Talk:3066: Cosmic Distance Calibration - Revision history

172.71.178.2 at 10:01, 25 March 2025

2025-03-25T10:01:04Z

172.71.147.60: Comment

2025-03-24T23:48:34Z

Comment

172.69.34.175 at 17:45, 24 March 2025

2025-03-24T17:45:40Z

ProphetZarquon: Spacing

2025-03-24T13:17:20Z

Spacing

ProphetZarquon: Signed

2025-03-24T13:16:16Z

Signed

ProphetZarquon: Images can be projected directly to receptors without a screen medium in between

2025-03-24T13:15:55Z

Images can be projected directly to receptors without a screen medium in between

172.69.43.241 at 12:00, 24 March 2025

2025-03-24T12:00:44Z

172.69.43.241 at 11:59, 24 March 2025

2025-03-24T11:59:39Z

172.68.54.235: explanation is crap

2025-03-24T11:43:12Z

explanation is crap

172.68.205.92 at 22:58, 23 March 2025

2025-03-23T22:58:45Z

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 : After noticing that other comments in this discussion page mentioned the same as I did, I took the liberty to update the text. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.34|172.68.12.34]] 05:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
-This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..."
+This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..." [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
 There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@@ Line 36: / Line 35: @@
 :Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.
 :If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
-::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
+::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities). [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
 :::Reverse the "seeing" principle (back to how people thought it was before Ibn al-Haytham overturned the "eyes shine 'vision' onto the world" idea). For every bit of hologram that you can see in front of you, project the vision backwards out of the eyes to where the hologram 'is'. At some point on that path, the must be something that is a source of the actual photons. It need not be where your stereo vision ''thinks'' it is. It can be much closer or much further, the holographic principle sending light ''as if'' from the non-physical surface of the holograph's mid-air location, probably then the images that your two eyes (and any further eyes/cameras) seperately see are from different bits of foreground/background that only carefully-tuned parallel makes you think is the mid-air point (like a Viewmaster stereoscopic viewer conveys false depth, or a Magic Eye picture lets you trick your eyes into associating neighbouring 'noisy' bits of image as being the same bit of noise either above or below the surface they're actually printed on).
 :::To have a true mid-air source of light, the photons must be come from that location, and bright light (or multiple coherent bright lights, technically, in full holograms that aren't just a kind of Pepper's Ghost) must be scattered towards you from that location ''somehow'', if it isn't already coming towards you from exactly (consistent with both detail ''and'' viewpoint/eye) the opposite/near side of the 'projection'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 24 March 2025
Line 42:		Line 42:
	:::If it's a hologram in a vacuum, for the sake of argument even having insufficient interstellar dust to 'project' upon and reflect every which way, then you can shine your holographic projection however you want at that empty space, but you won't see anything of it. You need to combine with back-projection, front-projection or possible side-projection onto a 'screen' of suspended material that is insignificantly visible where you don't shine the light properly, and that's messy enough to have observers at all kinds of angles getting angled views of the same thing (which is where you need to tune the interference patterns to be only constructive in the right ways, the whole trigk behind a true holographic 'display', either print/transarency medium or whatever the properly coherent light is sent to land on ''from'' the holographic source).		:::If it's a hologram in a vacuum, for the sake of argument even having insufficient interstellar dust to 'project' upon and reflect every which way, then you can shine your holographic projection however you want at that empty space, but you won't see anything of it. You need to combine with back-projection, front-projection or possible side-projection onto a 'screen' of suspended material that is insignificantly visible where you don't shine the light properly, and that's messy enough to have observers at all kinds of angles getting angled views of the same thing (which is where you need to tune the interference patterns to be only constructive in the right ways, the whole trigk behind a true holographic 'display', either print/transarency medium or whatever the properly coherent light is sent to land on ''from'' the holographic source).
	:::With clever retro-reflective particals, you ''could'' project from somewhere roughly between you and the 'hologram', that you are looking past, or even effectively itself shining past over your shoulder, and limit the intended view to a viewer only in your sort of direction, but that takes a different kind lf trick to set up, and wouldn't easily allow true stereoscopy, just pretend perspective-based tricks. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.175\|172.69.34.175]] 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)		:::With clever retro-reflective particals, you ''could'' project from somewhere roughly between you and the 'hologram', that you are looking past, or even effectively itself shining past over your shoulder, and limit the intended view to a viewer only in your sort of direction, but that takes a different kind lf trick to set up, and wouldn't easily allow true stereoscopy, just pretend perspective-based tricks. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.175\|172.69.34.175]] 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Is it just me or does that look like the label and crosshair in Space Engine? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.60\|172.71.147.60]] 23:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 24 March 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).		::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
	::[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)		::[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	:::Reverse the "seeing" principle (back to how people thought it was before Ibn al-Haytham overturned the "eyes shine 'vision' onto the world" idea). For every bit of hologram that you can see in front of you, project the vision backwards out of the eyes to where the hologram 'is'. At some point on that path, the must be something that is a source of the actual photons. It need not be where your stereo vision ''thinks'' it is. It can be much closer or much further, the holographic principle sending light ''as if'' from the non-physical surface of the holograph's mid-air location, probably then the images that your two eyes (and any further eyes/cameras) seperately see are from different bits of foreground/background that only carefully-tuned parallel makes you think is the mid-air point (like a Viewmaster stereoscopic viewer conveys false depth, or a Magic Eye picture lets you trick your eyes into associating neighbouring 'noisy' bits of image as being the same bit of noise either above or below the surface they're actually printed on).
		+	:::To have a true mid-air source of light, the photons must be come from that location, and bright light (or multiple coherent bright lights, technically, in full holograms that aren't just a kind of Pepper's Ghost) must be scattered towards you from that location ''somehow'', if it isn't already coming towards you from exactly (consistent with both detail ''and'' viewpoint/eye) the opposite/near side of the 'projection'.
		+	:::If it's a hologram in a vacuum, for the sake of argument even having insufficient interstellar dust to 'project' upon and reflect every which way, then you can shine your holographic projection however you want at that empty space, but you won't see anything of it. You need to combine with back-projection, front-projection or possible side-projection onto a 'screen' of suspended material that is insignificantly visible where you don't shine the light properly, and that's messy enough to have observers at all kinds of angles getting angled views of the same thing (which is where you need to tune the interference patterns to be only constructive in the right ways, the whole trigk behind a true holographic 'display', either print/transarency medium or whatever the properly coherent light is sent to land on ''from'' the holographic source).
		+	:::With clever retro-reflective particals, you ''could'' project from somewhere roughly between you and the 'hologram', that you are looking past, or even effectively itself shining past over your shoulder, and limit the intended view to a viewer only in your sort of direction, but that takes a different kind lf trick to set up, and wouldn't easily allow true stereoscopy, just pretend perspective-based tricks. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.175\|172.69.34.175]] 17:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 :If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
 ::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
-[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
+::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 24 March 2025
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241\|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)		:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241\|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
	::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).		::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).
		+	[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:15, 24 March 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:
	:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.		:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.
	:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241\|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)		:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241\|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	::2D & stereoscopic images can be projected directly at the viewer; a medium is only required if you don't know exactly where the viewer's receptors are... How would 'they' know? I dunno, why would they use English? I merely wanted to point out that projections can project directly to a receiver ''without'' a medium (with much lower requisite intensities).

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 Holograms are a thing, people.  A different label could be aimed at each viewer.  Heck, there might only be one viewer at present.  And who said the labels are made of matter?  This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
-:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/pixels) to produce an apparent object.
+:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/areas/voxels) to produce an apparent object.
 :If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 24 March 2025
Line 34:		Line 34:

	Holograms are a thing, people. A different label could be aimed at each viewer. Heck, there might only be one viewer at present. And who said the labels are made of matter? This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235\|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)		Holograms are a thing, people. A different label could be aimed at each viewer. Heck, there might only be one viewer at present. And who said the labels are made of matter? This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235\|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Though holograms don't just appear 'in thin air' (or, indeed, vacuum). You're either looking at a medium imprinted with a clever diffraction patterns to shape the intensity of light projected out in various directions, or illuminating an amorphous media with precisely targeted light (e.g. lasers in a very mildly misty atmosphere, so that only where you have the brightest lines of laser, ''or'' the convergence of two or more less obvious beams, do you get omnidirectionally visible lines/pixels) to produce an apparent object.
		+	:If you could always just magic up photons out of nowhere, you could have them appear (with the qualities required of them ''as if'' they had come from a star-adjacent emiter) in the last few light-years, or indeed light-seconds, in the middle of space heading exactly in the right direction (in exactly the right configuration) to be seen by your telescope. But that's getting towards God-tier 'causality'-bending. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241\|172.69.43.241]] 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 24 March 2025
Line 32:		Line 32:

	There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92\|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)		There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92\|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Holograms are a thing, people. A different label could be aimed at each viewer. Heck, there might only be one viewer at present. And who said the labels are made of matter? This is the worst explanation page I have ever seen here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.235\|172.68.54.235]] 11:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 23 March 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..."		This comic seems extra ironic, given that NASA has been grossly misreporting the distances to extremely distant objects lately, due to lack of adjustment for observed differences in spacetime, in order to express things "simply". Most people of course don't care & those using more reliable resources are unaffected, but hobbyists & reporters etc are going "Wait, what? Those numbers are way off..."
	[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)		[[User:ProphetZarquon\|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon\|talk]]) 14:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	There's surely no problem with stars having labels that look like they are to be read ''only'' by us, at our distance (and at this time). All each star needs to do is to send out highly-directional flashes (relatively, at least!) of light, such that the ones that will arrive at Earth around now were projecting information suitable for us back then, but light arriving at stars five hundred years ago, at a similar distance on a perpendicular track, will feature suitable information shone out five hundred years earlier (while sending vaguely in this direction only information destined to be useful for the star 'between' us, five hundred light-years in that direction). I'm sure you can appreciate how simple it is to accomplish this, all you need to do is have different patterns of photos continually travelling out in different sectros of different shells of ever-changing light, out into the universe, all ready to convey exactly the right information to the observer who happens to eventually be where the light gets observed, inexactly the right orientation ''and'' notation/language, as well! Simple! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.92\|172.68.205.92]] 22:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)