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: 16
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
You'll see why I was proposing a new technology now

I called it DASAR
Dark Amplification by Stimulated Absorption of Radiation

Think it might catch on ?




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by OrionStars
Sorry but you're not from this planet are you


Where'd you get this idea of invisible light beams - not even elementary school science books could be blamed for that.

See if the source of that info can explain the method of projecting dark with a light beam for me




You are quite rude. I am relating elementary school basic science. Did they not teach the same when you attended elementary school? No one sees light waves. No one sees sound waves. No one sees invisible to the naked eye waves. They see reflection of light waves off physical matter. They see colors if the physical matter happens to refract light waves. Did you never experiment with prisms just to enjoy the refraction of invisible light waves? I certainly have many times.

Do not insult my and others intelligence again with your snide remarks. I did not personally attack you. You never seem to have any qualms about personally attacking others, when they refuse to agree with you based on facts, particularly scientific facts, not pseudo-science "facts".



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, the sky is never clear. There is quite often a sky blue colored background with white clouds here and there. There is the constrast to other colors. Blue screen or green screen or even purple screen.



Originally posted by OrionStars
I will simply call this gut instinct. I have a gut instinct the perperpetrators could not have pulled it off on an overcast day.


What are these two quotes supposed to mean?

Projecting against the sky as the canvas?!?

Now you've gone beyond holograms and into pseudo science..


You can not project something against the sky. You can project images on clouds with powerfull lasers (10-20W) but the sky?

Besides, the sky is BRIGHT! Lasers can be brighter than that, yes, but then they wouldn't give the appearance of a darker object.


An airplane is an object that reflects light depending on the angle and it's shape and colour. An airplane in the air is always darker than the sky.

How the hell does one do darker with lasers?!?

Is it similiar to adding colour to a laser beam?



Please stop guessing and give an answer, if you think it's possible.

If it is possible, i would love to know! I would make TONS of money off of it.

So please tell me how one makes something appear darker than the background using light?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by Retikx
Everyone also keeps saying that if a hologram was used that it would be sketchy and unrealistic.

Actually we were not saying that a hologram would have been sketchy and unrealistic.

We are saying something else entirely.

You can not create an appearance of something darker than the background, using light!

All the holograms or projections we've seen so far require almost complete darkness behind them.


The holograms I referenced were not. None of them were projected into darkness. Why do you keep ignoring what is an actual fact? They had darker, but not all black, constrast behind and around them. That would be necessary for sharper clarity. The better the constrast the better the visual clarity.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, the sky is never clear. There is quite often a sky blue colored background with white clouds here and there. There is the constrast to other colors. Blue screen or green screen or even purple screen.



Originally posted by OrionStars
I will simply call this gut instinct. I have a gut instinct the perperpetrators could not have pulled it off on an overcast day.


What are these two quotes supposed to mean?


Are you familiar with background contrast? You keep saying you are. They you ask me the above question as if you are not actually familiar with it at all.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Did you never experiment with prisms just to enjoy the refraction of invisible light waves? I certainly have many times.

Do not insult my and others intelligence again with your snide remarks. I did not personally attack you. You never seem to have any qualms about personally attacking others, when they refuse to agree with you based on facts, particularly scientific facts, not pseudo-science "facts".

But surely you can see where the real pseudo-science is coming from (not me). If you enoyed the refraction of invisible light waves, how is it you could see them?

Visible light is - visible

Laser light is coherent, monochromatic light IE every wave is in phase with all the others which is only possile if they are all precisely the same frequency which means the same single colour.

It is impossible to project darkness with a visible light beam of any kind and that's a fact you can rely on.


[edit on 25/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You'll see why I was proposing a new technology now

I called it DASAR
Dark Amplification by Stimulated Absorption of Radiation

Think it might catch on ?


Hmm, either DASAR or LASAR (Light Attenuation by Stimulated Annihilation of Radiation).

I don't know. We can call it anti-laser during the pre production phase and then decide on the final name.

Hmm, now that i think of it, Dark Amplification sounds better, but the second A should probably stand for "Annihilation", since we'll be using anti-photons to pull it off...


But what to do with the virtual pion and anti-pion pairs?
Hmm.. Who cares, we can solve that in the post production.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



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.

Since you KNOW it DEFINITELY exists, post the info to reflect the fact.


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.

And since you know it definitely exists, you must have an inside track so please post the information you claim to have available to you.

These are your words and are clear as day to their meaning, so please don't try and hide behind them, instead stand behind them.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee
What are these two quotes supposed to mean?


Are you familiar with background contrast? You keep saying you are. They you ask me the above question as if you are not actually familiar with it at all.

I wrote an entire post why it wouldn't work. But you picked out this one sentence and instead of answering it, you are creating wild speculations out of it.

I asked you if you had an explanation on HOW and said that i would love to hear it, but instead you choose to try to be condescending.


You have no idea what i do for work (and for fun). Because of what i do, i have to know almost everything there is to know about computers, electronics, visualisation systems, stereoscopy, lasers and even a lot about physics and science in general.

I can create a huge 3D object floating in front of you in the middle of your room (not hologram, but real 3D), with a separate laser projection on the walls and then connect everything to your brain via an EEG so you can move the floating thing around the room with your "thoughts", while playing stereo music on a piano with your left and right brain hemisphere.

And i'm not kidding about any of the things i mentioned.

It's an assembly of just some of the crazy things people pay me to design and build for them. All of them have worked, only not connected together as in the example above. (still possible and easy)


So PLEASE don't start making assumptions about me.



Instead, maybe answer some of the questions in a way that would support your theory, if you can...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Question

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


"black" can be considered the absence of light/colors where as "white" is considered the presence of all colors at the same time. By the way this is not just an opinion, this is a text book definition back when I was taking an art course back in college.

So in retrospect, no, it's not possible for a hollogram to project black shadows on a lit room. The only way for dark shadows to show up clearly is to have the room/background darkened to highlight the shadows on the image.


Would an appropriate analogy be as follows: ???
Most printers don't have White ink so when a photo has to have white in it, you must have white paper and the white is where there is no ink.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee
What are these two quotes supposed to mean?


Are you familiar with background contrast? You keep saying you are. They you ask me the above question as if you are not actually familiar with it at all.


Instead, maybe answer some of the questions in a way that would support your theory, if you can...


That would be impossible Deezee. Because it would require him to admit defeat and acknowledge what we've been trying to tell him over and over again.

I have a feeling that, for him, this is no longer about "facts" as he's stated, but more of a "who can withstand the longest" competition and somehow still save face. Facts be dam**ed it seems despite the many facts we've posted supporting our claims and how little he's done to support his.

He wants his pseudo science to be correct so badly, despite how ridiculously outlandish it is and how little it's based on reality that he's willing to continue making silly claims, derailing the topics and attacking anyone that doesn't agree with him. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Would an appropriate analogy be as follows: ???
Most printers don't have White ink so when a photo has to have white in it, you must have white paper and the white is where there is no ink.


Exactly!

When working with light, you need darkness. From darkness you can make ANY colour using just three basic ones - R, G, B.

White is all of them on max, black is all of them on zero.


You can not use the same principle on a piece of paper.

There you need the opposite approach - CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK)

There, white is the absence of all colours and black is the presence of all of them (on the best printers) or just the black one (on most printers).


So to project an image in daylight you would need a CMYK laser system, which is impossible.

There are no blacK lasers.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retikx
Everyone keeps on saying "against a clear sky" as ive said repeatedly the medium that **COULD** have been used in this scenario is an enormous aerosol cloud specifically formulated for holography.

What evidence do you have to suggest this even exists????? If you have no evidence, keep in mind anyone can make up any pretend technology that can do anything.


veryone also keeps saying that if a hologram was used that it would be sketchy and unrealistic. YES that is correct the hologram would have been no where near perfect, it only had to give the vague outline of a fast moving jet for a few seconds to convince a few people on the ground.

Actually there are tons of photos and videos that show, in high detail, planes at the WTC and unless you can prove they're all fakes, this idea is a no go.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

I wrote an entire post why it wouldn't work. But you picked out this one sentence and instead of answering it, you are creating wild speculations out of it.


You have written more than a few lengthy posts to explain your opinion of why it would not work. We already gathered you disagee it is possible. You have given partial facts and opinion reasons why you think it is impossible. Yet, there are contradictory facts presented by others saying is possible.

At this point, wisdom dictates to agree to disagree. None of us knows what the DOD and Pentagon have for development in laser, including holography, technology. Until they publicly reveal it, no one, not directly privvy to the development success, will know for certain.

We know it is possible. Holograms have become highly sophisticated compared to when I was growing up back in the late 40s and early 50s. I have watched the sophistication as it was researched and developed, plus, put on display. I have long-term known that technology, held in secrecy by US bureaucrats, has always been carefully guarded secrets. In others words, something could be developed and usable 30 to 50 years ago, and the public will not find out about it until 20 or more years later if ever.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Question

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


"black" can be considered the absence of light/colors where as "white" is considered the presence of all colors at the same time. By the way this is not just an opinion, this is a text book definition back when I was taking an art course back in college.

So in retrospect, no, it's not possible for a hollogram to project black shadows on a lit room. The only way for dark shadows to show up clearly is to have the room/background darkened to highlight the shadows on the image.


Would an appropriate analogy be as follows: ???
Most printers don't have White ink so when a photo has to have white in it, you must have white paper and the white is where there is no ink.


That is a very good question. I've never actually thought about that. I've always used white paper so I never wondered about this. I have had to print transparencies for a public speaking class once and the areas that were lighter on the images I printed, as well as the "white" areas on my computer were not printed.

That being said though, you have to wonder if it's the software as well. For example, in photoshop you have white color as well as a "transparent" layer, so you have to be careful with what you're working with.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I spent more than an hour yesturday night and another today, making pictures of a powerfull laser beam, as an experiment, if it is posible for light to block other light from showing through.

Most of us here already know it is impossible, and the other two don't care about the facts anyway, so it would seem i threw my time away.


If anyone is still interested, i can upload the images to image shack (after resizing) and post links.


Otherwise, the crazyness here is starting to get to me and i'm thinking about giving up. I wanted to add some facts to the thread, answering the question if such technology exists, but it looks like that wasn't even close to the real purpose of this thread.

It would seem it's just another "Agree with me or you're ignorant! Facts not welcome!" thread.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 



So please tell me how one makes something appear darker than the background using light?


By using the large hadron super collider and firing anti-protons into a heavy deuterium nucleus, you can create what is known as a micro-black hole which lasts approx. .000013 nanoseconds. During this time, all light beyond the event horizon would disappear and would create a black spot. So there's your 1 black pixel. Do this a few billion more times and you can create enough dark spots to generate a dark image against a light sky. Easy as pie.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The twin towers were hit by planes not laser generated holograms, a huge sound accompanies planes you know. The only good static holograms (if that's what you can call them since they use mirrors) are by the Vizoo here's some links.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by Retikx
Everyone also keeps saying that if a hologram was used that it would be sketchy and unrealistic.

Actually we were not saying that a hologram would have been sketchy and unrealistic.

We are saying something else entirely.

You can not create an appearance of something darker than the background, using light!

All the holograms or projections we've seen so far require almost complete darkness behind them.


The holograms I referenced were not. None of them were projected into darkness. Why do you keep ignoring what is an actual fact? They had darker, but not all black, constrast behind and around them. That would be necessary for sharper clarity. The better the constrast the better the visual clarity.


The laser light was noticeably brighter then the surrounding ambient light level.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deezee

I wrote an entire post why it wouldn't work. But you picked out this one sentence and instead of answering it, you are creating wild speculations out of it.


You have written more than a few lengthy posts to explain your opinion of why it would not work. We already gathered you disagee it is possible. You have given partial facts and opinion reasons why you think it is impossible. Yet, there are contradictory facts presented by others saying is possible.

At this point, wisdom dictates to agree to disagree. None of us knows what the DOD and Pentagon have for development in laser, including holography, technology. Until they publicly reveal it, no one, not directly privvy to the development success, will know for certain.

We know it is possible. Holograms have become highly sophisticated compared to when I was growing up back in the late 40s and early 50s. I have watched the sophistication as it was researched and developed, plus, put on display. I have long-term known that technology, held in secrecy by US bureaucrats, has always been carefully guarded secrets. In others words, something could be developed and usable 30 to 50 years ago, and the public will not find out about it until 20 or more years later if ever.


Partial facts? ROFL! OMG! Jeez you are delusional. If anything, he's presented more complete facts than you could ever present supporting your idea. The fact that you even think it's just an "opinion" is laughable considering that what has been stated over and over again are not opinions, but the basic understanding of how light/laser projections work.

The only one here with "just an opinion" is you considering you have yet to provide anything that shows a hollographic image that is so dense it can actually be confused for an actual object, not only that, but also have it accurately replicate shadow and luminosity behavior from it's environment. Then again, maybe I'm putting too much stake in you actually understanding this considering you obviously didn't even understand basic principles of CGI in movies until pointed out here.

Everything that has been stated by Deezee as well as jfj and what I've said can actually be found in books both for college and high school. So it can hardly be called "just an opinion" we didn't "just" come up with this. You on the other hand continue to believe this idiocy of a fully realistic non-see through hollographic image that can easilly be confused for the real thing even during daylight, and without actually understanding the technology behind it. So instead you choose to attack us and anyone who sees the obvious flaws in your arguments.




top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join