Speed of light

[The Code]

I now have to clean the floor...

Ms

[makc]

sorry, apodman, I missed this link, I mean I dont read or click everything (esp. with "UFO" in it)...

UFO, Alien, Scientist Find Evidence Of Life On Planet HD189733B? ... The inventor of APEP-Advanced Photographic Extraction Process Ron Stewart in his latest demonstration of mapping a planet find life on HD189733B?

Impressive. When I saw these pictures with accompanying straight-face text, I thought it must be published on April 1st, but no, it was on May 20th.

The gold spot and the white reflection is the Sun's energy highlighting the water vapor in HD189733B's atmosphere

This is priceless. Almost as laughable as above comic strip.

[apodman]

The gold spot and the white reflection is the Sun's energy highlighting the water vapor in HD189733B's atmosphere

Could you zoom in to the image's "total resolution capacity" (let's say 5,000 d.p.i.) so I can pick a spot to build my vacation home?

[makc]

I see nice island at 2 o'clock - wouldn't mind to live there.

btw, it is worth of mention that images like these sometimes make it to apod.

[Space Explorer]

he made something he is proud of, but he is not prepared to present it to the public.

Most of the text in the rambling post above was copied and pasted from the content at the UFO Digest link I cited above. Either this guy is the inventor promoting his wares or a fan riding the inventor's coattails. Either way the claims are unreal.

added information is bogus, and its only use is aesthetic - to please an eye

True.

Only the true inventor would know is what about this entire situation. One of you speak of this being on UFO Digest. Any magazine can write about this from whatever angle they want. If an author with UFO Digest or any other magazine want to do a story on this from their perspective and they contact me the inventor with permission to do this, who am I under the laws of our constitution to take any their rights to publish whatever they decide to publish about it..? That's freedom of the press. That's why you and I have the basic right to also comment on this forum. or have we all forgot..? A tabloid states things also. But, that does not make it true

That said I hope that "nips that in the bud". If some of you don't understand , don't exspect me to sit here and explain to everyone what my patent pending rights to this process. Because I'm going to explain only what I need to explain. No less no more. So don't expect me to divulge more information than you would n't divulge either if it were you who had invented this and the shoe was on the other foot.It's called:"The Golden Rule". Or have we forgot..?

One last thing about these comments. Let me very simply set the record straight here. The bottom line and main point to all of this is:"That results count".Therefore, again my point is:"each and every time I post new images of what this technology can do and show it as I stated I would, the more and more the record will grow. That result after ending result, will also stand up and speak for itself. You cannot argue with results. So where do we draw the line..? 10 images , 20, 40, 50 100 1,000 results ? What if these results can be confirmed by scientists that what I show on this forum is so..?What then? Are you going to come back then and speak against the other consistent evidence that will back this up from scientists themselves?

Instead of putting what you see down and ridiculing it, why don't you just be a little patient and let's see if the images will show what I state they will? Over time you'll see for yourself by all the images available on this site , will more show result after result as I state and the record and the images will speak formidably for themselves.If you got a problem with it , than the burden of proof is on you, to prove that it does not work as I state it does. But the very fact I state what it will show and the image shows it proves what I have stated to be true, and will continue to do so.

Space Explorer

Come Come now, I thought your we're more adept professionally than that..? Thank you!

[apodman]

I thought your [were] more adept professionally than that.

Too adept for you. Do you really think your word salad can convince educated people of anything? Once the laughter subsides, I predict that this joke won't continue much longer.

[Space Explorer]

[oops]

Come Come now, I thought your we're more adept professionally than that..? While we're on this page let's talk real . Now you mean to tell me that scientists everywhere are looking for basically :"blue planets" . Or the planets that may have life , or the building blocks for life as we know it.

So, let's look at this from a scientist's technological perspective. Suppose a NASA scientist invented this. Or it begins to be used on Hubble. Suppose Hubble were to zoom in on a planet and found a civilization..? You mean to tell me that the truth of what is and the scientific ending result miraculously changes just because Hubble finds it and some one else does not..? What does it matter who finds what..? Thee technology is not going to show favorites or partiality into what it either reveals or does not. Just because a few people say one thing or another. The truth does not change for those who accept it a or those who do not. It remains the same no matter what.

Here's another angle. So what if a scientist on earth uses this technology on an earth telescope and then finds what I've shown on this forum. What then..? Are you going to make fun of him too, and say he's wrong..? Suppose a month down the road it's verified what he found..? Then who will be laughing at who..? It amazes me that on such a forum as this that persons makes foolish comments. Not realizing that in time if the truth is against what they say they they will look like the fool. Not the person they tried to ridicule.

I thought this forum was to talk about the planets and to share data and was made up of those with open minds. But, it appears from some of the comments that it's apparent just how small some minds might be.OK you've had your laugh. But now is :"The time to either put up or shut up"!Respectfully meaning;"prove my technology wrong, and if you cannot post equal scientific information as to why it is , and show counter scientific images to refute my technology, than you do not have a leg to stand on.Than the technology, and results stand for themselves and will continue to do so"!Thus will the evidence accumulate and increase. So, many images will be on this website, that it will be pouring out of everyones ears eventually . Because of so many images, showing so many results, it will have to be a force reckoned with. That so many images could all not be wrong. Yes that Space explorer just might be onto something after all. Time and the formidableness about these images will show either as I state or the opposite. I'm willing to do all of this and stand the test of time. Are you..?

Space Explorer

[makc]

Because I'm going to explain only what I need to explain. No less no more. So don't expect me to divulge more information than you would n't divulge either if it were you who had invented this

oh please, people on siggraph demonstrate far more impressive results and not only publish papers that describe everything they do in detail, but even release source codes. because to take these codes and turn it into commercial product is in itself very expensive process. don't be a paranoid.

[Space Explorer]

Because I'm going to explain only what I need to explain. No less no more. So don't expect me to divulge more information than you would n't divulge either if it were you who had invented this

oh please, people on siggraph demonstrate far more impressive results and not only publish papers that describe everything they do in detail, but even release source codes. because to take these codes and turn it into commercial product is in itself very expensive process. don't be a paranoid.

I'm not the one making the crazy comments no one can prove.OK show me one scientist anywhere that can do things like this with a heavenly body or anomaly..? Point is you cannot. Put your proof where your mouth is.You make a comment now back it up with evidence in writing I would love to see that. Show me exactly where someone has done this..? Again you cannot. The proof of what I state is true is because:" if this was done some where by someone else or a scientist, then we would see the technology being used and we do not. It's that plain and simple. If you want to read the details than you can read it in the patent when it issues .

[apodman]

Apodman (all us smart guys refer to ourselves in the third person) has invented some great software, but he is keeping the details a secret because aliens might patent it first. But here's a before-and-after example of a planet apodman has imaged to prove the value of this technology. Do not laugh!

Before:


After:

But now is :"The time to either put up or shut up"!Respectfully meaning;"prove my technology wrong, and if you cannot post equal scientific information as to why it is , and show counter scientific images to refute my technology, than you do not have a leg to stand on.Than the technology, and results stand for themselves and will continue to do so"!

[makc]

OK you've had your laugh. But now is :"The time to either put up or shut up"!Respectfully meaning;"prove my technology wrong, and if you cannot post equal scientific information as to why it is , and show counter scientific images to refute my technology, than you do not have a leg to stand on.Than the technology, and results stand for themselves and will continue to do so"!

as you wish, here goes a quick test to prove your technology wrong. this is picture of myself in small resolution, that cannot be found anywhere on the internet:

please use your patent-pending technology to display my face in high resolution. I will then post real high resolution picture, and we will see if your result will remotely resemble it.

if this was done some where by someone else or a scientist, then we would see the technology being used and we do not

I say again: the technology is there, but it is not being used by scientists because it creates bogus data and so is pointless for scientific purposes.

[Space Explorer]

My technology takes the exiting image-at whatever d.p.i. level the photo was originally taken at and re-photographs the original image at a higher d.p.i. level. If the original photo was photographed at 1200 d.p.i my technology basically rephotographs the image at 3000 d.p.i. etc.Or much more.

All it seems you know how to do is ridicule.You have not and do not offer one scientific piece of evidence to refute this. So it's a waste of time to even to respond to you.I will say this. Soon I'll use this to explore other areas starting with Proxima Centauri.Than I'll work my way outward. I would like to invite any and all astronomers and scientist to watch and keep your eyes open. I also would like to publicly invite any professional scientist out there to examine the results and let us see if they may possibly be so or not. Look at all there is and see if what was found could scientifically meet the description of what I found. It's that simple. The results of what I find s if true and real should be able to be supported when looked at in it's totality by any and all scientists. I openly here on this forum invite you to do so. In the event I find whatever that will be published on this forum.The results will posted here in great detail.Nothing else needs to be said .

[makc]

Cool, so do you give up on recovering my face from the picture above?

[bystander]

Cool, so do you give up on recovering my face from the picture above?

CSI could do it, they would have your DNA, too.

Take the challenge Spaced Explorer, or go away.

[Chris Peterson]

Cool, so do you give up on recovering my face from the picture above?

CSI could do it, they would have your DNA, too. :wink:

In fact, you can, in a sense, add real information to some images. The process is called deconvolution, and is essentially an inverse filter. The problem is that filters are a type of trapdoor function- you can only go one way. But if you happen to have some a priori knowledge about the target, and you know how your image is being filtered, you can make a guess about the original, run it through your model filter, and test the result against the actual image. If you do this iteratively, you can end up with a new image with an actual increase in detail.

So in the case of Makc's image, we suspect it's a face and a couple of hands. We make some assumptions: he has two eyes, one mouth, five fingers on each hand, and so forth (of course, we might be wrong about that). We make some assumptions about the effective low pass filter that is created by the camera and the reduction algorithm, and we start testing possible higher resolution starting points.

This really does work, although it's very, very easy to go sideways at some point and end up with an unreal source image. It's used most often on astronomical images, because they are usually full of stars, and we know with certainty that those are diffracted point sources, meaning we know very accurately what the convolution filter looks like.

In practice, this kind of processing lets the operators of spy satellites do things like read license plate numbers, even though their actual resolution is only about 6 inches at the ground.

That said, it's pretty obvious that no processing exists that can give surface details on Mimas if it only fills one pixel on the HST camera. Not from a single image, anyway. There are techniques that could do it given multiple images, with the image dithered around on different pixels, and pixel edges.

[apodman]

It is clear that makc's left hand is on fire. That must have been painful.

[rstevenson]

It's also clear he has two left hands...



But the face still looks a little like a cardboard cut out. How are we doin' so far?

Rob

[BMAONE23]

Gee Apodman...Looks kinda like a Vinyl Love Doll with a Brunette wig and 2 left hands


Atsa my boy, bigga da nose, fatta da cheeks anda alwaysa needa da shave

[apodman]

... if you happen to have some a priori knowledge about the target ... you can make a guess about the original ... this kind of processing lets the operators of spy satellites do things like read license plate numbers, even though their actual resolution is only about 6 inches at the ground.

Agreed. This works best if we know how many characters we are looking for on the license plate and the valid values for those characters. Then we can test all the possible combinations to see which one produces the best match to the blurry original image. We meet with less success if we have a free-form drawing on the license plate rendered in similar weight strokes with a magic marker. We meet with less success yet if we don't even know that it is a magic marker drawing we are looking for. The information resulting from our process is partly information from the original image and partly information that we put in ourselves. The proportion between these two kinds of information varies with how simply defined the information we put in ourselves is. If the only choices were one, two, or three big black dots on a white plate, we would be adding very simple information and have a greater success rate. In the case of informing the algorithm about detailed planet surface features, we are (1) guessing and (2) providing an input of complex information that dominates the outcome, so our outcome is pretty much what we tell it to be. And in the case of the license plate we are asking for a resolution enhancement factor of a dozen or two, whereas in the supposed planetary image from the UFO site we are asking for a resolution enhancement of thousands, millions, or more.

[makc]

wow that already looks just like me... or does it?

[apodman]

wow that already looks just like me... or does it?

Palpatine, Darth Sidious, makc, ckam - by how many names do we know you?

---

Digital post-processing of images is fine, but it is the third and last link in the chain of information. The second link, much more important than the third, is the physical resolution of your optical device. The first link, most important of all, is proximity to the subject you're imaging; that is why Cassini gets better pictures of Mimas than Hubble does, despite Hubble's angular resolution being 25 times finer. If you want a sharp picture of an exoplanet, send a probe. The lighter the probe and more efficient the fuel, the faster it goes - even to relativistic speeds. We have been in space for 50 years, and another 50 years for remotely transmitted photos of exoplanets is not a long wait. And while we're at it, telemetry from these deep space probes can get us to the bottom of the Pioneer anomaly, because I really want an answer to that one.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


Thank God the universe came before Faraday.

Or else Farday would of had a field Day.

I hope some gets the joke.

They say scientists do not joke.

[makc]

Chris (or anyone),

Yes, but you are talking about people discussing other theories, or more often, expanding on the BBT. Under the best developed theories, the idea of "before" the BB has little or no meaning. Part of the problem is what "before" means if there was no time. And some of the discussion you refer to does address just that, relating "before" to causality and not to time at all.

tell me which one? so I dont go reading all these pages, thanks.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

The Big Bang reminds me of fantasy land and santa.

Anybody in the right mind with any info on cosmology would understand that the BBT is just one of those theories here day gone next day or so.

In the last few days I have been reading papers supporting the BBT. God knows where they got the scientists to write up the reports.

In most cases they assume the BBT to be correct than they fit the data.

This is true science gone mad.


For one moment I thought I could add some ad hoc ideas and make the BBT work.

By adding this point.

Bangs and inflation through out the universe at random time, making the universe eternal evolution.

[aristarchusinexile]

in fact, by your own statements which reveal that mass arises from nothing.

I'm rather certain I never said that, either.

Pascual Jordan said that.