It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Since you are obviously the authority on lasers, I have a quick question.

Well, i'm not really an authority on lasers. They are just one of the things i sometimes have to design and build. Otherwise i build pretty much anything someone wants me to, as long as it is possible and they are willing to pay for it.

But lasers are one of my hobbies, and i know a lot of people who really know all there is to know about them, and i try to learn from them as much as possible.



Originally posted by jfj123
I've seen astronomy profs use green lasers to show students where certain stars are in the night sky. Could you describe how that works? In other words, obviously the laser is not bouncing off the star thousands of light years away so what is causing the "refraction"?? -not sure if thats the right word.

The reason they use green lasers is, that the human eye is much more sensitive to green light. So the laser can be less powerfull and appear much brighter than a more powerfull red laser would.

The green portable lasers (well at least the affordable ones) are around 200mW. This is the same power i will now use in my experiment, only that mine will be red.

The problem with pointing at stars is, that if you do it with a finger, it doesn't really help all that much.

But if you point a laser at one, it's beam will show the direction in which to look at. A 200mW laser beam will not go very far, depending on the conditions. In fog, you can sometimes clearly see where it appears to "stop".

But the beam of the laser refracting of the molecules in the air is enough to show exactly where to look at for multiple persons at once, even if they are standing a few meters appart.

Is this what you meant?


Anyway, my laser is now charged and i'll go and take those pics...




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I simply posted what the scientists in the article stated. Are you saying they're wrong? Here is your post. Please explain why a water source changes everything including the scientists statement of the 1 sqr. mile space mirror.


It had nothing to do with what they said. They were talking mirrors. You agreed with them.

I was referring to smog and humidity hanging over Manhattan. Humidity and smog are excellent light beam reflectors and refractors for hologram use. Just like laser light shows using smoke machines to make laser light beams visible for the human eye.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 



Well, i'm not really an authority on lasers. They are just one of the things i sometimes have to design and build.


Design + Build = authority



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I was referring to smog and humidity hanging over Manhattan. Humidity and smog are excellent light beam reflectors and refractors for hologram use. Just like laser light shows using smoke machines to make laser light beams visible for the human eye.


But in this case, the entire laser beam leading up to the hologram would be visible!

You can't make a part of the beam invisible and another visible. It just doesn't work that way...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


Thanks for the laser lesson. Now I'm going to be a pain and ask another question. No hurry in responding.

What would happen to a laser entering or leaving our atmosphere? Let's say any high powered laser such as the ones fired at the moon for distance measurements? let me know if you need more info. There is a point to all this but I can't seem to find some of the info I'm looking for so I was hoping you might know. Thanks a lot !!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What would happen to a laser entering or leaving our atmosphere? Let's say any high powered laser such as the ones fired at the moon for distance measurements? let me know if you need more info. There is a point to all this but I can't seem to find some of the info I'm looking for so I was hoping you might know. Thanks a lot !!


Let's say we have a clear sky.. If a visible laser was used, it would show a visible beam in the atmosphere in the night, even without much fog or smog, due to it's high power.

Once it would leave the atmosphere, the beam becomes invisible as you probably know.. In vacuum lasers are not visible (unlike in the movies) but can travel much further because of this.

About the distance measurement to the moon. As far as i understand, they put a reflector there.

I doubt this reflector would make the laser beam return to earth like a mirror would. Even if it was a mirror, the angle might be off.

So they probably used a more "opaque" reflector, probably white.

Also the laser used must have been IR.

The "imperfect" reflector wouldn't create another beam, but would just glow.

Then they just measure the time difference from the switch on to the reflection detected, and using the speed of light, calculate the distance and halve it - then you get the distance to the moon.

Also, they probably accounted for the lower speed of light in air, to get an even more exact result. Not sure about that...


Is this what you were looking for? I wonder where it's leading...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Laser going slower through air? LMAO! I better get some stock in textbook suppliers- if this laser "expert" is right we need to replace ALL of them .....



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Laser going slower through air? LMAO! I better get some stock in textbook suppliers- if this laser "expert" is right we need to replace ALL of them .....

Actually, the text books are just fine..

c is the speed of light in vacuum.

When light travels through something transparent it travels differently.

In the air this difference is very small, which is why i said it might not matter for the calculation, but there are still molecules it has to "pass through".

Do you know how light travels through transparent objects? One explanation is this: It doesn't just slide through. A photon hits an atom. The atom "absorbs" it, and it's electrons go into a higher energy state. This state is unstable, so the electrons jump back into position and while doing so, emmit another photon.

This way atoms "pass" photons to each other.

This is an old theory.. There are other, better explanations based on light as an electromagnetic wave.


Weapon grade lasers have a separate laser to measure and correct the focusing for refractions in the air.

Some newer million mega Watt lasers are so powerfull they change the air they go through, so focusing is not a problem there.

There's nothing wrong with the physics books, maybe you just didn't understand them correctly.


EDIT: Maybe you can learn something from here: Wikipedia: Speed of light


The speed of light when it passes through a transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, is slower than its speed in a vacuum. The ratio of c to the observed phase velocity is called the refractive index of the medium. General relativity explains how a gravitational potential can affect the apparent speed of distant light in a vacuum, but locally light in a vacuum always passes an observer at a rate of c.


[edit on 24/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I managed to make some nice photos of the laser beam in different light conditions. Some of them are overexposed due to the power of the laser source, but most are fine..

Since it's 2:30 here and i have to work tomorow, i'll go to sleep now and go through the pictures in the morning, then upload the best ones to imageshack.

I was afraid this transparency of the beam would be less obvious in the photos and in some it really is, which could explain why those holograms look more solid in videos than they would if you were there.

But on some photos you can see the background through the beam.


P.S. Damn, i should have used protection goggles.. Everything is blue now..
Oh well, it'll pass.

Good night!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptnCrunch
 


reply to post by CaptnCrunch
 


Thank you, Captn Crunch. Actually, it was "door and wall" that was in question. Somehow Patrick Swayze jumping into a solid object simply will not "disappear" him on the other side of what looks to be solid. I would have to see one solid piece impacting another, while leaving no imprint or hole or physical body on the same side, is too difficult to realistically accept.

I looked at the special effects in "Star Wars", of which the holograms were sensational. Not particalarly realistic, because they lacked depth and density, but sensational nevertheless. I looked at the trade show holograms, and could only think what a long way they came with holography in such a short time. It was a short time between discovery of holography back in the 40s and 50s and "Star Wars" in living color. Even less time to develop what was done at the trade shows.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Laser going slower through air? LMAO! I better get some stock in textbook suppliers- if this laser "expert" is right we need to replace ALL of them .....


Actually, the only constant with speed of light occurs when being sent through a vacuum with no particle matter. Einstein did realize that. I seriously doubt he would be taken back when the speed of light slows down outside a vacuum, as stated in the following article. I always thought that was elementary school science.

Just what is in that air which normally would not be there by nature and human made industrial waste by-products aka pollution?

I located the following highly interesting article:

www.hno.harvard.edu...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

But in this case, the entire laser beam leading up to the hologram would be visible!

You can't make a part of the beam invisible and another visible. It just doesn't work that way...


When you go to an indoor theater or drive-in, do you see a stream of colors all the way to the screen? Or do you see a bright white light, in the darkness, from the projector, and then a picture on the screen? It is a light that would normally not be seen in daylight, particularly on a bright sunny day at a drive-in theater. Without the sun shining on the screen, a picture would still show on the screen. Faded but there.

That is the same with all light waves no one can actually see. They are invisible to the eye when they are streaming. Until waves reflect on solid matter, no light will be seen. Until waves refract, no color will be seen. That is also elementary school science or was. If it no longer is, it should be.

With laser, unless colored for some reason, no waves will be seen until they hit something to reflect, and, then, refract them for color if producing color is the intent.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Question

Ok, so you've gone from uneducated irrational thinking, to labeling people, to making stupid assumptions about what you THINK people here were intending to say, all in the span of 12 pages. Jesus christ! you switch personalities faster than Kerry flip flops!


So you continue to misinterpret what I said and meant merely for an excuse to rant and personally attack. From this moment on, please address my posts with civility, or do not address them at all. No one needs your rudeness. Least of all, the posters you so rudely address.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Question

Ok, so you've gone from uneducated irrational thinking, to labeling people, to making stupid assumptions about what you THINK people here were intending to say, all in the span of 12 pages. Jesus christ! you switch personalities faster than Kerry flip flops!


So you continue to misinterpret what I said and meant merely for an excuse to rant and personally attack. From this moment on, please address my posts with civility, or do not address them at all. No one needs your rudeness. Least of all, the posters you so rudely address.



Maybe you should be the one to take your own advice first considering you were the one that first started attacking everyone here who doesn't agree with you.

Don't preach tolerance unless you're gonna actually practice it.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You still haven't answered if you want me to do the experiment or not.

jfj123 on the other hand U2Ud me and said he would love to see the results.


The way this discussion has been moving, I may not have caught anything about any experiment.

You are still misinterpreting what I meant pertaining to anyone taking sides expressing differing opinions. Since it has not been properly interpreted by you and at least one other, there is no use dwelling on such irrevelance any further.

This is another bit of reality. People, claiming they have "facts", are not always in the objective position to realize their "facts" may be nothing but what they always possessed - subjective opinions.

As for experiments, if no one else can arrive as the same conclusion you do using your methodology, all you still have left is personal opinion hypothesis. Are are you aware of that?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

I am looking at the mouse video. It is indeed semi-transparent. Actually at certain points the head fades out almost completely. I'm not sure of the medium or projector type. Also, you'll notice at the end the mouse slowly goes from semi-transparent to completely gone.

In the second video, the rotating globe is also semi-transparent.

The other 3 videos are also semi-transparent.

Thats all I get out of the videos. Sorry.


I agree to disagree. It is nothing but a metaphorical subjective two-lane road leading to nowhere.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


ROFL! great! what will you do next? diss the scientific method because using it won't come to the same conclusions as yours? who the heck do you think you are to claim your so called "truth" is more "valid" than ours? Lets not forget the FACT you have provided ZERO proof of existing hollographic images that are dense enough that you can't see through them AND that can accurately replicate the same shadow and luminous behavior as would be expected of its environment. We've provided you PROOF! NOT opnions! not conjecture! yet YOU keep ignoring it! Talk about closed minded!

My god you're about as bad as creationists who keep insisting their un-scientific diatribe actually has scientific merit! Do yourself a favor and stop posting because now you're just posting nonsense and you're going to make yourself look even sillier than you already are.

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

I am looking at the mouse video. It is indeed semi-transparent. Actually at certain points the head fades out almost completely. I'm not sure of the medium or projector type. Also, you'll notice at the end the mouse slowly goes from semi-transparent to completely gone.

In the second video, the rotating globe is also semi-transparent.

The other 3 videos are also semi-transparent.

Thats all I get out of the videos. Sorry.


I agree to disagree. It is nothing but a metaphorical subjective two-lane road leading to nowhere.


There is no subjective, there's no speculation, no conjecture. Only you being so stubborn or incredibly blind to accept what's in front of you. Either that or you don't understand the meanings of "opacity" "visibility" "translucencly" "luminosity" "dense" et al.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


I have related the mandatory scientific methods of experimentation and peer review of same for validation purposes. Obviously, you are unaware of correct scientific procedures.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


Get this through your head. I will not attest to anything I did not personally see or hear. If that does not suit you, tough.




top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join