. There are a group of them in a circle around the plane of the y-z axes, in transverse motion to the radius in that plane. Their distances (in coordinates from their own origin) to the moving origin will be vt along the x axis, so the x axis coordinate is vt for the center of the circle. The y and z coordinates are y2+z2=r2. So, in coordinate form, in the moving system, the coordinates are (vt, y2+z2=r2)

The coordinates respecting the moving observer coordinate reference frame for the observer receding from the source at elapsed time t is (ct-vt),0,0) The coordinate for the observer approaching the source at elapsed time t is (ct+vt),0,0). Consensus Einsteinians never contemplate the approaching observer.

So, the value of vt represents the distance from the center of the expanding sphere and the source to the origin of the moving reference frame along the x axis, at elapsed time t.

So x2+y2+z2 = c2t2 represents the expanding sphere located at the origin of the source reference frame. Its radius at a particular elapsed time is r=square root of c2t2. This sphere is located at the elapsed time distance of vt along the x axis in the moving reference frame. So, vt(x2+y2+z2) = c2t2 is the location and radius of the expanding sphere at elapsed time t, with respect to the moving system origin.

Cre's equation: 2) x'2>+y'2+z'2=c2t'2 imagines that there is another expanding sphere traveling along in his primed reference frame that was initiated by the source attached to the origin of the source reference frame! And furthermore, its radius is expanding at a different speed, since t' is according to him, a different elapsed time! (or something else)

[webolife]

Goldminer,
Can you help me understand how seeing an infinitesmal portion of an expanding light sphere [a virtual planar wavefront as I encounter it at a perpendicular] can provide me with the entire image of the source? Can you explain it in some way that does not table the spherical surface-planar light concept and instead describes the light action as rays? I really want to know.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
Can you help me understand how seeing an infinitesimal portion of an expanding light sphere [a virtual planar wavefront as I encounter it at a perpendicular] can provide me with the entire image of the source? Can you explain it in some way that does not table the spherical surface-planar light concept and instead describes the light action as rays? I really want to know.

I doubt that I can help you. Your question is off topic here. This subject, Einstein's theory, is not about an image. It is just determining where a generic short burst of light can be found, relative various detector/observers. I was hoping someone would comment on the last post, above. I have been struggling to get the math into what my diagrams reveal. Hoping someone would criticize that post. Oh well . . .

Try reading through this article, several times Maybe start a thread on your subject? The article discusses rays and plane wave fronts. Both are aspects of the wave nature of light.

[webolife]

Sorry Gold, I thought I was asking about a short pulse of light where it is found, at my retina.
But you are right, this is off topic. I don't really get the maths that you are referring to, because I don't accept c.
But I'll probably just stay off this thread. BTW, I respect and was actually trying to understand what you were saying.

[Goldminer]

Sorry Gold, I thought I was asking about a short pulse of light where it is found, at my retina.
But you are right, this is off topic. I don't really get the maths that you are referring to, because I don't accept c.
But I'll probably just stay off this thread. BTW, I respect and was actually trying to understand what you were saying.

I don't deny that "a short pulse of light [is] where it is found, at my retina" as you say. That is a good part of the problem with those speculating about Albert's STR. Most seem to think the light pulse can be seen "traveling along." It cannot. The "light" pulse only does something when it reaches some reactive matter, such as your retina, silver nitrate emulsion, the surface of a CCD, or any surface or particle in the air, for that matter. The high speed video seems to show the light pulse moving along. It does not. It shows the reaction of the surfaces to the energy in the pulse which is then reflected out to the camera, if it is not absorbed.

I have worked with laser beams for many years. The beam cannot be seen/detected unless the detector is in the beam.

[Goldminer]

Here

You did a lot of work. It's nice to see an anti-relativist who actually puts pen to paper and tries to prove something.

Yeah, thanks.

OK, I see the problem. You are assuming the sphere of light moves with the source. This is why you don't agree with Einstein's relativity.

Yeah, the proximal speed of light is away from the source at a foot per nanosecond. Everyone, including Einstein, has to acknowledge this fact. It merely follows from what Einstein claims: (whether he is right or wrong) that the speed of light is always measured at the afore stated speed. This results in an expanding sphere around and attached to (centered on) the source. This is one of the reasons that you do not understand relativity, my friend.

Your diagram is in X,T coordinates and since the bubble of light originated at X=0, T=0,
in that diagram it should be represented by a sphere centered on that point.

No, cre, you are wrong, mistaken, cognitive dissonant. My diagrams are in x,y,z, Cartesian coordinates. The passage of time in the source reference frame is depicted by the expansion of the light sphere at a foot per nanosecond. (concentric spheres scaled at a foot or some other distance, increment radius "stop motion.") The passage of time in the opposite reference frame, the one with relative motion to the source frame, is depicted by the increasing distance between the two origins of the two reference systems. The increase in distance is caused by the velocity between the reference frames. There is no "stationary reference frame."

At t=zero, there is no "bubble." The light bulb has just flashed; no time has passed. The light bulb is either in one frame or the other. Take your pick. The frame that you pick becomes the source reference frame. For now, you are definitely in (pink no doubt) unicorn land.

The observer moving with the source will also see the sphere of light as a sphere of light
which is what the Lorentz transformations show.

No, cre, no on observer "sees" any sphere. The sphere has to be plotted. Furthermore, if you locate your observers, each at the origins of the respective reference frames, they will both see the initial flash, but that is all they will ever see of it. (Since three things occur simultaneously at t= zero: Both of your observers and origins coincide, and the light-bulb flashes.) Once the sphere expands, (concurrently, the origins spread apart, and which are parting at less than the speed of light) the expanding sphere is moving away from the source, neither observer will ever see the flash again. They cannot see it expand because in order to do that they would have to be ahead of the expanding sphere, looking backwards, or outside the sphere approaching it.

But there is no way to draw what both observers see at the same time.

Cre: I hate to be so condescending, but Duh! If you locate your observers, each at the origins of the respective reference frames, they will both see the initial flash, but that is all. Only when an observer within the "moving" reference frame is, by chance next to an observer located in the source reference frame, (while the light pulse is there too,) will both see the light pulse. Contrary to what both Einsteinians and "Anti-relativists" believe, many more observers can exist in either reference frame. Relativity of simultaneity is cause by the distal location of observers, whether they are in relative motion or not. Relativity of simultaneity does not exist for observers proximal to each other, and motion per se is not the cause of it!

As to "But there is no way to draw," never say never, my friend, I have done that very thing!

In either set of coordinates, X,T, or x,t, the wavefront of that light will be a sphere.

Well, yes, because it is the one and only, same sphere, the one attached and centered upon the source. Einsteinians apparently want the sphere to be centered somewhere in the reference frame opposite the source frame, but they have no idea where to locate it there. Wherever they choose is wrong.

You will probably disagree with this but don't bother telling me it's wrong...it isn't.

OK, I won't tell you!

Notice to everybody else: Cre is wrong!

[Goldminer]

Re: I want to experiment, what do I need?

Oh, and don't forget to get a few of these:

i-SPEED FS has been designed by Olympus predominantly for the Ballistics market and was developed as a result of direct customer feedback. Incorporating all of the features of the i-SPEED 3 camera which have made it such a success the i-SPEED FS also benefits from a recording rate of upto 1 million frames per second and an electronic global shutter of 200 nanoseconds.

My comment: in the duration of 200 nanoseconds, a light pulse has traveled 200 feet. The light pulse would be a blur. To stop the light pulse in its tracks, a femtosecond shutter is needed. Also, to photograph said light Pulse, a semitransparent environment such as foggy or dusty atmosphere is necessary.