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.

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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