Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Macros

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


[PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]

> Not worth replying to


Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2013
On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]
>
>> Not worth replying to

>
> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?
>
> -Wolfgang
>


No just not replying to troll questions.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
>> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]


>>> Not worth replying to


>> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?


> No just not replying to troll questions.


Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll
question *and* an insult.

But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
(carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
rays to become non-parallel.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com says...
>
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
> >> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]

>
> >>> Not worth replying to

>
> >> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?

>
> > No just not replying to troll questions.

>
> Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll
> question *and* an insult.
>
> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
> rays to become non-parallel.


Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad-
nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of
starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2013
On 5/20/2013 6:56 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
>>> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]

>
>>>> Not worth replying to

>
>>> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?

>
>> No just not replying to troll questions.

>
> Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll
> question *and* an insult.


Go back and read. If you don't believe me, that is your problem.


>
> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
> rays to become non-parallel.
>


I didn't say that in a random configuration that would be no influence.
I said there could be offsetting influences. But we already went that
route.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2013
J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ozcvgtt02


>> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
>> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
>> rays to become non-parallel.


> Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad-
> nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of
> starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance.


Naah, it has no real relevance.

Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words),
in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for
a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow
sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up
(and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand
that his claim of
| 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.
(PeterN in Message-ID:
<51771a0b$0$10833$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>)
was wrong.

Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just
*can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly
theoretically, that is.
You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging
so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt
he's throwing up.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-22-2013
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
>>> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]


>>>> Not worth replying to


>>> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?


>> No just not replying to troll questions.


> Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll
> question *and* an insult.


> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
> rays to become non-parallel.


Similar to the chromatic aberration problem in lens design. You can
never get rid of it completely. But you can use carefully placed later
chromatic aberration to undo most of an earlier introduced chromatic
aberration. You can do the same kind of thing with gravitational
bending of light ray bundles, especially when the rays are very narrow
and the gravitational fields are large and distant, so minimising the
non-linearity of the bending across the bundle.

Perhaps a nearer example is the bending of light rays due to
atmospheric thermals on a hot sunny day. Easily seen through a long
lens as the wriggling of distant straight lines. Have you ever noticed
that if you take a short enough exposure those wriggly straight lines
are often both wriggly and sharp at the edges. In other words despite
the thermal bending of the light rays they've maintained a close
approximation to parallelism.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2013
On 21/05/2013 11:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>
> Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad-
> nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of
> starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance.
>



(muppet newsflash): it's called
- wait for it -
T-R-O-L-L-I-N-G
(/muppet newsflash)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2013
Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2013 8:43 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2013 5:35 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>>>>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>> [PeterN moved the goalposts and can't even tell us which
>>>> statement he claimed he had heard from Einstein himself]


>>>>> Not worth replying to


>>>> Sour grapes, Peter? Very sour grapes, eh?


>>> No just not replying to troll questions.


>> Yep, asking you what exactly Einstein told you is a troll
>> question *and* an insult.


>> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
>> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
>> rays to become non-parallel.


> Similar to the chromatic aberration problem in lens design. You can
> never get rid of it completely.


Homogenous hollow sphere (as the only object). Whereever
you are inside, the pull is identical in each direction.
Therefore a Dyson sphere is inherently stable, but a ringworld
would be unstable and needs active stabilization against the
tiniest movements.

> But you can use carefully placed later
> chromatic aberration to undo most of an earlier introduced chromatic
> aberration. You can do the same kind of thing with gravitational
> bending of light ray bundles,


Hod do you propose bending no-longer-parallel light rays back
to being parallel again without having negative gravity?

> especially when the rays are very narrow
> and the gravitational fields are large and distant, so minimising the
> non-linearity of the bending across the bundle.


Yep, that's why it doesn't matter usually, but in theory it
does.

> Perhaps a nearer example is the bending of light rays due to
> atmospheric thermals on a hot sunny day. Easily seen through a long
> lens as the wriggling of distant straight lines. Have you ever noticed
> that if you take a short enough exposure those wriggly straight lines
> are often both wriggly and sharp at the edges. In other words despite
> the thermal bending of the light rays they've maintained a close
> approximation to parallelism.


Air --- like the glass in our lenses --- can both concentrate
and spread light rays. How do you do that with gravity?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-23-2013
On 5/22/2013 6:24 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> J. Clarke <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ozcvgtt02

>
>>> But still, I'd like a configuration where gravity sources
>>> (carefully placed by you) do *not* influence parallel light
>>> rays to become non-parallel.

>
>> Wolfgang, I really do not understand why you are harping on this ad-
>> nauseum. If you think it has some real relevance to the issue of
>> starlight being treated as parallel rays then do explain the relevance.

>
> Naah, it has no real relevance.
>
> Except when "you want to get theoretical" (PeterN's words),
> in that case the rays don't stay perfectly parallel except for
> a very few configurations (e.g. inside a perfect and hollow
> sphere). I had hoped PeterN would think about it or look it up
> (and maybe present such a configuration) and thereby understand
> that his claim of
> | 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.
> (PeterN in Message-ID:
> <51771a0b$0$10833$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>)
> was wrong.
>
> Thinking about it: he probably knows it by now, he just
> *can't* admit that he was not completely right --- strictly
> theoretically, that is.
> You're right, I should let PeterN from the hook, he's digging
> so fast that one can't see very much any more from all dirt
> he's throwing up.
>
> -Wolfgang
>


You simply refuse to understand what "random" means.

--
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