Gordon Berg
Forum Enthusiast
The early universe was also opaque to visible light... but then maybe you could have captured it with the "Nigthshot" feature!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Just a fun question
- Thread starter SFishy
- Start date
Erichatch
Veteran Member
I'd like to mount a camera on a REALLY stout 150 foot pylon, and have it take one shot at 5 PM on June 20 for the next 100,000 years, then 1 every 5 years for the following 500,000.
Then, somehow, have it all transported back here so I could see how it all comes out!
(PS... my bet, over that scale of time, is that the glaciers return (2 or 3 times), the cockroach thrives, and humans have given up in favofr of some more cooperative but equally intelligent organism.... what, I don't know.
Eric--EricF707 http://www.pbase.com/erichocinc
Then, somehow, have it all transported back here so I could see how it all comes out!
(PS... my bet, over that scale of time, is that the glaciers return (2 or 3 times), the cockroach thrives, and humans have given up in favofr of some more cooperative but equally intelligent organism.... what, I don't know.
Eric--EricF707 http://www.pbase.com/erichocinc
U
Ulysses
Guest
At least the memory of the towers is still with us. But to capture again the faces of people who fell with those towers... that would be a dream that many would like to see.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/pe9b1c52f6c515b80fc0f83125a705d12/fe0ad476.jpg.orig.jpg-- Ulysses
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/pe9b1c52f6c515b80fc0f83125a705d12/fe0ad476.jpg.orig.jpg-- Ulysses
Homer40784
Senior Member
erichocinc wrote:
and humans have given up in
Homer
and humans have given up in
I would hope that this organism would have more intelligence than humans...
Homer
kudbegud
Senior Member
Jim:
sorry guy, cant do that either. what you win could have gone to somebody else and probably did...once again changing the time line. ya just cant interact at all with the past, only observe, lest you change the present to where you never go back...making the change you did not happen, allowing you to go back, which makes the change that keeps you from going back............STOP!! my head is spinning! LOL
if your interested and can find it, the best time travel book i ever read was "The Man Who Folded Himself" by David Gerrold, the guy who wrote the clasic Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles" Seems he goes back and forth in time, creating alternate times lines. One where he tell himself the winning bets at the track, another where he tells himself not to bet because of the changes it creates. any way, in one time line he is a woman and....well, the title tells what happens..he folds himself !!hahahaha he was his own mother and father! the moral; don't mess with the past time lines..you could get folded real good!? ^!
--you pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you payed for. F707,TCON-14B,ETX-90
sorry guy, cant do that either. what you win could have gone to somebody else and probably did...once again changing the time line. ya just cant interact at all with the past, only observe, lest you change the present to where you never go back...making the change you did not happen, allowing you to go back, which makes the change that keeps you from going back............STOP!! my head is spinning! LOL
if your interested and can find it, the best time travel book i ever read was "The Man Who Folded Himself" by David Gerrold, the guy who wrote the clasic Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles" Seems he goes back and forth in time, creating alternate times lines. One where he tell himself the winning bets at the track, another where he tells himself not to bet because of the changes it creates. any way, in one time line he is a woman and....well, the title tells what happens..he folds himself !!hahahaha he was his own mother and father! the moral; don't mess with the past time lines..you could get folded real good!? ^!
--you pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you payed for. F707,TCON-14B,ETX-90
Gordon Berg
Forum Enthusiast
At the time I was working in the Aerospace industry simulating rocket flights, including ones to the moon and back, and while the 'gummint' might have faked it for some bizarre reason it was entirely feasible with the technology at the time. In fact, the basic propulsion technology used then is still the workhorse today. I knew, met, and worked with dozens upon dozens of people involved with different aspects of rocket flight and not only was the technology up to the job, the infrastructure was in place.
By the way, I watched the original broadcasts and like most everyone else at the time, I didn't see anything strange about the flag 'waving' in the nearly non-existent lunar atmosphere because the thing was obviously made of a stiff material.
If the rest of the 20 irrefutable facts are as good as 'technologically infeasible' and the 'waving flag', I'd say they proved only that they are not too bright... or maybe they watch too much sci-fi television.
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
I just wanted to comment on this "blowing in the wind" thing, which I've heard before. We LEARNED IN SCHOOL that they used wires to make it LOOK like the flag was blowing in the wind, because obviously, there is no wind (nor atmosphere) on the moon. Wires in the flag were no great cover-up.
Amy
Amy
--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography
Wonderful and interesting answers from everyone... I was especially touched by Homer's answer of taking pictures of his wedding, to be able to give to his wife.
I'd love to hear more...
Amy--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography
I'd love to hear more...
Amy--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography
cUrVe
Senior Member
i'd give anything to be able to turn back time and photograph the WTC (as well as bring back the thousands lost). i was in NYC 3 years ago, walked around, inside and underneath the towers. anytime, anywhere when i was in lower manhattan i would catch myself turning and looking at those magnificent towers. i could not take my eyes off of them. did not take any pictures of them since that was year seven of my self imposed 10 year exile from photography. i still cannot believe they are gone. i want to go back to NYC but i don't know how i'll react when i first look up and see nothing but sky. But i do know that i'll probably cry.
--cUrVe http://homepage.mac.com/curve
Curve,
I don't live too far from the city, and we are often driving around it to get to friends and family. We avoided it for a long time after 9/11 because I knew it was going to upset me so much to see the foreign skyline... and it did. It was so upsetting to me to have my 14-year-old step son ask "hey, where did the towers used to be" as he gazed upon the skyline.
Amy
I don't live too far from the city, and we are often driving around it to get to friends and family. We avoided it for a long time after 9/11 because I knew it was going to upset me so much to see the foreign skyline... and it did. It was so upsetting to me to have my 14-year-old step son ask "hey, where did the towers used to be" as he gazed upon the skyline.
Amy
--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography
Mike Fitzgerald
Veteran Member
...of kids...
Children can come out with the most fascinating observations. A 5-y-o girl, bright as a button with a charming nature, was in the front with me on one of these occasions. As we broke free of the suburban industrial landscape (Melbourne's outer east), she had her first uninterrupted view of the Danenong Ranges — a pretty but otherwise unimposing ridge about 6 miles long. Her eyes opened wide and she called to her mother, who was matron-of-honour, in the back seat:
"Mummy! why has that hill got trees on it!?"
Think about that for a moment... The parents, btw, were active, interesting people; definitely not couch potatoes. So we can be confident she had seen a reasonable bit of the countryside in her time.
Now I'd never describe myself as a feral Greenie, but what ARE we doing to our world??? :-(
Now that I've had time to think about it some more, I wish I could produce a time-lapse video of what we've been doing to our planet over the last millennium. "Natural resources" is a term we still haven't learned to take seriously.
Mike
An acquaintance used to run a vintage wedding car service (all 1929 Dodges), and I drove for him on the odd occasion. A great way to unwind, and you sure get to meet an interesting cross-section of personalities.
Children can come out with the most fascinating observations. A 5-y-o girl, bright as a button with a charming nature, was in the front with me on one of these occasions. As we broke free of the suburban industrial landscape (Melbourne's outer east), she had her first uninterrupted view of the Danenong Ranges — a pretty but otherwise unimposing ridge about 6 miles long. Her eyes opened wide and she called to her mother, who was matron-of-honour, in the back seat:
"Mummy! why has that hill got trees on it!?"
Think about that for a moment... The parents, btw, were active, interesting people; definitely not couch potatoes. So we can be confident she had seen a reasonable bit of the countryside in her time.
Now I'd never describe myself as a feral Greenie, but what ARE we doing to our world??? :-(
Now that I've had time to think about it some more, I wish I could produce a time-lapse video of what we've been doing to our planet over the last millennium. "Natural resources" is a term we still haven't learned to take seriously.
Mike
Gordon Berg
Forum Enthusiast
It's worse than that... you can't even observe the past reached via time travel because according to quantum mechanics, observation always requires an interaction. It's quite easy to understand in terms of a visual observance - your eyes/camera has to capture some photons of light and that means that those photons are prevented from going where they otherwise would have. They might be, for example, the photons that carried the first image of the woman who would become your mother to the man who'd become your father, but missing that look at her he might have never seen her again so you'd never be born... et cetera...
Naturally, that is far fetched but it's one of the possibilities - what is certain is the photons you'd capture would have had another destiny without you being inserted and who's to say what downstream disturbances might have followed.
kudbegud
Senior Member
Gordon
so when are you going to invent the non-interacting photon observation time stream sailing ship? i wanna start takin pichas of the dinosaurs!!
--you pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you payed for. F707,TCON-14B,ETX-90
so when are you going to invent the non-interacting photon observation time stream sailing ship? i wanna start takin pichas of the dinosaurs!!
--you pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you payed for. F707,TCON-14B,ETX-90
Steven Mastroyin
New member
There are plenty of websites on this, but rather than give you those,
here are some rebuttals:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
or, my favorite,
http://www.lunaranomolies.com , which completely debunks every
shred of evidence that these guys came up with, but has their
own "cover-up" questions.
It's surprising that a photographer would be taken in by this
stuff, because all of the claims are based off of photographs,
and thye obviously know nothing about photography:
1) No stars in the pictures. Well no kidding. Photographing
a bright gray moon surface replete with relfective glass not to
mention the highly reflective white spacesuits etc., they had
to use a 1/250th sec exposure time - you really think you're
gonna capture stars like that?
2) Washedout crosshairs. They claim that the crosshairs should
all be infront of the objects while some are behind the objects,
which makes very little sense, as if someone went in afterward
and then screwed up every single one of the crosshairs? More
likely, this is a combination of printing problems (the white washes
out the very small crosshair makrs) combined with retouching
(these guys all used press photos, not the originals). The
original negatives all have the crosshairs intact.
3) Shadows. They claim that shadows going in different
directions prove there was more than one source of light.
Of course, if there was more than one source of light,
each astronaut would give off two shadows. The real
culprit here is that they ignore the terrain.
3a) There is also a claim that because the astronauts are
"filled-in" with the sun behind them, this is proof there
was additional lighting. This completely ignores the
reflective surface of the moon.
The website (and many others) explores fully all of the
other claims including the flag waving claims, Van Allen
radiation, and landing craters.
If you go to the lunar anomalies site, you will run across this quote:
"The simple truth is that the people presenting this nonsense (primarily
James Collier, David Percy, Bill Kaysing, "brilliant lay physicist" Ralph Rene,
and SPSR's Dr. Brian O'Leary) are just plain stupid."
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.
Steve
here are some rebuttals:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html
or, my favorite,
http://www.lunaranomolies.com , which completely debunks every
shred of evidence that these guys came up with, but has their
own "cover-up" questions.
It's surprising that a photographer would be taken in by this
stuff, because all of the claims are based off of photographs,
and thye obviously know nothing about photography:
1) No stars in the pictures. Well no kidding. Photographing
a bright gray moon surface replete with relfective glass not to
mention the highly reflective white spacesuits etc., they had
to use a 1/250th sec exposure time - you really think you're
gonna capture stars like that?
2) Washedout crosshairs. They claim that the crosshairs should
all be infront of the objects while some are behind the objects,
which makes very little sense, as if someone went in afterward
and then screwed up every single one of the crosshairs? More
likely, this is a combination of printing problems (the white washes
out the very small crosshair makrs) combined with retouching
(these guys all used press photos, not the originals). The
original negatives all have the crosshairs intact.
3) Shadows. They claim that shadows going in different
directions prove there was more than one source of light.
Of course, if there was more than one source of light,
each astronaut would give off two shadows. The real
culprit here is that they ignore the terrain.
3a) There is also a claim that because the astronauts are
"filled-in" with the sun behind them, this is proof there
was additional lighting. This completely ignores the
reflective surface of the moon.
The website (and many others) explores fully all of the
other claims including the flag waving claims, Van Allen
radiation, and landing craters.
If you go to the lunar anomalies site, you will run across this quote:
"The simple truth is that the people presenting this nonsense (primarily
James Collier, David Percy, Bill Kaysing, "brilliant lay physicist" Ralph Rene,
and SPSR's Dr. Brian O'Leary) are just plain stupid."
Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.
Steve
Robert van den Heuvel
Active member
Hmmmm soo the main idea is to take pictures of things that happened in the past..
What if...
The light reflected on planet earth, giving the images of whats happening over time is traveling away from this earth - right?
Now all we need to do is find a planet/star/object far enough from us with a reflexive surface to observe this light being reflected and we would automatically be able to look into the past - right?
...
ok.. true we would need quite some huge magnification
-- http://www.halloikbenjohan.comhttp://www.pbase.com/borko
What if...
The light reflected on planet earth, giving the images of whats happening over time is traveling away from this earth - right?
Now all we need to do is find a planet/star/object far enough from us with a reflexive surface to observe this light being reflected and we would automatically be able to look into the past - right?
...
ok.. true we would need quite some huge magnification
-- http://www.halloikbenjohan.comhttp://www.pbase.com/borko Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum