merlinhoot, this is by far the most interesting theory I have ever came across. Very good work. I can't see any flaw here although I'm not into those things much.

Oh and Mark47, you are the most immature kid I have ever seen in my entire life and yet you claim yourself to be a genius and to hold the truth.

I mean, if you had just NOT insulted anyone who didn't agree with your theory you wouldn't look like an asshole by now.

I mean, what true scientific wouldn't want to post/describe his expirements and call others idiots, morons and such?

I personally find your theory rediculous as well but it dosen't mean I think you're a moron or such. Well, now I do because of your attitude but I mean, if someone dosen't agree with your theory it dosen't have to do with you personally so why is that you feel threatened like that and attack others like an enraged pitbull?

I already had my own theories about things that weren't true or didn't work and I didn't make a whole deal of it you know... everyone make mistakes you know we're humans.

I thought that photons are neutral particles- no charge. And, their direction is unchanged by a magnetic field. They have no mass (rest mass). Never at rest, always move at speed of light, no matter the wavelength- radio to gamma. I think there is some discussion theory about a sub-relativistic massed photon, but I don't keep up with that. They do have a wave structure, as is evidenced by how they scatter.

If a wave is small and compact, it will enter into and interact with
matter- elemental groups of atoms, liquid, gas, or molecules. The photon may
gain or lose energy. For instance, a blue photon can have its wave component energized by the material, and get blue shifted to become violet, ultra-violet, etc. It exits the material and this was a scattering event.

A photon whose wave structure is larger than the size of the material it encounters will deflect. Depending on the energy of the material, the photon may retain its energy, called conservation, or it may gain energy. For instance, if you shined a strong 'torch' light at an ionized particle field (ok, a ufo) some of those photons would strike high-energy electrons near the object, and those torch light photons might gain energy and become UV.

So, that is one way to think about photon paradox. Some think there is an ether, and that waves in the ether occur during electromagnetic momentum. There are some who pursue pre-einstein, Lorentz explanations for general or special relativity, and it is nothing I can argue. But, as for photons having a charge, so they get attracted, I do not understand.

If they had a charge, what would that say for the sun? Satellites monitor the sun.
Photons reach the satellite detectors first. After that, the solar wind material like protons and electrons are detected, because they had mass. And, while perhaps relativistic after a flare or coronal mass ejection, the electrons and protons do not move as fast as the photons. There is nonetheless, clearly an ejection of mass and energy, in solar flares and CMEs. Is there an ether wave, that stretches from the sun to the earth? What is its duration? If the sun rotates for five minutes, and produces another flare in the same general vicinity (a stubborn magnetized sunspot, for instance), do those 'ether waves' cancel out or interfere with the previous ones? If they are units of light (building blocks) do they interfere with neighboring light strings? Or do they not, because they are massless?

Questions, questions. I looked at the video web page, and found it somewhat interesting. There are, of course, military satellites that have sensors...
The disc shape that seems to appear is certainly different.

There are some concepts, not about light energy, so much, but gravity energy.
The idea is that gravity produces waves, which move near the speed of light.
But, the sheer potential in the gravity field is enourmous, and some theorize you could accelerate at a speed beyond lightspeed. Many, many times faster.

Einstein said that gravity is a geometric distortion of space. There is a radiation of a field that causes gravity, but does it attain its geometry nearly instantaneuosly?
The sun, for instance, curves space around it. The sun rotates and this causes
distortions or ripples in the gravity field. These disturbances propagate from their source at nearly the speed of light. They would appear ultra-weak, and we have to design ultra-sensitive experiments, like LIGO, to try and detect them.

The question to some, though, is not in the distortion or ripples that move through that field, but the force that underlies gravity, itself. Einstein did not state that gravity is an accelerating force, only a geometry of space. Is there, however a propagation speed of gravitational force. If a massive star collapses and forms a neutron star, was the dense gravity field in effect faster than light, perhaps because it was massless, yet, weakly interacting? I will leave it there, as the
matter is only a theory, based upon Lorentz relativity.

Only, if it is true, could a spacecraft accelerate ftl? Using the force of gravity acceleration? Can you throttle it? And how to do so using a machine? The NASA UFO video material refers to living creatures, life energies, hybrid-craft. Do they have a bi-polar charged field that rotates around them (they mentioned a 'light field' or neutral field)? I think the video implies exotic explanations to UFOs. We are nowhere near understanding such matters from current knowledge.


There are numerous counters to Einstein. And why not? Something can not be explained. Will Einstein be disproven? Too many experiments validate his ideas. But others may discover new phenomena, and so his theories would be complemented, or surpassed.

LIGO Comes on Board in 2007

BTW, here is a jet resulting from the center of a galaxy, M-87. It is theorized that a super-massive object (dead star with intrinsic spin?) causes this to spin up.
It is a column of high-energy electrons striking the cold 'cosmic microwave background'. The photons result from this, and are seen in IR, optical, and near-UV wavelenghts. Yes, there is a seeming flood of photons, but the scattering seems random, and I don't know how they would ladder out, in a kind in march step. Is there an order? Yes. What is that? I submit it is variable, more like a mob, than a parade. Do they organize? Only as far as managing not to interfer with neighboring waves. Are they a connected sheet? That deals with an ether, and some do believe there is some kind of ether, or dynamic, absolute universal force field.

One last thing, on black holes. I do not concur with this, yet, we shall see. But, I ran across an article once on dark energy stars. The theory is that collapse of supermassive stars, which go beyond neutron degeneracy (or the ability of neutrons to hold it up) produce no black hole with a singularity, but rather a dark energy star. That is the only explanation I have for a 'dead' massive star.
And among normal stars, what constitues dead? White dwarfs do die out, but are they massive enough to cause this jet? Seems not. Red dwarfs will not be seen to die out in our lifetime. Brown dwarfs are only six times more massive then Jupiter (I think). They don't cause jets. Do massive blue stars? I don't know how.
Giant blue stars collapse, eventually. Anyway, they could not be massive enough to make other stars orbit them quickly, like occurs in the middle of our galaxy.
Those stars are all orbiting close to something much more massive than them.

thanks for all those new unique ideas, never heard any of them before.

Light passes through the lens hitting a mirror which is located in front of where the film is located. AFTER it hits the mirror it hits a second mirror and is then reflected through into the viewfinder. The teleconverter is not installed on the camera as I originally stated, it is behind the viewfinder.



object.....................lens...............film..............viewfinder...................teleconverter

this is the direction the light has to pass if you were to put the different parts in a straight line. Accoring to Einstein it bounces of the object, through the lens, then hits the flim.

So can you explain then how according to your theory of light that says light is travelling at 300,000 kps away from the object, how a lens that is BEHIND film can effect the film, when according to that theory the light hits the film before it is anywhere near the teleconverter?

Perhaps one of you other geniuses can explain this rather than quoting something you read on a physics website somewhere? Its all very nice to quote something that sounds very technical but put your money where your mouth is and explain how it happened.

Mark47 FFS MAN! Leave it out with the snide remarks and "mightier than thou" attitude will you!

There is no need for the stupid comments in the last post. If people don't understand just tell correct them, no need for the crap.

Your lucky I'm not a Mod, I'd have banned you by now for being such an argumentative so and so.

And don't blame others for starting it or that you are just posting stuff and people are picking on you.

Most of your posts and all of the threads you have been involved in end up as flame wars. And your the only constant in the equation.

Grow up and you'll be taken seriously.

Oh and just a correction on your explination of how an SLR camera works..........

Source ----> Lens --> mirror --> Prism --> Eye piece

There is only one mirror and then a pentaprism (prism). If there was another mirror everything would be upside down in the eye piece.

note - see how I just explained where you had gone wrong? No insults or snide remarks.

Thinking about it, if light is "attracted" by your eye and does not originate at the "source" how do you explain that if use several mirrors to turn the light through right angles how does the ligh end up upside down?

Shurley if your theory is correct, it should make no difference as the light is not trvelling in straight lines but being attracted by your eye?

a pentaprism is a mirror, it reflects the light on two surfaces to set it right side up.
how stuff works SLR


I had lined those parts up to show where the film lies in relation to the teleconverter lens, it wasnt a description of the position of the parts of the camera. This was done because the person I quoted was confused and had it all mixed up.
The question was, explain this phenomina using the current theory or light. No one can, so what do they do, "oh there must be a logical explantion". Rather than explain the phenomina they ignore it and instead try to find some other fault, or quote something from a text book that sounds technical so it must be correct. such as:
This has nothing to do with the experiment and is not an attempt to explain but to avoid being unable to explain. If the above statement was true then how does a "black hole" attract them? Seems to be contradictory but irrelevant all the same.

Can you explain the phenomina using the current theory of light, that was the question. If you cant then doesnt that say that there is something worthwhile exploring?

I have no camera, nor teleconverter . You could have explained the purpose of your experiment, a simpler one is to take a picture on a fixed camera while looking through the viewfinder. Take another picture automatically without any focusing equipment behind the viewfinder. By your logic, the image that forms on the film should be different due to our eye affecting the incoming photon. Our corneas is quite powerful at "resolving" light. If the theory is correct, there should be great differences between the images.

The facts speak for themselves: a lens placed behind the viewfinder alters the image, something that is impossible according to physics and accoring to all scientists I have spoken to.

I have used people with visual imparements and they dont have any effect. A camera is calibrated to focus accoring to your eye, whether it is there or not doesnt make any difference. I have an auto focus camera, whether my eye is there or not makes no difference, what is seen is the same, so if I see the same as the camera then it makes no difference whether my eye is there or not.

Typical reaction. Cant answer a question because you have no way to, so you run away and hide. Technical terms wont help will they? But thanks for them, my parrot enjoys them. Ignorance is bliss

WTF?! There are more pressing concerns in my life than replying to dumb theories. Seriously, your idea is totally ridiculous, a teleconverter placed behind a viewfinder should not change a damn thing! Wether you are looking through the viewfinder before you snap the picture or wether you do not look through the viewfinder will not make a difference. Are you thick or what? People have been setting up cameras on tripod for Ages! Focusing it, timing it before ducking out to have their picture taken with their compadres, what I wanted to was to help you avoid looking like a retard! you haven't answered any of my question please do so!

I wasnt referring to you.

Blur photographs

If you think placing a lens behind the viewfinder wont effect it then obviously you are wrong. Every scientist that was asked this also made the wrong prediction. Therefore as their prediction was based on their model of light then their model is wrong. This was posted earlier but you seem to have overlooked it or not gotten it. I have the photos I have the proof that I am correct.
No one however has been able to explain how these photos could be taken, using the current understanding of light.

You know I have some ideas for you as to why your photographs apear this way, but I have thought about the abuse you'll rain down on me so I am not going to post my findings.

one day your going to get that annoyed Mr Grumpy your gooing to hurt yourself.

I have heard them, all the real question is why would you want to prove me wrong? Its like finding a lump of gold and trying to convince yourself it is fools gold. I didnt abuse the last person did I? I only abuse someone that asks for it or deserves it. I havent seen you posting any lectures for Shai who has been far more abusive than me and did so unprovocked.
dont forget I have taken over 50 photographs with two different cameras and different lenses so you better make them dam good.

Mark,

I'll take any reponse in stride, and this is not meant to question the reproductions,
but did you consider the refresh rate on the video monitor?

The electron gun gets off so many lines per second, and it is adjustable.
For instance, if I wanted to get a video stream of my computer screen, I would want to synch up the two rates- screen and shutter speed.

As far as a still camera, I have never done it, but I would take several random shots with a somewhat better refresh rate.

Advanced Screen Settings

Me abusive ? Ooaaah.... I never meant to hurt you baby. Well if he prove you wrong, busted your theory it might make you feel even worse. Btw whats it wih teleconverters anyway? Why should blur picture prove your theory, why doesn't a human eyeball work to blur an image, why does a camera lens work according to calculation. See, from the pic its easier to deduce that you are a poor photographer than anything.

1. You have NOT heard them, please show me where you have heard them?

2. Where did you see me say I was going to even attempt to prove you wrong?

3. You didn't abuse the last person? Comes to a point when you can only mention one person.

4. You abuse people when the agree with you! Your just that kind of person. You may want to consider some kind of counselling (seriously) or are you just like this when sat in front of your computer screen?

5. I haven't posted lectures for you, and I didn't find it necessary to post anything as you were giving him enough grief.

6. You always play the "unprovoked" card, you really don't see that what you post is offensive do you? (See point 4)

7. You seem to think we are all mind readers? You say "don' forget I have taken over 50 photo etc" but where have you ever told us that? Difficult to "not forget" something you haven't been told.

Your theories may be sound but your attitude is seriously flawed.

Far too blurred to be refresh rate, your eye cant see it, so why would a camera and why would it only do it at the same time as a lens is put behind the viewfinder and I also uses different lenses and all produced different results. Besides if you look at the other photographs that are not of a computer screen the effect is the same, only reading glasses were used and the subjects were paper. Other effects have been made using the same technique but different lenses, torches and pieces of plastic.
More blur photographs

In the above photographs, a strong magnifying glass was placed behind the lens and a newspaper photographed as well as a torch which produced an even more pronounced layer. In the photographs of the light a piece of plastic was used which resulted in the ghost image moving, something I have replicated numerous times so it was just a chance occurance.

It is just meant to suggest that I have hear lots of different theories, so beware that this is not the forst time I have posted this anywhere.

By trying to suggest that there must be something wrong, it is an attempt to prove wrong. I find it more constructive to try to prove something correct, that way you know what is needed for it to be true and if that isnt possible you have proved it both ways therefore it is complete. This is what they do on the myth busters, they first try to prove the myth as it stands, then when they cant they work out what is needed for it to really work, and in doing so confirm it impossible because they then know what needs to happen for it to work.



Perhaps it was a poor choice of words or I forgot I didnt post it here but somewhere I said that I had taken over 50 photographs. The thing I was trying to get accross was that when you are thinking of your theories to dont forget to take into acount the fact I have taken many photographs, and used different cameras and lenses.



Yes but I am working on it, havent you noticed?

OK. I will have to scratch my head on that. Maybe if you focus a lens at a viewfinder, the reflection of the image could bounce back in. Something re-enters the visual system... I really will admit I have no other explanation!
It's an odd double exposure; or as you say, it requires more consideration.


This is for the UFO NASA subject, and a minor detour on the NASA UFO video.
STS-73 Columbia launched in October, 1995. Specialist Astronaut Catherine G. Cady Coleman, PH.D. and COLONEL, USAF, was on board. She openly reported a UFO. She was later questioned on camera by an actor, Hugh Grant, when he spotted her during taping of a program. She smiled, but was mum.

500 Hours In Space, and Two Shuttle Missions

A tape recording of her comments on board Columbia-

STS-73


And years earlier, on the moon, at Taurus Littrow Valley, Harrison Schmidt and Gene Cernan of Apollo 17 made some comments that I always took to be just a manner of speech, but it caught me off guard, the first time.

This passage is two minutes into the video. And, it takes a couple of minutes to download.

Commenting on Previous Geologist Having Spalled A Lunar Rock

Here is a picture of the lunar area, Station 6, as they approach.

Schmidt Uses His Camera, From the Passenger Seat

Here is a remarkable boulder. It actually slid down off the North Massif, many years ago. Schmidt is seen near one section, and a glove print from Cernan is visible on the leading edge.

Station 6 Boulders



Schmitt: Oh, that's right. You almost stepped on the...I forgot the "after" (picture), too. Hey, there are chips up here on top, also. That's been spalled off.

Cernan: Yeah.

Schmitt: We can get some of those, but...

Cernan: Looks like somebody's been chipping up there.

Schmitt: Looks like there's been a geologist here before us.

Schmitt: Bob, the more I look at this thing...Now, here's the piece that fell off. Here's the piece that was knocked off up there.

Cernan: Yeah.

Schmitt: Look at that.

Cernan: We ought to bring a big piece of that home. That's obvious. It's obvious...

Schmitt: How about this one up here? Take your picture. I think we can just lift that off. See that?


This is probably all shop talk, but given this somewhat outstanding speciman, it is
another reason why I enjoy Apollo 17 history.

No what it requires is acceptance. The simple fact is that it goes completely against current physics therefore current physics is wrong. This is why scientists cant explain it because it is impossible to explain using current physics; its like someone that believes the earth is flat trying to explain how a photograph of the earth taken from space still allows their belief to be correct; it simply cant be done.
Despite the fact that there is no possible way for it to be explained, this doesnt stop scientists trying to manufacture an explanation, and I have heard some beauties; not clever but ridiculously contrived. The point is that despite the fact that absolute proof exists, people still refuse to accept despite the fact that this knowledge holds enormous potential. It is the missing part of the jigsaw of teleportation, faster than light speed space travel, which will enable space craft to accelerate and perform high speed right angle manouvres while the occupants remain oblivious to what is happening. Which may give you some idea why a space ship was parked outside my place and not Stephen Hawking's. The more authentis looking images such as the mexican footage are of ships that are just lights, they are not your typical hollywood flying saucer and are generally invisible to the naked eye.
Getting back to the original post of space craft being made of light, this is exactly right. Real space travel does not rely on propulsion systems like todays rockets; that would be like trying to explore and populate the world in a dugout canoe. It relies on teleportation and travelling along the invisible highways of light that exists everywhere, like an atmosphere.

Actually, the experiment that mark47 performed did not substantiate his theories except that something he cannot explain happened. I have a clear explanation for what happened which refutes his theories.

A camera actually has 2 aperture that allows light to enter and influence the film. Through the forward apeture lenses and the viewfinder. The image on the viewfinder is projected from the forward apeture lenses through a series of mirrors and prism. Through the nature of reciprocity of light, when the shutter is opened to allow the film to be exposed, light from the viewfinder also exerts an influence on the exposure of the film. This is fine in most cases as that is already taken into consideration when we look through it and "adjust" the focal length to sharpen the image, the picture that we obtained will be just as the image that we had seen through the viewfinder. Consider however a teleconverter or a lens that has a larger aperture than the viewfinder, the nature of this 2 devices is to focus light or diffuse it. Accordingly the image at the viewfinder after placing this 2 devices behind it, becomes distorted. There is a reason that viewfinder has a small apeture, to reduce light influence from it's side, also a reason why we notice really old cameras has a hood that covers the entire side of the camera and the photographer.

If you think about it, from Mark47 point of logic, our eyes should affect the image on the film. This is not the case, the reason is that light does not pass through our eyes into the viewfinder.

I gave an explenation why this happens. I can, science cant, and your theory is complete and utter nonsense. You obviously dont have a clue what you are talking about and are making up what amounts to giberish so as to point out that you dont agree. You are delusional, please go away and stop making a fool out of yourself, your posts are an insult to intelligence.
It is so the light meter is not affected.
what are you, someone studying year 11 science??

Well we shall let the rest of the forum goers judge should we? Im 100% certain of my explaination, which you cannot. Some of your experiment actually goes against your theory like the eye example but you didn't even try to refine your theory. Does it matter what lvl of science im studying? It can only seems, more than you.

It wouldnt make a bit of difference if you were Stephen Hawkings, I am right you are wrong, Einstein is wrong. Scientists are smart, they are not intelligent, so its a bit over their head.

Your eye doesnt effect the image because the camera is focused according to your eye. If you use auto focus the focus the camera obtains is the same as your eye. It is not the force exerted by a lens that makes the picture blur, it is being out of focus, when you look with your eye you are maintaining focus so of course there will be no change to record.

Actually most high end SLRs have an viewfinder blind (and you can buy them to cover the viewfinder) for exactly the reason Shai_Hulud has posted. It stops light leaking in to the film area and causing problems with exposer etc.

Mark47 please don't insult people because you don't agree, just say you don't agree!

Shai_Hulud wasn't rude to you in the prevous post so whay do you constantly hadve to call people delusional etc?

You don't have to try and abuse people into submission so they believe your theor, all you have to do is say you don't agree.

Please don't feed the troll

What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

exactly, which is what I said; exposure. He is talking nonsense.

An imaginary creature invented by over sensitive nerds frustrated at not getting their own way. Because they cant win an argument through intelligence, they concoct these imaginary villains, making out that they are being argumentative because they wont see their point of view, because they dont want to believe that some people dont agree with them because they are smarter than them.

Okay no problem pleb, I'll take your fantastic advice and not bother with you any more.

One thing though:


It's everyone who is a member of this boards business (yes you've proved yourself wrong again flunky).

If you don't want me or anyone else commenting on your crackpot ideas its simple. Follow these instructions:

START -> TURN OFF COMPUTER. Wait while your Computer shuts down and never turn it on again.

Hope you read the description of a "Troll" Mark47, mind you you'll try and prove that wrong too (and fail miserably as with everything else you try).

Bye mate, enjoy your lonely, argumentative, internet compulsive existence. I just know you wouldn't dare talk to people face to face like you do on here. Typical of people like you.

Edit:

You care so much what people think about you but you really won't accept the truth.

Like I said; hypocrite.

Like I said; crackpot

Edit - By the way I just noticed you edited your post above after 13 minutes, what did you post originally? Somethiing over the top again? Even you thought it went too far AGAIN?

Come on big guy what did you post originally?

Well we can safely say that Mark47's camera is not high end then, and if by chance if it was high end and posseses a viewfinder blind. It would not exert any attractive properties to photons. Unless there is another theory where it is possible for photons to pass through the blind of course. I don't think think Mark47 is a troll, a sad wannabe with an inflated sense of ego maybe, you can tell by the effort he takes in posting his replies.

I removed it before you posted, so you must have been writing it at the time. Yes I changed my mind.

You have seen a theory and without so much as a nano second of thought, have deemed it "hillarious". It is the hight of ignorance to dismiss something with no thought whatsoever simply because it means that to believe it possible, means you would have to believe in the possibility that your theory could be wrong.
This is nothing new to science, in fact it is pretty much par for the course. People used to mock Einstein. Funny thing is they always come out second best but never seem to learn.
If someone comes up with a new idea, it is an enlightened person that will look at how it could be possible rather than simply dismiss it without thought and simply reiforce their own beliefs. Tall poppy syndrome, someone comes along with a new idea that might just make it, some people are jealous that the new idea will make them the centre of attention, so they mock them in an attempt to prevent them from obtaining any satisfaction; very sad.
Your "theory" is so completely illogical. All you have done is thought to yourself, what possible glitch could there be, without any thought whatsover whether that could possibly cause such an effect.

Well actually I find you sense of ego and lack of hubris to be extremely hilarious, but that is beside the point. When I first read your erhum, "ideas", it immediately registered a "10" on my Obullshit meter, do you have any idea how rare that is? An absolutely positive 10! Maybe if someone had claimed to subsist entirely on light, and you are rude! I couldn't resist it even if you are a troll. If you too dim to know it, I have demolished your theory. Stop commenting on your better, we are talking about you here not Einstein.

Im sorry that we have hijacked this post.

demolished it? All you have come up with is some giberish to do with exposure. you are as delusional as the scientists that mocked the wright brothers and twice as ignorant. They were bike mechanics. Tall poppy sydrome, you are a sad little juvenille. Why else would you respond to a theory that you think is complete nonsense unless it were to gain some form of bizarre personal satisfaction?

Do you mind also editing the above to "Blaaaah" as well? It would be an improvement. Thanks.

Haha Mark47 calm down mate. You'll rupture something.



That the same Einstein you called an idiot earlier is it? Or is this Ringo Einstein the not so well known nut who makes false claims and takes hoax photographs? I could see how you would hold him in esteem.

You really don't like being proved wrong do you.

As for the subject of this thread, I have seen possible spacecraft powered by light. These are "pushed" along by powerful lasers (i.e the laser light comes from the source and to the subject).

The laser has to be very powerful but it does work, even in the Earths atmosphere.

BTW. The blinds are used to prevent light entering the viewfinder so that the exposure meter wont give a false reading. When you take a photograph the mirror pops up and blocks off all access to the viewfinder. The shutter doesnt open until AFTER the mirror is up and blocking off the viewfinder, so that if light was entering at 300,000 kps, the light that was in the lens when focused, would be half way to the moon already.
so much for your demolition work.

Lets have less of the snide remarks please everyone, keep the discussion civil or this thread will end up being closed.

Lasers and sun light.

Source

Granted the launch failed but the concept will work.

Good! I see you still have some spirit, but unfortunately the blind also obscure any light attracting property of the teleconverter. You also haven't explained why eyeball behind viewfinder will not affect the image on the film. A picture i took behind it and a picture where I moved my eyes away as the shutter opened. A simpler explanation is that it is a hoax and you are a troll starved for attention. In one of your edited post you claimed to have a spacecraft in your home....

I think that NASA know it will work. They have all sorts of trouble with "solar winds" and their satalites.

It would make things very interesting if they can get it to work because there is the potentual for close to light speed travel, isn't there?

Close to light speed would mean massive forces, I don't see how a solar sail could withstand them. Then again I know almost next to nothing about this so I could easily be wrong.

I didn't either till I read up on things.

From page 2
Source

Not light speed. More like 14 AU per year, or 60 km per second.

Voyagers I and II move at about 3.5 AU per year, or more than 17 km per sec.

SOL is 300000 km per second.

It is 5 AU to Jupiter, and I think 28 AU to Neptune, and 40 AU to Pluto. I will show a chart, below.

Today was one more setback for NGO solar sail activity, in space.
The Planetary Society lost their payload in another Russion launch failure.
They used donated funds to try and put a serious prototype into LEO for a deployment test. But the Russian sub that launched the missile let loose a dud.
Its first stage exploded.

I think this happened before, if I recall. A similar event happened a year ago, or so. And when the Russians tried this in the late 1990s, I think they missed the launch for technical reasons, or some such issue. (don't quote me on that!)

Nonetheless, I wrote on this matter here at UM, previously. It is an interesting study, with some special niches. There has been a plan or two on the board for several years, at NASA JPL. The basic idea is to get out there, and get out there
as quickly as possible, from funding to launch.

The basic idea, initially, was to ablate material off an aluminized sail, probably somewhere around 750 earth radii closer to the the sun (it is about 1100 earth radii to the Sun). You launch to that vicinity, and the sun does the rest. It gives a hot kick to the sailcraft, which then rides out to the interstellar space, outside the heliopause. You could use zenon-ion thrusters for the final leg, but they do add weight beyond a critical mass limit. The alternative is just to jettison the sail around 5 AU, when solar material thins out. Mother nature does the rest.

This type of probe could sample pickup ions, and anomylous cosmic ray particles, which are the former's recoil incarnation. This is because solar particles, perhaps shocked by flares or other solar events, rebound off the heliopause with additional energy, only to traverse back into the solar system. And once the spacecraft moved into the interstellar medium, and despite more of a vaccuum, there are cosmic particles from supernovae and the shocked interstellar gas particles that are part of those events (rare as they are). And, if you aim 'straight up', you could exit the galactic plane. An intergalactic sailcraft to return its data from the cosmos.

Any such project has probably had to fight uphill, to compete for attention and funds. Some contractors have been underwritten for studies, and a new generation
of carbon containing sails would add reaction-propulsion. Also, I remember something about print patterns that would alternate colors to capture different wavelengths better. And another idea would pulse a laser to ablate carbon, thus being called a laser sail. But, the pure sail is an elegant idea.

Such a craft would need a 200 meter radius sail. Here is a 20 meter test- 19MB Video

Recent test on sail deployment.


I forgot this one!

Heliosphere Lets Neutral Atoms Enter, And Deflects Charged Particles



Distance Landmarks. Reach the Heliopause in less than a decade.


Compositions

MORE INFO

One of the main reasons for believing in the existence of non-luminous matter is that the motions of galaxies within galaxy clusters and the motions of matter around individual galaxies seems to defy conventional celestial mechanics. Either plenty of extra (but unconventional) mass must lurk in the vicinity of the galaxies (the dark matter theory) or the known laws of physics might be in need of amendment (the theory known as modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND).