If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
In article , ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says... PeterN wrote: On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself] Not worth replying to Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh? No just not replying to troll questions. Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll question *and* an insult. But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad- nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
On 5/20/2013 6:56 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself] Not worth replying to Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh? No just not replying to troll questions. Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll question *and* an insult. Go back and read. If you don't believe me, that is your problem. But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. I didn't say that in a random configuration that would be no influence. I said there could be offsetting influences. But we already went that route. -- PeterN |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , ozcvgtt02 But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad- nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance. Naah, it has no real relevance. Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words), in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up (and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand that his claim of | If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly | distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the | rays would remain parallel. (PeterN in Message-ID: ) was wrong. Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just *can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly theoretically, that is. You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt he's throwing up. -Wolfgang |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself] Not worth replying to Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh? No just not replying to troll questions. Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll question *and* an insult. But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Similar to the chromatic aberration problem in lens design. You can never get rid of it completely. But you can use carefully placed later chromatic aberration to undo most of an earlier introduced chromatic aberration. You can do the same kind of thing with gravitational bending of light ray bundles, especially when the rays are very narrow and the gravitational fields are large and distant, so minimising the non-linearity of the bending across the bundle. Perhaps a nearer example is the bending of light rays due to atmospheric thermals on a hot sunny day. Easily seen through a long lens as the wriggling of distant straight lines. Have you ever noticed that if you take a short enough exposure those wriggly straight lines are often both wriggly and sharp at the edges. In other words despite the thermal bending of the light rays they've maintained a close approximation to parallelism. -- Chris Malcolm |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
On 21/05/2013 11:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad- nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance. (muppet newsflash): it's called - wait for it - T-R-O-L-L-I-N-G (/muppet newsflash) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: PeterN wrote: [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself] Not worth replying to Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh? No just not replying to troll questions. Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll question *and* an insult. But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Similar to the chromatic aberration problem in lens design. You can never get rid of it completely. Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction. Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the tiniest movements. But you can use carefully placed later chromatic aberration to undo most of an earlier introduced chromatic aberration. You can do the same kind of thing with gravitational bending of light ray bundles, Hod do you propose bending no-longer-parallel light rays back to being parallel again without having negative gravity? especially when the rays are very narrow and the gravitational fields are large and distant, so minimising the non-linearity of the bending across the bundle. Yep, that's why it doesn't matter usually, but in theory it does. Perhaps a nearer example is the bending of light rays due to atmospheric thermals on a hot sunny day. Easily seen through a long lens as the wriggling of distant straight lines. Have you ever noticed that if you take a short enough exposure those wriggly straight lines are often both wriggly and sharp at the edges. In other words despite the thermal bending of the light rays they've maintained a close approximation to parallelism. Air --- like the glass in our lenses --- can both concentrate and spread light rays. How do you do that with gravity? -Wolfgang |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
On 5/22/2013 6:24 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: In article , ozcvgtt02 But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad- nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance. Naah, it has no real relevance. Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words), in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up (and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand that his claim of | If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly | distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the | rays would remain parallel. (PeterN in Message-ID: ) was wrong. Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just *can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly theoretically, that is. You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt he's throwing up. -Wolfgang You simply refuse to understand what "random" means. -- PeterN |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction. Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the tiniest movements. A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell -- --- Paul J. Gans |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
PeterN wrote:
On 5/22/2013 6:24 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: J. Clarke wrote: In article , ozcvgtt02 But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light rays to become non-parallel. Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad- nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance. Naah, it has no real relevance. Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words), in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up (and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand that his claim of | If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly | distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the | rays would remain parallel. (PeterN in Message-ID: ) was wrong. Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just *can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly theoretically, that is. You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt he's throwing up. You simply refuse to understand what "random" means. Most people can't understand meanings that you make up for words and don't bother to explain. Speaking of that: does *your* "might very well equalize each other" perhaps be the same as most people's "it hasn't the chance of a snowflake in hell to equalize each other"? -Wolfgang |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Macros
Paul J Gans wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction. Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the tiniest movements. A Dyson sphere, or more properly a Dyson shell, is also inherently unstable just as Ringworld is. See wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell I gladly admit that 'inherently stable' might be the wrong word, but please explain what happens in Dyson sphere, where the sun is off center (and sphere and sun initially not moving against each other) and contrast that to what happens to a ringworld under the same conditions. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rainy day macros | Troy Piggins[_43_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | October 13th 10 12:03 AM |
Insect macros | Douglas[_6_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 44 | March 7th 08 01:32 PM |
40D NOSE MACROS! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 8 | January 20th 08 05:45 AM |
40D NOSE MACROS! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | January 20th 08 05:45 AM |
some macros | Rutger | Digital Photography | 1 | May 2nd 06 07:50 PM |