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.

 

A new kind of video tape!

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
Alright, I am getting closer to your page I think...

Where exactly is the lens of the camera focused?

(The exact space "centered" between the mirrors? IE Not pointing at a mirror.)

If this is the case, then wouldn't I be able to see into the future myself by omitting the camera lens for my eye?


Yes the center.This is still different though because the more you go to the exact center the farther back you are looking.

No you would not be able to see the future. It is strictly for past view only.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Alright then, omitting the camera one should be able to see the past using the same method.

When I look between two mirrors, all I see is the wall behind them. I don't see how a camera could do differently...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 

Yes. You see the wall. But when was it there?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
Alright then, omitting the camera one should be able to see the past using the same method.

When I look between two mirrors, all I see is the wall behind them. I don't see how a camera could do differently...


It's very simple it just keeps reflecting whatever is between the 2 mirrors.

As the photons that are reflecting the image will have to travel between the mirrors.

But as they go on the reflected image gets smaller. Which is why the image seems smaller as you look at it.

At some point the photons that were reflected between the space will travel long enough that they differ from what is actually happening.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
It's very simple it just keeps reflecting whatever is between the 2 mirrors.


This is where I am having a problem, whatever is in-between the 2 mirrors is going to block this process.

Like the gal in your example picture, the photons bouncing off of the "left" mirror hit her, before they have a chance to hit the other mirror. The same holds true for the "right" mirror...

[edit on 6/23/2010 by adigregorio]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
It's very simple it just keeps reflecting whatever is between the 2 mirrors.


This is where I am having a problem, whatever is in-between the 2 mirrors is going to block this process.

Like the gal in your example picture, the photons bouncing off of the "left" mirror hit her, before they have a chance to hit the other mirror. The same holds true for the "right" mirror...

[edit on 6/23/2010 by adigregorio]


The problem with your logic is that objects themselves reflect light it would need a completely black object, black body, to mess up this process.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
The problem with your logic is that objects themselves reflect light...

Correct...

Which is the problem. The object in the middle would absorb photons, and send some back at the original mirror.

Like the gal looking into the mirror, she must look "over her shoulder" to see her backside reflected in the opposing mirrors reflection.

Then comes the problem with the "curve" that produces. When I "look over my shoulder" in the mirror it curves off into the distance. The only way to counter this would be to look straight into the mirrors, which I can't do because I am opaque...

EDIT (Grammar)

[edit on 6/23/2010 by adigregorio]

EDIT2 (Just noticed Phages' post. Sorry Phage!)
Lol! I hope at the same time I see it, otherwise people are watching me use the restroom! (I guess the wall would be in both times, I just could see it at the same time as the past....whew....and *zip*)

[edit on 6/24/2010 by adigregorio]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
The problem with your logic is that objects themselves reflect light...

Correct...

Which is the problem. The object in the middle would absorb photons, and send some back at the original mirror.

Like the gal looking into the mirror, she must look "over her shoulder" to see her backside reflected in the opposing mirrors reflection.

Then comes the problem with the "curve" that produces. When I "look over my shoulder" in the mirror it curves off into the distance. The only way to counter this would be to look straight into the mirrors, which I can't do because I am opaque...



It would create an image that reflects different things on each mirror. Then as the object changes so do the reflected photons from the mirror.

It is just changing what the photons show and the photons from the object will also travel between the 2 mirrors.

As I said before the more it travels the more into the past you can see.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I guess I can't grasp it without a visual. I still have an issue with the object "blocking" its reflection...If the camera is angled to "fix" this, then you would get that "curve" I mentioned earlier.

(At least when I try to test it, that is what happens.)

Like I said though, I must not be able to grasp the concept...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
I guess I can't grasp it without a visual. I still have an issue with the object "blocking" its reflection...If the camera is angled to "fix" this, then you would get that "curve" I mentioned earlier.

(At least when I try to test it, that is what happens.)

Like I said though, I must not be able to grasp the concept...


Ok I will try one last time.

You see the picture of the girl correct?

Even though she is there from a viewer that is above this such as on top of the mirrors the can see her back and her front.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill AbdullaEven though she is there from a viewer that is above this such as on top of the mirrors the can see her back and her front.


Which brings us to that "curve" I am talking about.

The mirrors, because of the angled view, reflect to a curve. Otherwise we would be seeing into the past via that very photo, would we not? All I see is 15 reflections, split into 1 face girly and 1 back girly. (Is even if you count the original girly
)

The only way to combat that curve would be to look straight into one of the mirrors, but I already mentioned what that achieves...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
is this a real tech thought or hypothesis or is it a joke. it sounds good anyone with any info on this??

thanks chris



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by Gentill AbdullaEven though she is there from a viewer that is above this such as on top of the mirrors the can see her back and her front.


Which brings us to that "curve" I am talking about.

The mirrors, because of the angled view, reflect to a curve. Otherwise we would be seeing into the past via that very photo, would we not? All I see is 15 reflections, split into 1 face girly and 1 back girly. (Is even if you count the original girly
)

The only way to combat that curve would be to look straight into one of the mirrors, but I already mentioned what that achieves...



Remember I said outside observer. (I said as in the camera above one of the mirrors.)

This instead of a curve would produce a side view that can be shown as a right triangle.

The hypotenuse would be the distance the camera zooms. The height of the triangle would be the distance between the center of the first mirror to the camera above it. And the length of the triangle would be the distance between the center (dependent on the amount of zoom put with the camera).



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
What would it actually achieve? You would see a photon bouncing between two mirrors, but just slightly further back than the current moment.

I think Phage's reply was getting at what I'm thinking; because light doesn't travel instantly, any "reflection" is an image of the past. If you were able to stand far enough away from a mirror, but still able to observe it, you would see a delay between your actions and the actions reflected in the mirror.

If you want to look into the past with no real purpose, just go outside on a cloudless night and look up. You will be able to see many years into the past never mind fractions of a second.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
You will only be able to look into the past from the point in which the mirrors were placed there, if I remember my theoretical physics correctly. This can be as easily accomplished by setting up a video camera in the same place hooked to a DVR of sorts and you can look back in time as far as you had set up the camera. Same premise I would think and would serve the same purpose.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


I never implied you could see farther.

I think its just easier to get one camera and 2 mirrors.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I don’t completely understand why you would need 2 mirrors if you just record from the camera and play it back you have accomplished the same thing, that and my image reflected in a mirror too many times freaks me out, too many horror movies involving mirrors that pop into my mind. I think it is that and the furthest image that I can see moving a bit slower than the one closest to me freaks me out a bit as well.

I am just trying to understand the reason behind the mirrors, perhaps I am over thinking it a bit.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
I don’t completely understand why you would need 2 mirrors if you just record from the camera and play it back you have accomplished the same thing, that and my image reflected in a mirror too many times freaks me out, too many horror movies involving mirrors that pop into my mind. I think it is that and the furthest image that I can see moving a bit slower than the one closest to me freaks me out a bit as well.

I am just trying to understand the reason behind the mirrors, perhaps I am over thinking it a bit.

Yeah but its easier to just use 2 mirrors, and you can't erase the information that was contained between the 2 mirrors.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I has a similar thought one day about looking into the past, mathamatics really simplfied for the example

In 1 year light travels to say 10'000 miles from earth
we send out a stupidly advanced probe with god like optics at twice the speed of light for a period of one year and take a picture now this probe is at a distance of 20'000 miles twice as far as the present light has traveled from earth.

Would the picture it took be from a past event like 12 months before??



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by adigregorio

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
It's very simple it just keeps reflecting whatever is between the 2 mirrors.


This is where I am having a problem, whatever is in-between the 2 mirrors is going to block this process.

Like the gal in your example picture, the photons bouncing off of the "left" mirror hit her, before they have a chance to hit the other mirror. The same holds true for the "right" mirror...

[edit on 6/23/2010 by adigregorio]


The problem with your logic is that objects themselves reflect light it would need a completely black object, black body, to mess up this process.



Not necessarily, Quantum experiments suggest this is not the case , if the particles are in a quantum state and could possibly be in both places at once...there is a quantum experiment that demonstrates this , with 2 slots in a board , and a laser emitter,,the marks of the photons , do not appear only opposite the slots......

www.bbc.co.uk...


/Parallel_Worlds_Parallel_Lives/
"Documentary which tells the story of a rock star and a quantum mechanic. Mark Oliver Everett, better known as E, is the lead singer of cult US band the Eels. What most of his fans don't know is that Mark's father, Hugh Everett III, was one of America's top quantum physicists. In 1957, Hugh Everett came up with a revolutionary theory that predicts the existence of parallel universes. The idea quickly seeped into popular culture but only recently has it been accepted by mainstream physicists.

However, Mark was estranged from his father - Hugh died when Mark was just 19 - and knows little about his father's early life and virtually nothing about his controversial theory. With a soundtrack by the Eels, the film follows the wry and charismatic Mark as he travels across America to learn about the father he never knew. It is only by entering the paradoxical world of quantum mechanics that Mark can hope to understand why he was such a stranger to his own father. " bbc synopsis

the experiment is in this documentary , it is an experiment introducing the concept of quantum physics...

[edit on 25-6-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by gambon]




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join