Yes, that's right. The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature. Please continue.
I already talked about this before. It's already in the thread. We're not being mathematically rigorous here, so there's no need to get very technical with this.
I'll restate myself here simply: when light passes from materials with one index of refraction to another index of refraction, it will refract.
Some have nitpicked the thing about materials, pointing out that the same material at different temperatures have different indexes of refraction. I KNOW.
And others have pointed out that the boundary doesn't need to be a step gradient. I KNOW.
This entire discussion is silly. We should all know how this works, and everyone who keeps posting to this thread with various rehashes of forth grade material is just annoying.
Basically I KNOW how mirages work, and refraction, and that the index of refraction can change in a single material smoothly. But none of this is even remotely close to the original point: it's not the source of the distortion in the Venera camera.
Yep. That and the lack of info on the other missions is due to the crappy space coverage over the years. Apollo 13 (only the 3rd moon mission) was largely ignored by everyone until they ran into trouble.
So who's the guy in the photos on your website? Thought I saw the name Mike applied to it.
Now, my questions:
1) If you stood of Venus and looked at a rock 10 feet in front of you, how much lensing will happen? The light will NOT be travelling through different densities of atmosphere, so what is the mechanism for lensing? If you're arguing that a mirage is to blame, the consider that the atmosphere and the surface of Venus are at equilibrium, and there is no localized heating of the surface. What would the source of the temperature difference across 20 feet of atmosphere be?
2) What are you talking about American court judges? Difficult to see where that comes into this discussion.
3) Are you aware that we were discussing the distortion in the Venera probe photographs? It's not clear that you are.
BTW, I am a libertarian, and had a family member die of cancer that could have used pot, but wouldn't during chemo, because it was illegal, so don't go there monkey-boy.
They died? Probably to get the fuck away from you.
I wouldn't describe this as discouraging. I am not in the least bit discouraged when the main competitors to Linux implement a security plan that will be less than effective. Good for them, may they get 1000 security holes.
I know about mirages and similar effects, the discussion is about the Venera cameras and the implausibility of the Venusian atmosphere producing distortions in the rocks you see at your feet.
And, if your light is bending due to the curvature of space, wouldn't your straight edge also curve? So, it would be difficult to determine space is curved from the perspective of the straight edge.
I think it's a safe assumption. Where is the localized intense heating at Venus' surface? That's what is required for a mirage.
The temperature of Venus is at equilibrium, so there's not going to be any big temperature differences in the atmosphere. The air above the ground will not be much different in temperature than the surface, because the insulating layer's bulk is higher than the height of the Venera probe.
All of you are trying to tell me how mirages are created. That's 4th grade stuff, and it should be obvious that I understand it. So, why not try to explain how those conditions could or could not exist on Venus?
No boundary between two refractive indices? That's a violation of the concept. The boundary might be continuous, but it's there. Without a change in the index, you get no light bending. Try again.
What you are saying is that the light is crossing a boundary between two different refraction indices. In liquids and gasses it can depend on temperature and turbulence.
This has nothing to do with the density of the material, and no such effects have been observed on Venus.
Water is more dense than the atmosphere of Venus, but light travels in straight lines there.
I repeat: light travels in straight lines unless it crosses a boundary between two materials with different refractive indices. If you disagree, give me an example.
Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.
The real answer is the cameras on the Veneras were panoramic rotating slit cameras. Nothing more complicated than that.
I thought everyone knew about these. It's almost like never hearing that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. And hey! We've got Space Shuttles now! Or at least had them.
Everyone should know all they can about space exploration. Start at the beginning. Look up the list of early launches (back in the 1960's) to the moon, Venus, and Mars. Find the first closeup. photograph of Phobos ever taken. Learn what happened to the spacecraft. Investigate the technology behind the first photo of the backside of the moon. (a portable film development laboratory and a fax machine!!!). Marvel at the precision landing of a LEM near a Surveyor. Ooogle at the footage of a Ranger crashing into the Moon.
There's a lot of shit out there, and it's important enough that any geek should be ashamed to admit they'd never heard of Venera.
And the facts are going to come out during the trial anyways, so all you'd gain by signing the NDA is a small amount of time to look at the code before everyone else does. Not unlike subscribing to Slashdot.
You sicken me. Dishonoring the dead by refusing to acknowlege your human sense of humor. If the astronauts knew that they'd be leaving behind a bunch of humorless zombies that never smiled, they'd probably roll over in their graves.
Slashdot Mirror
"And that was how I spent my childhood", said the T1000.
Yes, that's right. The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature. Please continue.
I already talked about this before. It's already in the thread. We're not being mathematically rigorous here, so there's no need to get very technical with this.
I'll restate myself here simply: when light passes from materials with one index of refraction to another index of refraction, it will refract.
Some have nitpicked the thing about materials, pointing out that the same material at different temperatures have different indexes of refraction. I KNOW.
And others have pointed out that the boundary doesn't need to be a step gradient. I KNOW.
This entire discussion is silly. We should all know how this works, and everyone who keeps posting to this thread with various rehashes of forth grade material is just annoying.
Basically I KNOW how mirages work, and refraction, and that the index of refraction can change in a single material smoothly. But none of this is even remotely close to the original point: it's not the source of the distortion in the Venera camera.
Yep. That and the lack of info on the other missions is due to the crappy space coverage over the years. Apollo 13 (only the 3rd moon mission) was largely ignored by everyone until they ran into trouble.
So who's the guy in the photos on your website? Thought I saw the name Mike applied to it.
Now, my questions:
1) If you stood of Venus and looked at a rock 10 feet in front of you, how much lensing will happen? The light will NOT be travelling through different densities of atmosphere, so what is the mechanism for lensing? If you're arguing that a mirage is to blame, the consider that the atmosphere and the surface of Venus are at equilibrium, and there is no localized heating of the surface. What would the source of the temperature difference across 20 feet of atmosphere be?
2) What are you talking about American court judges? Difficult to see where that comes into this discussion.
3) Are you aware that we were discussing the distortion in the Venera probe photographs? It's not clear that you are.
Mike, you sure are an ugly fellow, but I'll put you in my friends list anyway.
So, you think that the Venera images are distorted by the atmosphere? Prove it cowboy.
BTW, I am a libertarian, and had a family member die of cancer that could have used pot, but wouldn't during chemo, because it was illegal, so don't go there monkey-boy.
They died? Probably to get the fuck away from you.
Ah for fucks sake. Yet another dork trying to explain a mirage to me. Read the fricking thread.
Now, explain to me how this pertains to Venus and the cameras on the Venera spacecraft? Jeez.
I wouldn't describe this as discouraging. I am not in the least bit discouraged when the main competitors to Linux implement a security plan that will be less than effective. Good for them, may they get 1000 security holes.
I know about mirages and similar effects, the discussion is about the Venera cameras and the implausibility of the Venusian atmosphere producing distortions in the rocks you see at your feet.
And, if your light is bending due to the curvature of space, wouldn't your straight edge also curve? So, it would be difficult to determine space is curved from the perspective of the straight edge.
Google is your friend.
Suggested search terms:
ranger
pioneer
mariner mercury
mariner venus
etc.
And read everything on http://www.astronautix.com/index.html
That ought you occupy you for a good long time.
Well, I typed that and hit click without thinking. The sky is blue because of light scattering, not refraction.
Anyway, I don't think that I implied that atmospheres cannot refract light.
Where did I imply that atmospheres were incapable of refracting light?
Why is the sky blue?
You don't get a break. A little thinking would have saved you the embarassment.
And what does Sagan smoking pot to ease nausia from his cancer treatment have to do with anything?
I think it's a safe assumption. Where is the localized intense heating at Venus' surface? That's what is required for a mirage.
The temperature of Venus is at equilibrium, so there's not going to be any big temperature differences in the atmosphere. The air above the ground will not be much different in temperature than the surface, because the insulating layer's bulk is higher than the height of the Venera probe.
All of you are trying to tell me how mirages are created. That's 4th grade stuff, and it should be obvious that I understand it. So, why not try to explain how those conditions could or could not exist on Venus?
Read what I wrote. It's not semantic nitpicking, it's trying to explain something to people who don't understand optics.
No boundary between two refractive indices? That's a violation of the concept. The boundary might be continuous, but it's there. Without a change in the index, you get no light bending. Try again.
What you are saying is that the light is crossing a boundary between two different refraction indices. In liquids and gasses it can depend on temperature and turbulence.
This has nothing to do with the density of the material, and no such effects have been observed on Venus.
Water is more dense than the atmosphere of Venus, but light travels in straight lines there.
I repeat: light travels in straight lines unless it crosses a boundary between two materials with different refractive indices. If you disagree, give me an example.
Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.
The real answer is the cameras on the Veneras were panoramic rotating slit cameras. Nothing more complicated than that.
I thought everyone knew about these. It's almost like never hearing that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. And hey! We've got Space Shuttles now! Or at least had them.
Everyone should know all they can about space exploration. Start at the beginning. Look up the list of early launches (back in the 1960's) to the moon, Venus, and Mars. Find the first closeup. photograph of Phobos ever taken. Learn what happened to the spacecraft. Investigate the technology behind the first photo of the backside of the moon. (a portable film development laboratory and a fax machine!!!). Marvel at the precision landing of a LEM near a Surveyor. Ooogle at the footage of a Ranger crashing into the Moon.
There's a lot of shit out there, and it's important enough that any geek should be ashamed to admit they'd never heard of Venera.
SHIT!! I hate it when I get my schwarz TWISTED!
And the facts are going to come out during the trial anyways, so all you'd gain by signing the NDA is a small amount of time to look at the code before everyone else does. Not unlike subscribing to Slashdot.
You sicken me. Dishonoring the dead by refusing to acknowlege your human sense of humor. If the astronauts knew that they'd be leaving behind a bunch of humorless zombies that never smiled, they'd probably roll over in their graves.