Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Macros

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Macros

 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 02/05/2013 21:27, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

>
>>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
>>>>> star system between the object and the lens!

>
>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>> rays would remain parallel.

>
>>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
>>> a signal or a random walk from a point.

>
>> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

>
> True but irrelevant.
>
> Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
> well established. That they equalize each other is about as
> likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
> bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
> "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
> dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
> immense luck and admit I was wrong.
>
> -Wolfgang


Trouble is that stars for the most part tend to be heavily concentrated
in galaxies, cluster of galaxies and super clusters of clusters.

The net result is that you can get strong lensing effects of very
distant sources by galaxies or clusters between us and the source.
Einstein rings were predicted long before they were observed.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discove...nal_lenses.pdf

Probably by far the prettiest one is the Hubble image of the horseshoe
ring around LRG 3-757 (sorry about the unromantic name for the latter)

http://nasa-image.blogspot.co.uk/201...om-hubble.html

That said most of the light rays from distant sources to an exceedingly
good approximation do remain parallel.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/6/2013 2:40 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

[...]
>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

[...]

>> So you're basically saying that the gravitational fields are
>> ordered in such a way that photons from any random source stay
>> parallel, at least in a sizeable number of cases.


>> I'd like a single geometry designed by you where a bundle
>> of parallel light rays from a single direction are bend by
>> gravity sources in such a way that they remain exactly parallel.
>> You can freely place the gravity sources.


>> Kindly remember that any single gravity source will affect such
>> a bundle of exactly parallel rays differently, depending on the
>> mass of the gravity source and the (different!) distance from
>> the individual ray to the gravity source. In other words:
>> a bunch of parallel rays *will* be spread when it passes a
>> gravity source ...


>> Too hard?


> I I precisely understood how gravitational forces interact, I doubt I
> would waste time responding to you.


If you precisely understood how gravitational forces
(and matter and space) interacts, you'd probably on the list
for the Nobel price.

If you "merely"[1] had a working understanding of how
gravitatonal forces act *and what that means* you'd be more
careful about "in such a way that photons from any random
source stay parallel", e.g. by making clear that they probably
won't stay perfectly parallel. ('probably' only because I
cannot guarantee that there can't be a setup where they *do*
stay parallel.)

-Wolfgang

[1] not that that is something small in any way
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 21:27, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2013 8:57 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2013 1:46 AM, Trevor wrote:

>>
>>>>>> Actually no, the light would be warped by the gravitational field of every
>>>>>> star system between the object and the lens!

>>
>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

>>
>>>> Actually, nope. It's the same as adding multiple random noise to
>>>> a signal or a random walk from a point.

>>
>>> vielleicht etwas zu tun <> etwas tun

>>
>> True but irrelevant.
>>
>> Getting theoretical: The theory how random influences add is
>> well established. That they equalize each other is about as
>> likely as that they completely add to each other, i.e. both
>> bowing the light in the identical direction. That's both not
>> "might very well", unless you "might very well" win a million
>> dollars in the lottery ten times in a row. So I bow to your
>> immense luck and admit I was wrong.
>>
>> -Wolfgang


> Trouble is that stars for the most part tend to be heavily concentrated
> in galaxies, cluster of galaxies and super clusters of clusters.


And that *keeps* the rays *parallel*?


> The net result is that you can get strong lensing effects of very
> distant sources by galaxies or clusters between us and the source.
> Einstein rings were predicted long before they were observed.


> http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discove...nal_lenses.pdf


Yep, but the rays aren't parallel --- can't be, otherwise
they must look like they came from the very same point (due
to the distances involved).

> That said most of the light rays from distant sources to an exceedingly
> good approximation do remain parallel.


Only for distances that are very short compared to the distance
from where they come.

But we were getting theoretical, not real-world 'close enough'.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On 5/8/2013 11:40 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 2:40 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

> [...]
>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

> [...]
>
>>> So you're basically saying that the gravitational fields are
>>> ordered in such a way that photons from any random source stay
>>> parallel, at least in a sizeable number of cases.

>
>>> I'd like a single geometry designed by you where a bundle
>>> of parallel light rays from a single direction are bend by
>>> gravity sources in such a way that they remain exactly parallel.
>>> You can freely place the gravity sources.

>
>>> Kindly remember that any single gravity source will affect such
>>> a bundle of exactly parallel rays differently, depending on the
>>> mass of the gravity source and the (different!) distance from
>>> the individual ray to the gravity source. In other words:
>>> a bunch of parallel rays *will* be spread when it passes a
>>> gravity source ...

>
>>> Too hard?

>
>> I I precisely understood how gravitational forces interact, I doubt I
>> would waste time responding to you.

>
> If you precisely understood how gravitational forces
> (and matter and space) interacts, you'd probably on the list
> for the Nobel price.
>
> If you "merely"[1] had a working understanding of how
> gravitatonal forces act *and what that means* you'd be more
> careful about "in such a way that photons from any random
> source stay parallel", e.g. by making clear that they probably
> won't stay perfectly parallel. ('probably' only because I
> cannot guarantee that there can't be a setup where they *do*
> stay parallel.)
>
> -Wolfgang
>
> [1] not that that is something small in any way
>


But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

[...]
> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.


Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
objects are both random and not random?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-11-2013
On 5/11/2013 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

> [...]
>> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
>> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
>> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.

>
> Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
> objects are both random and not random?
>


Np Read carefully


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.

>> [...]
>>> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
>>> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
>>> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.


>> Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
>> objects are both random and not random?


> Np Read carefully


Please explain "the gravitational", then. I carefully read
it as meaning "the gravitational influence/the gravitational
objects", because *that* makes sense, while "the gravitational"
does not, at least with my very limited knowledge of English ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
On 5/13/2013 3:41 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.
>>> [...]
>>>> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
>>>> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
>>>> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.

>
>>> Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
>>> objects are both random and not random?

>
>> Np Read carefully

>
> Please explain "the gravitational", then. I carefully read
> it as meaning "the gravitational influence/the gravitational
> objects", because *that* makes sense, while "the gravitational"
> does not, at least with my very limited knowledge of English ...
>
> -Wolfgang
>


Read again.
IF the objects were truly random, ......
Then I said but, the objects are not random. Nothing contradictory
there. But yes I should have said the origins of the gravitational
fields are not random. I hope this clarifies.

BTW the authority for my statement is Einstein, and that is what I
remember him telling me. Since I was only about 11 at the time, I might
have misunderstood.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/13/2013 3:41 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2013 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
>>>>> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
>>>>> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.


>>>> Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
>>>> objects are both random and not random?


>>> Np Read carefully


>> Please explain "the gravitational", then. I carefully read
>> it as meaning "the gravitational influence/the gravitational
>> objects", because *that* makes sense, while "the gravitational"
>> does not, at least with my very limited knowledge of English ...


>> -Wolfgang


> Read again.
> IF the objects were truly random, ......
> Then I said but, the objects are not random.


You started to talk about "theoretical" and "randomly
distributed objects". Then you say "but they [the
theoretical randomly distributed objects] are not random".

> Nothing contradictory
> there. But yes I should have said the origins of the gravitational
> fields are not random. I hope this clarifies.


Ok, the objects are not random, so your "If you want to get
theoretical" claim has been abandoned as indefensible.

So please construct a non-random arrangement of objects that
do keep the rays in parallel as they pass through it. Have fun!

> BTW the authority for my statement is Einstein, and that is what I
> remember him telling me. Since I was only about 11 at the time, I might
> have misunderstood.


Which statement? That "randomly distributed objects might
very well equalize each other"? That "Therefore the rays would
remain parallel"? That "the origins of the gravitational are
not random"? That you are not contradicting yourself?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2013
On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2013 3:41 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 5/11/2013 8:31 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to get theoretical, the gravitational influence of randomly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed objects might very well equalize each other. Therefore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rays would remain parallel.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> But the origins of the gravitational are not random. You certainly are
>>>>>> free to speculate what would happen if they were, but I would rather
>>>>>> concentrate on the far less esoteric topic, of how to improve my images.

>
>>>>> Did I get that right? You're basically saying that the
>>>>> objects are both random and not random?

>
>>>> Np Read carefully

>
>>> Please explain "the gravitational", then. I carefully read
>>> it as meaning "the gravitational influence/the gravitational
>>> objects", because *that* makes sense, while "the gravitational"
>>> does not, at least with my very limited knowledge of English ...

>
>>> -Wolfgang

>
>> Read again.
>> IF the objects were truly random, ......
>> Then I said but, the objects are not random.

>
> You started to talk about "theoretical" and "randomly
> distributed objects". Then you say "but they [the
> theoretical randomly distributed objects] are not random".
>
>> Nothing contradictory
>> there. But yes I should have said the origins of the gravitational
>> fields are not random. I hope this clarifies.

>
> Ok, the objects are not random, so your "If you want to get
> theoretical" claim has been abandoned as indefensible.
>
> So please construct a non-random arrangement of objects that
> do keep the rays in parallel as they pass through it. Have fun!
>
>> BTW the authority for my statement is Einstein, and that is what I
>> remember him telling me. Since I was only about 11 at the time, I might
>> have misunderstood.

>
> Which statement? That "randomly distributed objects might
> very well equalize each other"? That "Therefore the rays would
> remain parallel"? That "the origins of the gravitational are
> not random"? That you are not contradicting yourself?
>
> -Wolfgang
>


Not worth replying to

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
macros-loop? calling macros X times? Andrew Arro C Programming 2 07-24-2004 09:52 AM
Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 80 11-07-2003 02:22 AM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros Michael T. Babcock Python 0 11-03-2003 01:54 PM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 5 11-01-2003 01:09 AM
Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros mike420@ziplip.com Python 1 10-07-2003 04:07 PM



Advertisments