Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Seriously, why do you think special equipment -like telescopes and telephoto lenses and night vision technology and super sensitive detectors- is designed and built if anyone with a 100.00 dollar digital camera from Walmart can take a picture of anything at any distance?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's just the point. At a certain distance no picture can be taken because the object is not present.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How far away does something have to be to be considered "not present"? Beyond the point where it disappears due the curvature of the Earth (which means no straight line to the camera)?
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not present means not existing. Columbus discovering America is not a present occurrence. A picture could be taken of an object indirectly with the use of mirrors or other reflective photography.
|
Do you really want to get into another discussion about how time and distance are related and defining "present" in that context?
If someone about 519 light years away has/had the technology and equipment capable of seeing across that distance, they could see Columbus discovering America.
We have taken photos of galaxies that no longer exist, or if they do still exist they no longer appear as they do in our photographs. See the entire Hubble gallery for details.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The object is present if it's in an unobstructed direct line from the camera. However it is not photographable unless the distance and light and environmental conditions are accounted for and the correct equipment and set up used for the specific distance and light and environmental conditions. If the correct equipment and set up are used, we can get a photograph.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
An object can be magnified if it's already in the camera's, telephoto lenses', or detector's field of view, but an image of an object cannot be made larger if there's no object.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What do you mean there's no object? What are you attempting to photograph then if there's no object?
|
You tell me. You're the one that keeps saying we can get a picture from light alone because all a lens is is a collector of light.
|
|
What do you mean by "there's no object" in reference to your own posited Earthly experiment? That's what we were discussing.