Is holography currently available for use and misuse?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars

Again, the topic only dealt with the possibly based on known technology

Which we have discussed and have determined that this is not possible.

Wrong. We, as group positing to this discussion, do not have a consensus of opinion. Therefore, your statement is false.

I agree, once again, to disagree with your opinion, and any other poster holding your same opinion on the impossibility. I and others have agreed it is possible. That is all this discussion was ever limited to handling - possible or impossible.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by OrionStars

Again, the topic only dealt with the possibly based on known technology

Which we have discussed and have determined that this is not possible.

Wrong. We, as group positing to this discussion, do not have a consensus of opinion. Therefore, your statement is false.

I agree, once again, to disagree with your opinion, and any other poster holding your same opinion on the impossibility. I and others have agreed it is possible. That is all this discussion was ever limited to handling - possible or impossible.

Fair enough but what makes you think it is possible? There must be some reason you believe it is possible, right?

Originally posted by jfj123

Fair enough but what makes you think it is possible? There must be some reason you believe it is possible, right?

I have already responded to that, more than a few times, in the many pages of this discussion. From the way I worded my question, I, nor anyone else, was required to give any reason for opinion one way or the other. I also made that clear more than a few times. Giving a reason for opinion was always voluntary for anyone responding.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Fair enough but what makes you think it is possible? There must be some reason you believe it is possible, right?

I have already responded to that, more than a few times, in the many pages of this discussion. From the way I worded my question, I, nor anyone else, was required to give any reason for opinion one way or the other. I also made that clear more than a few times. Giving a reason for opinion was always voluntary for anyone responding.

You never need to give anyone your reason for any opinion about any subject, anywhere. That being said, you've never posted anything except your opinion that the tech exists. You have posted basic info about how lasers and holograms work but you have not shown how that information can be applied to what we are talking about.

Now if you just want to believe it, just because, thats perfectly fine and I don't have a problem with that. Just tell me that you want to believe to believe. I'm just wondering where your belief system originated.

Besides isn't a belief in something with no evidence of it's existence, a philosophical discussion which you said you didn't want to have here?

Originally posted by OrionStars
You appear to have a concrete abstract conception of time being something physically measurable, when it is not and never has been.

Oh, that's what it's about..

Well in that case you misunderstood me. What i said was, that we can not measure ANY dimension, other than by using a tool made by and given meaning to by us humans.

This is what i kept repeating, remember?

And this means, that we decided to give it meaning and we decided how to measure it and what to compare it against.

Of course you can not measure time. This is not what i said. What you can measure (and what i constantly have to) is a frequency of an electrically excited crystal for example.

Since the same cristals will oscilate at the same frequency, no matter where they are, we can use them to measure this thing called time, in different places, and have the same time to agree upon.

Again, this doesn't mean, we are actually measuring time itself, but change instead. The higher the frequency, the more exact this measurement can be. To get an even more exact measurement, we can use a cesium clock, in which case we again aren't measuring time but changes in the cesium isotope.

In fact the second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.


It is very similiar with a meter, which is defined the distance the light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. Before that it was a bar of metal.


This is what i was saying. It was us, that gave these things meaning. It was us, who decided how to measure them (what to compare them against).

And this goes for dimensions, just as well as time. (and yes, i do know the other definitions of dimensions)


So please understand my confusion about the fact, that you were arguing against something, when we were both obviously trying to say the same almost the same thing.

Except of course time being a dimension. That, i know you don't agree on, even tho many of the theories you mentioned so far, classify it as such.

But before you write another lengthy post, disagreeing with me, let me repeat this: Time is sometimes considered as the fourth dimension. This is true, and there is nothing you or me can do about it.

Originally posted by OrionStars
From the way I worded my question, I, nor anyone else, was required to give any reason for opinion one way or the other. I also made that clear more than a few times.

Oh, so now it's an oppinion poll? I would love to see the results of that one.

Still, you have to understand, that some of us are not satisfied by having ungrounded oppinions (AKA beliefs), but want knowledge instead.

Since you seem to love physics very much, you off all people should understand that.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Giving a reason for opinion was always voluntary for anyone responding.

Well, some of us took the liberty, to present reasons for our oppinions, and even cleared up a few misunderstandings along the way. In fact, we even learned a few things from it all. Of course that only works, if you ground your oppinions in logic and facts, but hey, i'm all for freedom of "religion", well beliefs...

Dimension, fourth or otherwise, is not the topic of this discussion. At this point, perhaps Merriam-Webster can clarify the word dimension. Please do note the words space-time continuum not space-time-dimension:

Main Entry: 1di·men·sion
Pronunciation: \də-ˈmen(t)-shən also dī-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin dimension-, dimensio, from dimetiri to measure out, from dis- + metiri to measure — more at measure
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): measure in one direction; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time (2): one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) ; also : a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property (3): the number of elements in a basis of a vector space b: the quality of spatial extension : magnitude, size c: a lifelike or realistic quality d: the range over which or the degree to which something extends : scope —usually used in plural e: one of the elements or factors making up a complete personality or entity : aspect
2obsolete : bodily form or proportions
3: any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also : the power of such a unit
4: wood or stone cut to pieces of specified size
5: a level of existence or consciousness
— di·men·sion·al \-ˈmench-nəl, -ˈmen(t)-shə-nəl\ adjective
— di·men·sion·al·i·ty \-ˌmen(t)-shə-ˈna-lə-tē\ noun
— di·men·sion·al·ly \-ˈmench-nə-lē, -ˈmen(t)-shə-nəl-ē\ adverb
— di·men·sion·less \-ˈmen(t)-shən-ləs\ adjective

Main Entry: fourth dimension
Function: noun
Date: 1875
1: a dimension in addition to length, breadth, and depth; specifically : a coordinate in addition to three rectangular coordinates especially when interpreted as the time coordinate in a space-time continuum
2: something outside the range of ordinary experience
— fourth–dimensional adjective

Since the above is highly off-topic, please discontinue including it in this discussion, unless pertaining to the physical measurement of physical objects or holograms. Please take it to a philosophy discussion, whose members might be interested in discussing it.

Originally posted by deezee

Oh, so now it's an oppinion poll? I would love to see the results of that one.

Not exactly. Opinion polls do not afford people the opportunity to voluntarily qualify their opinions. This discussion did. Taking liberties would be tossing out red herring and ad hominem (logical fallacy tangents).




[edit on 11-2-2008 by OrionStars]

reply to post by OrionStars


From your post

one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time

focus on this part

or four coordinates determining a position in space and time

4 coordinates
3 in space
1 in time
Your own post includes 4 dimensions one of which is time.

You have posted this is off topic previous to your last post and you could have let this go but you wanted to have the last word for some strange feeling of accomplishment. Posting something off topic then telling everyone else they can't so you can win is just silly

reply to post by jfj123


Take away physical objects remotely resembling clocks and calendars, and there is no physical measurement of abstract invisible time. Thus, no abstract dimension called time. It is all in everyone's brain and taught as an abstract concept, using physical objects labeled clock and calendar. Not so, when actually sensing physical objects with one or more of the 5 physical senses. Time is not made of physical matter.

Now, I did politely request that type of abstract philosophical discussion to be withheld. Why are people continuing to be so unreasonable in not honoring that courteous request?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Take away physical objects remotely resembling clocks and calendars, and there is no physical measurement of abstract invisible time.

Take away all units of measure and all you have is an abstract idea of distance and size. Same Same Danielle san.

Thus, no abstract dimension called time. It is all in everyone's brain and taught as an abstract concept, using physical objects labeled clock and calendar. Not so, when actually sensing physical objects with one or more of the 5 physical senses. Time is not made of physical matter.

The distance between 2 points may or may not be made of physical matter.

Now, I did politely request that type of abstract philosophical discussion to be withheld. Why are people continuing to be so unreasonable in not honoring that courteous request?

Because you are insisting on forcing your opinion on us by telling us we are wrong then attempting to prevent us from defending our position by:
Deciding that once YOU'RE done talking, and have gotten your point out, we are off topic and should be silenced. We are no more off topic then you yet you continue to respond OFF TOPIC. Why are we more wrong then you?

Let's face it, when the 4th dimension topic first came up, you could have told the original poster that he was off topic but you did not, you responded and continued the discussion-YOUR BAD.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

Because you are insisting on forcing your opinion on us by telling us we are wrong then attempting to prevent us from defending our position by:
.
[edit on 11-2-2008 by jfj123]

What don't you understand concerning the words off-topic? Take any off-topic comments to another forum agreeing to accept your off-topic comments made in this discussion, or drop them. Your choice concerning any further irrelevant tangents.

I was polite the first time with that same request. You ignored it, and took liberties in continuing on with your off-topic comments, ad hominem and false accusations against me.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Because you are insisting on forcing your opinion on us by telling us we are wrong then attempting to prevent us from defending our position by:
.
[edit on 11-2-2008 by jfj123]

What don't you understand concerning the words off-topic?

You mean like your off topic responses that for some reason you have felt compelled to make instead of letting it go?? Those?

Take any off-topic comments to another forum agreeing to accept your off-topic comments made in this discussion, or drop them. Your choice concerning any further irrelevant tangents.

Again, why are you blaming me for making off topic remarks when you have done THE EXACT SAME THING?

I was polite the first time with that same request. You ignored it, and took liberties in continuing on with your off-topic comments, ad hominem and false accusations against me.

As did you. If you felt so strongly, why did you continue posting information about what you, yourself consider OFF TOPIC? Doesn't that make you just as guilty ?

So before crucifying me, maybe you should read your own posts some time.

This discussion is directly related to holography. If anyone wishes to tangent away from that into the fourth dimension or other red herring or ad hominem, there are many other Internet forums which can accomodate people with such intent.

If some people are not willing to be reasonable, it leaves me no choice, but to conclude all those particular people are doing, is demanding a flame war start in this discussion. Is that conclusion correct? If not, then please stay on topic, and there will be no defined nor inferred doubt, regarding intended participation in this discussion.

Originally posted by OrionStars
This discussion is directly related to holography. If anyone wishes to tangent away from that into the fourth dimension or other red herring or ad hominem, there are many other Internet forums which can accomodate people with such intent.

If some people are not willing to be reasonable, it leaves me no choice, but to conclude all those particular people are doing, is demanding a flame war start in this discussion. Is that conclusion correct? If not, then please stay on topic, and there will be no defined nor inferred doubt, regarding intended participation in this discussion.

You are hilarious !!! When are you going to let this go? Have you considered that every time something like this comes up, you just have to have the last word?

I tried bringing us back on topic last time you complained so let me try to help you again

Just to help us get back on topic, does anyone have any evidence that holograms can be used in the required manor which could create the planes as seen on 9/11??

We know holograms exist in a limited manor.

We know that some things that have been called holograms, really are not holograms but are a modification or evolution of the Pepper's Ghost trick.

We know that physical limitations of holograms (ie require a medium for projection, controlled environment, dark conditions, etc. )

Since I started this discussion, I have every right to request people to stay on topic. I am not the one repeatedly bringing it to the top,
when it could have have started to be archived long ago.

Either stay on topic, or leave it to head for the archives.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since I started this discussion, I have every right to request people to stay on topic. I am not the one repeatedly bringing it to the top,
when it could have have started to be archived long ago.

Either stay on topic, or leave it to head for the archives.

Your the one that kept posting off topic info !

I'd be more then happy to keep it on topic but you can't seem to !

I have tried to put the thread back on topic 2 times in last last page or so !!!

So for the THIRD TIME I am attempting to do your job:

Just to help us get back on topic, does anyone have any evidence that holograms can be used in the required manor which could create the planes as seen on 9/11??

We know holograms exist in a limited manor.

We know that some things that have been called holograms, really are not holograms but are a modification or evolution of the Pepper's Ghost trick.

We know that physical limitations of holograms (ie require a medium for projection, controlled environment, dark conditions, etc. )

reply to post by OrionStars


Or you could answer his question periodically, rather than bloviating.
Perhaps you could just answer my question if you don't wish to answer his-

What is the basis that you believe that the necessary holographic techonology exists, to do what you're claiming? Has there ever been any other occasion where this level of holography has been shown to exist, or are you working backwards(coming up with theory first, and then filling in the details)?

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since I started this discussion, I have every right to request people to stay on topic. I am not the one repeatedly bringing it to the top,
when it could have have started to be archived long ago.

Either stay on topic, or leave it to head for the archives.

I couldn't agree with that last line any more. I don't think anyone needs to spend anymore time bickering over pure speculation to begin with. There are many more things on this site that deserve attention.

Let it head to the archives.

Threads are like teeth.

Originally posted by jfj123
We know that physical limitations of holograms (ie require a medium for projection, controlled environment, dark conditions, etc. )

To that i would only like to add one thing..

- We know, that three dimensional volumetric displays are not the same as holograms.

When people read "holograms have been developed since the 50s", they think it means mid air volumetric projection, which is the same misunderstanding, that was the original basis of this thread.


We now also know, that a real 3D volumetric projection system does not exist yet, but there is one thing, that could eventually lead to the creation of one - the buzzing balls of plasma.


I tried very hard, to get at least one good picture of a laser beam focused to a short distance, to show what it looks like, but the camera simply can not see the same thing i do.

Still, these are best pics, that show the shape of the beam at least approximatelly.


LASER beam focused 1 - lights on

LASER beam focused 2 - lights off

LASER beam focused 3 - lights off, different angle


In the first and second picture you can see the shape of the laser beam from the side, when it is focused on a very short distance. The beam starts out pretty thick, but gets thinner and thinner, untill it's thinner, than a hair (even tho it isn't obvious from the picture).

At the point, where it is the thinnest, it's entire energy is bundled in that single spot. This is how lasers are used for cutting. The laser in the picture can cut through a floppy disk in approx. 5 seconds, if the disk is put at that exact spot.

After the spot, the beam again starts spreading outwards, and becomes wider and wider, untill it's so wide, that it becomes invisible and it's energy disperses.

The third pic shows the same beam from a different angle. Again, you can see, how it first gets thinner and then wider, but unfortunatelly i can not reproduce how it looks in reality.




Now how is this related to those balls of plasma?

This is exactly how they work. A powerfull invisible laser is focused into a tiny spot at a certain distance, and the energy in that spot "ingites" the air. One invisible laser beam is enough to produce one mid air plasma "pixel". It's position is determined by pointing the beam around with mirrors, and the distance with this focal point.
An invisible laser beam can this way create a visible glowing mid air "pixel". If you do this very fast, you can use the same beam to project multiple pixels, one after the other, but to the eye it is going to appear, as if they are all "on" at the same time - this is how laser scanners work, when they appear to draw a shape on a surface. In fact, they are moving through the outlines of that shape so fast, that we see the entire shape at once. This effect is called retinal inertia.

The problem with this is, that this focusing can be very effectiv and bundle all the energy in one spot, only up to a certaun distance. The further away you try to focus it, this thinnest spot stops being a spot, but becomes more prologned in the direction of the beam - it turns from a spot, almost into a thin line, which spreads out the energy as well..

This is what limits the projection capabilities of those balls of plasma only up to 2 - 3m.. After this distance, the thinnest part of the beam becomes too spread out, to have enough energy in it.


On the other hand, maybe if two such beams focused at a longer distance were used, and intersected, this could again bring enough energy into one single spot, to turn air into plasma, even if the focal point of each of them is "spread out". This could greatly increase the range of the projection.


So this technology sounds very promising, but as i said before, i wouldn't want to stand close to, or even in the way of that projection...

I'm thinking, it's gonna allow us to project glowing 3D images up into the air, further away from the audience.


Otherwise it is going to be too dangerous, because even a tiny reflection of such a powerfull beam can do permanent damage to the retina.

What is even worse, is that the beam is invisible. If a powerfull visible laser shines into your eye, you would at least blink, and prevent further damage. But with IR lasers, you don't even know they are making you blind, untill it's too late..