Real de Tayopa said:
good morning WAN: On your post-->
(1) You posted --> It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold
**********
Sorry, you are forgetting frequency sensitivity. the very reason that one cannot see this right now.
I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies. Any filter lenses, even designed to pass the appropriate frequencies, actually reduce sensitivity to that wanted frequency.
Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.
As far as raw "sensitivity", we have CCDs, like in a digital camera, sensitive enough to detect 'single' photons, and sensitive enough to distinguish between individual electron orbitals on a single atom. By spectral distribution, which puts the filtering efficiency of lens filters to shame, what was represented in the posted photos would stand out like a million candle power spotlight in the face. Neither would it be limited to the visible spectrum in order to be made visible this way. Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency in some way to effect the CCD, it would only indicate the requisite 'sensitivity' is orders of magnitude better than assumed in the above considerations.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________(2) You posted --> It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.
***********
Since all gold is of a basically different composition, however small in difference, it would be theoretically possible but highly impractical.
If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical. Comparing the sensitivity of a digital camera to what is 'routinely' applied in the sciences is like comparing a rain drop to the ocean. If the camera trick works as posted in these images, satellite detection is trivially practical. Even variations of compositions would be far less an issue than it would be for the digital camera trick.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________
(3) You posted --> Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection
**********
A slight correction, in geochemical prospecting we are speaking of "Ions". Ionic transportation is independent of up or down.
Well of course ionic transport is not directional. Yet this detection method for gold atoms transported by ionic transport still depends on those atoms that get transported to the 'surface' for visibility. Just like gold nuggets can both get buried or uncovered via geologic processes, yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________
(4) You posted --> If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.
*********
This is an interesting thought, often brought up. Just how much of the original materiel is actually needed for this reaction to take place. Since we can't duplicate it, we certainly cannot measure it.
I can't be sure, but you speak of 'reaction' as if it is the ionic reaction itself that is emitting the photons being detected. This is certainly not the case in geochemical prospecting, and untenable in the camera trick case. The ionic reactions is merely the method of transport of the atoms. Detection still requires surface visibility 'after' transport, and this visibility comes from the same reflection properties as normal sight uses. Trying to detect the ionic reaction itself in this manner would be like trying to watch a stalagmite grow.
If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions, why even bother to take the lens cover off the camera? In fact, if this is the case, you could just build a fully enclosed CCD with internal focusing and an LCD readout that graphed the interesting frequencies. It would work like a directional metal detector that worked at a distance. It would also invalidate CCD based spectrometer data from experiments billions of times more sensitive than the camera.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________
(5) You posted --> Quantum mechnics ?
**********
Actually most is explained in simple (??) optics by refraction and diffraction. Optics are actually an extremely complex subject, beyond any need for Quantum effects. Too complex to be addressed in here. This is why no perfect lens has yet been developed, however they are extremely close for any practical effect.
Yes, mostly, but the way refraction varies is strictly an effect of Quantum Mechanics. At the phenomenological level Quantum Mechanics is pretty simple in itself. It is only when you mathematically model it, then try to reconcile this mathematical model with our sense of objects and cause and effect that it turns weird.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________
(6) You posted -->A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.
************
Of course, but if you carry that to it's infinite logical conclusion ------
But wait, if it's invalid to call a metatheory about a theory the theory it refers to, then it's likewise invalid the call a theory about metatheories a specified theory, add infinitum. Thus the logical conclusion is exactly the same regardless. Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress.
Real de Tayopa said:
_________________________________________________________________________________
(7) As for light being broken into it's primary colors (frequencies) by an oil film, rain droplets in the rainbow effect, or Opals, it is caused by the same basic reason, but, by different physical agents.
Quiet true. I wanted to point out the strictly Quantum Mechanical aspects, to illustrate how simple and straightforward Quantum Mechanics is phenomenologically. Apart from the logical idioms, at the theoretical level, that often get applied to woefully inappropriate domains of applicability and scale. Certainly you can show the math of how some of it applies to our scale. For instance, you can get the classic double slit interference pattern by throwing people through a double slit experiment. Yet these people would have to move through these slits so slow that it would take trillions and trillions and trillions of times longer than the age of the present incarnation of the Universe to achieve. At the theoretical level these issues are immaterial to the facts, but at the level of claims sometimes made the absurdity can become excessively extreme.
Real de Tayopa said:
I enjoy you posts my friend, please post more. I apol for being so late in answering your post, but just found it today.
Don Jose de la Mancha
No problem with the timing, we all have lives outside this forum. I am more than willing to consider new physics and explore novel effects, even seemingly absurd ones, but vetting them against known physics and phenomenology is an inviolable requirement. Certainly there are many effects we have failed to note or fully understand, yet many times claims involve effects that are simply impossible to not notice in other observations and equipment. Perhaps there is something novel about the equipment, but some understanding of the equipment and the physics they're based on puts severe constraints there to. People often severely underestimate how often seemingly unrelated equipment is related, from digital cameras to star and galaxy spectrometers. At the physics level, even radios and binoculars are related, and the CCD in digital cameras was invented based on this fact. Nondirectional solar cells that more than doubles even the theoretical efficiency limit of present design is presently being researched, based on the same principles.
I understand these technologies, and many more that's not even on the drawing board yet, for purely technical reasons. So when I hear of a technological claim that, if true, would invalidate known working technology I have to question it. Perhaps the effect is real, but misunderstood and claimed to be the result of the wrong phenomenology. Yet generally the equipment is understood and used to such an extent that such an effect is impossible not to notice. That's the situation I see here, and phenomenological misrepresentations of known technologies and physics only exacerbates the issue.
I'll remain open to corrections, and continue to consider possible avenues for describing something new or unusual. But unfortunately the camera trick is thus far failing every test at every level.
He was so distraught in fact, that he set out to discover how to replicate the process using a digital camera.
)
