Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

Yeah that sort of thing I learned back in middle school and high school chemistry class, not new at all, definetely not anything mind blowing as you try to make it sound. What else you got? Are you now trying to save your image by portraying yourself as ascientific genius? Because you're failing at it miserably.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

In other words? You got no proof, you got no answer. Only a stubborn belief without any actual basis or understanding of how images are projected through light/laser. That's all you had to say. Thank you.

reply to post by Question


Unless, you have mastered out how to see through someone else's eyes and hear through someone else's ears, then in all physical reality, it is quite personal, isn't it? Now why don't you try to prove someone saw and heard what he or she states was not seen and heard? Or let it go, because it can be neither proved nor disproved due to subjectivity always naturally occurring.

Unless, you are civil, reasonable, and logical in the future, expect no future responses.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Question

 

Unless, you have mastered out how to see through someone else's eyes and hear through someone else's ears, then in all physical reality, it is quite personal, isn't it? Now why don't you try to prove someone saw and heard what he or she states was not seen and heard? Or let it go, because it can be neither proved nor disproved due to subjectivity always naturally occurring.

Unless, you are civil, reasonable, and logical in the future, expect no future responses.

yadda yadda yadda. Again, take your own advice since, as mentioned before, you were the first one to attack everyone here who didn't agree with you. As for my responses regarding hollographic images? They've all been logical and I've explained them time and time again, I've posted videos, and I've posted images. You choose to be blind to the reality of these images. It is not subjective, it is not conjecture, it is not speculation. It's fact, a fact you choose to ignore. I'm glad you're choosing to stop your responses because everyone here who actually has any brains knows and understand the idiocy of your arguments that you try to pass off as "proof". Shall we discuss the existence of the tooth fairy next? (sarcasm)

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by Question]

reply to post by CaptnCrunch




I seriously hope you're kidding.

"temporary opague transducence h20" lmao

[edit on 1/24/2008 by SeekerOfKnowledge]

I still see no answer, scientific or not, to the question of how an image created by light of any kind can be made darker than the medium it's projected onto. There are other difficulties that could possibly (but highly unlikely) be overcome but this one stands as proof that no images even partially convincing could be projected against a background of clear morning sky.

But the thread isn't really about answers or science is it

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I still see no answer, scientific or not, to the question of how an image created by light of any kind can be made darker than the medium it's projected onto. There are other difficulties that could possibly (but highly unlikely) be overcome but this one stands as proof that no images even partially convincing could be projected against a background of clear morning sky.

But the thread isn't really about answers or science is it

You are correct and this has been pointed out to the OP numerous times. Not to mention the fact that it would be very difficult for a hollogram to accurately recreate the shadow behavior as well as the luminosity and glare effect of an solid reflective object such as the metal structure of a plane. This behavior cannot be replicated by hollograms. There can be a predetermined aesthetic behavior that can be done with 3d computer renderings. But it would be blatantly obvious that it wouldn't match with the one in the actual, natural setting. Add to that your statement above, and the hollogram theory falls apart.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

But the thread isn't really about answers or science is it

Yes and no. It is about how far science has come with holography to determine possibility if not probablity for this discussion.

It definitely exists. Unless anyone has an inside track to secret projects of the DOD and Pentagon, we have no way of knowing for certain when they can and cannot do with technology they have developed.

Since they have sophisticated nueclear physics to develop DEW, they could certainly have developed a highly sophisticated laser tech for holography.

My contention has been holography has been available for an number of years, and may well be developed to perform what we have never seen performed in public. That makes it possible. Probabiliy is not an issue in this discussion.

My contention is that anyone who has previously seen holographic images in person would immediately identify one as such and 90% of the rest of the population would note strange anomalies at least.

The big question -
How can an image produced by projected light be made darker than the background?
Think about what 'black' actually is and find a way to actually project blackness if you can.

That would imply the alleged technology can absorb photons selectively in a free-floating medium IE pseudo-science of the worst kind.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Then I take it, your opinion is that it would be impossible. If so, fine, Everyone is always entitled to their opinions as long as they are not wrong in facts.

Oh I'm very serious about holograms. I have studied holograms almost my entire life. Orionstars is very right about them and their powers. When I was seven my aunt fell off a boat and couldn't swim and nearly drowned. The doctors used holograms to save her.

If you break down the word it's very easy to understand why it is capable of such elaborate usefullness.

Holo - nothing inside.
Gram - a unit of measurement used to indicate something measured.

So what you have is a unit of measurement with nothing inside. All you need is a bunch of these "grams" and any level of hologram is possible to acheive. I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Anyway, I think that holograms will one day save the world. Good night.

Originally posted by CaptnCrunch
Oh I'm very serious about holograms. I have studied holograms almost my entire life. Orionstars is very right about them and their powers. When I was seven my aunt fell off a boat and couldn't swim and nearly drowned. The doctors used holograms to save her.

If you break down the word it's very easy to understand why it is capable of such elaborate usefullness.

Holo - nothing inside.
Gram - a unit of measurement used to indicate something measured.

So what you have is a unit of measurement with nothing inside. All you need is a bunch of these "grams" and any level of hologram is possible to acheive. I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Anyway, I think that holograms will one day save the world. Good night.

Oh my LORD! I'm still chuckling here! Seriously, i see your post as more or less thread-sabotage! But it's so damn FUNNY! The drowning bit especially!

Originally posted by OrionStars

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

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?

You can not compare smog in Manhattan and a theater screen.

The reason you see a white light going to the screen is, that ALL the colours are IN it.

Yes, you are right, this light would not be visible in daylight, but something else would happen as well. The movie would be much less visible in daylight. It would be pale. That's why you need darkness for the movie to look good and again you see the light coming from the projector.

But the main reason you can not compare a theater screen to manhattan smog is, that in a theater you have something to stop the light and reflect off it.

Smog is more or less homogenous, getting a lower and lower density as you go higher. And there is nothing there to stop the light. If a powerfull enouhg laser was used, the entire beam would be visible, getting less visible as it was going higher.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

Well, lasers are powerfull enough for the entire beam to be visible, as it refracts from the atmosphere.

But you are right, without something to reflect it, it will be useless.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Until waves refract, no color will be seen.

Oh, is this what you meant when you say "adding colour to the beam"?

If you mean surfaces only reflecting one colour of light, giving the surfaces an appearance of having this colour, this only works with white light.
And that's because white light already contains all colours. When it hits a red object for example, colour ISN'T added, but rather all the colour other than red is absorbed, while the red is reflected.

Lasers DON'T work that way. Lasers are monochromatic light sources. I already explained that.

You're mixing stuff up.

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is also elementary school science or was. If it no longer is, it should be.

Yes, and you obviously don't understand it, and this is not an oppinion, it's a fact. Just look at what you wrote below:

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

WT*?!? How the hell does one ADD colour to light?

How the hell does one ADD colour to a laser beam?

Every laser beam is monochromatic, meaning only ONE wavelength, one colour.

I already told you you can not use filters on lasers to change their colour.

There is NO WAY of changing the colour of a laser! Other than the one with a space craft i mentioned before (doppler effect) but this is useless.


A laser has a colour (wavelength) BEFORE it refracts or reflects from ANYTHING!

White light has ALL the visible colours in it, and when a filter is used, all the colours but the one in the filter get stopped. Only the colour the same as the filter will go through it.

This is NOT adding colour to light. This is taking ALL THE OTHER colours AWAY!


This is why it's called a "filter", not a "colour adder". because it STOPS colours and lets only one pass.

Again, if you use a laser on a filter of a different colour, the laser beam won't pass. But if strong enough it will start burning a hole through.
This is how laser protection goggles work For green lasers you need red goggles. If red goggles would just "add" red colour to a green laser beam, my eyes wouldn't really be protected, now would they?


If you don't understand this, how can we take you seriosly about holograms?

A laser has a colour (wavelength) BEFORE it refracts or reflects from ANYTHING!

White light has ALL the visible colours in it, and when a filter is used, all the colours but the one in the filter get stopped. Only the colour the same as the filter will go through it.

This is NOT adding colour to light. This is taking ALL THE OTHER colours AWAY!


This is why it's called a "filter", not a "colour adder". because it STOPS colours and lets only one pass.

A+ description...

Visible light has a wavelength between 400 nanometers (Blue, strongest) to 700 nm (Red, lowest)

eosweb.larc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by CaptnCrunch
Don't worry Orionstars! I believe you!
.
When Patrick Swazy appeared as a ghost, he was not, in fact, a hologram, but used what we in the movie business call "temporary opague transducence h20". You drink an ionized source of water, and for exactly three minutes your body becomes, in essence, "see-thru".
.
Now, as for the Star Wars movies, you are correct. They did use holograms there. In fact, despite claims to the contrary, Ewan McGregor, the actor who played Obi-Wan, never acted in the films. Only a hologram of him was used.

Thank you, Captn Crunch.

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.

Oh no you didn't!?!?

And then you want to be taken seriously?

You call facts "oppinions", you call using logic "taking sides", and then you believe someone who is so obviously trying to make fun of you?!?


I mean, even if you still don't understand the difference between computer generated 3D images and holograms....


Just look at what he wrote:

Originally posted by CaptnCrunch
Not many people know this, but Casablanca relied heavily on holograms. Of course the technology was primitive back then, hence the black and white look of the holograms, but those were some great holograms. If anyone wants to learn more about holograms in movies, please PM me.

I mean, could it be more obvious?!?


How bout you go add some colour to a laser beam perhaps?

Jesus!

[edit on 25/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by Calculon386
A+ description...

Visible light has a wavelength between 400 nanometers (Blue, strongest) to 700 nm (Red, lowest)

Thank you.

But it's basic stuff.

Still, this guy just doesn't get it.. Or maybe he doesn't want to.

I even suggest an experiment to see if laser light can block other light, to see if holograms could be non see-through (even tho i know the outcome) and he says it would still be just my oppinion.


We are talking about lasers and holograms here, which i just happen to know a bit about, since i work with lasers, but no... That's just my oppinion...

Even a verifiable experiment is obviously just an oppinion.

Can you understand my frustration?


Discussions are supposed to lead somewhere, not just go in little circles, repeating the original belief, wheather it is right or wrong...

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The big question -
How can an image produced by projected light be made darker than the background?
Think about what 'black' actually is and find a way to actually project blackness if you can.

That would imply the alleged technology can absorb photons selectively in a free-floating medium IE pseudo-science of the worst kind.

Thank you!


This is exactly what i wanted to proove with my experiment. You can not use light to make something appear darker. And you can not use light to block other light.


With light you need darkness and three sources of light: RGB (Red, Green, Blue) That's how monitors or any projectors work. You can create any colour out of these three in darkness.

When printing on a white paper it's slightly different you need four colours: CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK)


Daylight is more or less white, but there are no blacK lasers, for gawds sake!

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

I read each and everyone of your posts, no matter how painfull your "science" is in them. Maybe you should too. Maybe then you wouldn't be repeating the same nonsense more than once - like adding colour to light.


Anyway...

My experiment was meant to test if it is possible to create a non see-through hologram using lasers, by taking pictures of a laser beam in different light conditions, to see if it eventually becomes transparent.

The point being: Can light stop other light of passing through?

I made the pictures last night. Now i have some work to do, then i can go through the pictures, and post them.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

I made photos. Are photos subjective oppinions?

Originally posted by OrionStars
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?

You are giving me a headache. Are you just trying to divert, or do you really want to KNOW if it is possible or not?

I mean, maybe you're just like the new agers and other wanna-believers, and you just want to stick to your belief, no matter what logic or facts suggest.

But so far i have given you the benefit of a doubt so many times, that i'm starting to doubt my own sanity.


Are you interested in VERIFIABLE facts or not?

[edit on 25/1/08 by deezee]

Apparently Gorillaz did a tour with 3D characters.

Originally posted by OrionStars

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.

Smog levels and humidity levels change all the time. I wouldn't think they would schedule a massive attack and change their mind at the last second because of clear skies.

However, this is good out of the box thinking . If you wanted to take this hypothesis one step further, you could try and find out what the smog and/or humidity levels were on 9/11 at each of the crash sites and see if those conditions would be good enough to cause defraction of laser light.