 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle Roger Wilco ...and 391 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614093 Today 6 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if i have a telescope and i take a picture though it of the sky at night,i can look at that image on my computer and zoom in to various locations so far before the pixels become large and offer little information. but in the future do you think perhaps it could be possible to take a picture of the sky at night and sample light as it really is.? ..So that we can zoom zoom zoom zoom to any solar system that is available on a machine at a later time? ,so it would be an exact replication of the light that hit the lens? can we store light perhaps in a thing like the large hydron collider !!? capturing the light maybe using a lense in space made in 0 gravity and storing the light information in a lhc? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
take a high school physics class before posting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don;t understand what you mean and I don't like science, but it sounds interesting. Who knows what the future will hold? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lmfao surely this is the Sample Frequency thread all over again :P The fact that (expensive) software image synthesizers will already do things like this means that your suggestion is almost useless. CCDs already have better efficiencies than human eyes. I'm not great on imaging, so that's all I've got to say, but you can already achieve pretty high resolution with (very expensive) equipment today. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
P.S. obviously image synthesis is totally approximation based, so I guess it's not that accurate at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as soon as i speak of resolution people say my 6 mega pixel camera if fine for me i cant see pixels! . fair enough but what about zooming in and reframing? it would be so cool to capture the light perhaps before it hits a focal lense exactly as it is at that point in time. so that anyone with a capable machine can examine that sampled light anytime in the future... like google earth maping but instead with actual light particles light can be stored in a vacum it travels very fast ...but it is stored for billions of years maybe there is a way to use space itself to store light.? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i love freqys threads and post and ... *imaginfo= imagination + information |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeaahh an open mind !! falito you lovely voodoo hamster |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
magic hamster voodoo hamster |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
in the future I hope that we have 3D or 11D =D map of universe. Mathematcal algorithms would predict universe status, and observation than will be elective, partially. So freqys dream is very probable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wouldn't you need a lens to capture very tiny portions of space and then combine the images later? i dunno much about optics or imaging but it seems to me you would need to make some image collage with millions of images put together that were taken with a bigass lens zoomed in on space. seems better to me to just spawn a miniature clone of the entire universe inside the lhc that we can just use a microscope to examine amirite |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah tracking asteriods millions of years before they hit earth to be able to see which solar system would be the best for our next move. 11D? x y z t ??????? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"seems better to me to just spawn a miniature clone of the entire universe inside the lhc that we can just use a microscope to examine amirite " awesome! :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
store light by reflecting a portion of sky off a mirror and bounce it off another mirror a thousand light years away so in a thousand light years time someone can receive the image and study it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
send a mirror into deep space on a rocket. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It would be cool to zoom in on the death of a large young star as it explodes into oblivion. Take a few snaps. Set as background. Fucking History Channel. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
once i saw a picture of the energy contained in the outer space, it looks exactly like the neural networks contained in the brain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"store light by reflecting a portion of sky off a mirror and bounce it off another mirror a thousand light years away so in a thousand light years time someone can receive the image and study it. " you need help with the basics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I guess lens is not the last invention in optics. "Theories such as string theory and M-theory predict that physical space in general has in fact 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively" wiki If you want "clone" universe I guess you need gather information about it. Visible light can be easily absorbed, so it is unpractical to send imiges in that way and it is not the only reason, that freqys "invension" did not work, or maybe I dont understand it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
first of all, regarding the original post, the light still has to hit a sensor and be interpreted as to the different wavelengths, so it can be viewed in the (this case,) visible spectrum. wat you want to do, is preserve that light so that it can be used in the future (when greater-technology sensors) have been created, have a way to use the light from an earlier time period, to hit an advanced sensor (now in the future), and use the new data to study light from the past. do you fully understand properties of light? of matter? of how common day sensors work? what happens if you use the mirror idea, and on the return trip in 1000years, the light passes through a gaseous cloud, or even worse, is terminated into a celestrial body that is passing through the line-of-sight? ...oops |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Basicly, yes, but not fully, nobody does. ...I meen visible light can be easily absorbed by clouds and other things in space. Now SETI program using invisible electromagnetic waves which is near hydrogen frequency which is 1420 MHz. Those waves can escape clouds and it is harder to interfere in space. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
starry night backyard + |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
elusive writes "what happens if you use the mirror idea, and on the return trip in 1000years, the light passes through a gaseous cloud, or even worse, is terminated into a celestrial body that is passing through the line-of-sight? ...oops" what a weak reply ..however you understand what im talking about congratulations. what if you drive to the super market and get hit by a truck? oops? so what ?? take a risk. even if the light does get blocked by a planet for 2 hrs...SO WHAT?? wait ..patience it can be a stream of information. you need to learn the basics of thought. ..only kiddin you daft narna ....expand add ...stop slowing people down. - |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
freqy i actually can't tell what you're trying to say, but it seems like english isn't your first language. i know that they have sent an image in a single photon which was posted here a long time ago. but that worked because they were specifically sending it through a small 'stencil' so that the photon captured the 'shadow' as its probability wave passed through the stencil and then was 'lensed' somehow to retreive the image. that was my understanding of it. but that's not going to get you an image of a galaxy since those are made up of a number of photons and their relative position & wavelength making up the image. so if you 'store' the light you're going to lose the image. i know that for deep space telescopes they may be collecting light one photon at a time depending on the source, exposing it for days at a time, so that is a problem of the objects being incredibly dim. i thought for a while that galaxies were mostly invisible to the naked eye because they are so far away they are too small to be seen, but that's not true. the andromeda galaxy actually takes up something like 2x the amount of sky that the moon does, but you can't see it under normal conditions because it's just too dim. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
freqy, i will assume english is not your first language, but you should really attend a high school level physics course; not to sound condescending... i really don't understand if you are being serious. "what if you drive to the super market and get hit by a truck? oops? so what ?? take a risk. even if the light does get blocked by a planet for 2 hrs...SO WHAT?? wait ..patience it can be a stream of information. " what the fuck does that even mean. light getting blocked by a planet for 2 hours? are you meaning to say that all light waveforms can pass through a celestial body? holy fuck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Must be freq meen that planet changes its position in orbit and then waves can travel further, becouse you send your information permanently. But this is not big problem, comparing to difraction. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what he means is that the light would wait behind one side of the planet until it has moved out of the way (this would take exactly 2 hours) and the carry on its journey into freqy's magic space lens |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god, this thread is fucking awful. the way freqy is interpreting the way light acts in the physical world is just so incredibly... wrong. let's start a betting pool as to freqy's age. or better yet, his education level. i'm guessing not much past 14 years/7th grade (US) education. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and good lord, what does the lhc have to do with storing light particles? that's like saying, "let's take a photograph, but instead of a camera, let's use my race car!" it may be a powerful piece of technology, but it can only be used for what it's designed for. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
does the LHC have kodak easyshare? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
im only 9 years old :P 'the lhc tubes will allow the light to travel around and around forever like in a vacuum, storing it for later.:) haaha |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nnnngggg... words.... cannot... describe..... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hhaha fool . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
o.k your not a foool just on another level which is neither higher or lower. when you walk outside the light reflected off your body goes out into space ...it travels fast and far until it hits something. or it may carry on forever. so light is stored traveling in space. ... so maybe one day we will be able to take samples of light store the light in space and access the actual light information rather than pixels. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm the fool? you're the one saying we can somehow magically trap light infinitely within a particle accelerator. ever hear of the law of conservation? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
aww look we posted at the same time 21..24 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, the light does not go infinitely off into space once it has reflected off me. i think the thing you're missing here is that space is not just some empty vaccuum. space is filled with particles, many of which will be getting in the way of light including *gasp* the ozone layer! do you think if we were receiving the full energy of the sun, even from our distance, that life would have ever been able to evolve on earth? hell no, and if the ozone is blocking light coming in, what makes you think it won't have any effect on light coming out. the problem is that while, yes, much of the light may survive to some far reaches into space, not nearly enough of it is. especially the further out you go, the most distorted and incomplete of an image you're going to be getting (if any at all, assuming we have somehow sent out this receiving station eons before the light we are trying to trap gets there), with things like nebulae, space dust, celestial bodies, not even to mention gravity (yes, there is gravity in space). and this talk about light being "stored" is utter bullshit. you cannot bottle up light. it either goes in a direction or is absorbed and converted into other energy. there's no sending a few light particles into some continuous feedback loop out in space (NOT a vaccuum!) to just reach out and pick it up when we feel like. my head hurts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you hedphukkerred your own head up :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, but what if? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
then we wouldn't exist to utilize such wonderous wonders because we would be living in a universe with completely different laws of physics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any high schooled should be able to read this thread and smack forehead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
