APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090913.html wrote:
"...Beware, other people looking at the above image may not claim
to see 3 x 10^65 bits -- they might claim to see a teapot."
An upper limit for the data you can get from that image is 273886 * 8 = 2191088 bits. That is the size of the file. In reality the information content is even less because some bits are lost in the file format itself. Of course, a specific area of the screen can contain outrageous bits of information, maybe even the number that you stated.the most information you can get from this image is about 3 x 10^65 bits for a normal sized computer monitor.
So is what they are trying to say is that the particular pattern on the screen can be data compressed into a single number that is no smaller than about 3 x 10^65 (or ~217 bits of information)?gwrede wrote:An upper limit for the data you can get from that image is 273886 * 8 = 2191088 bits. That is the size of the file. In reality the information content is even less because some bits are lost in the file format itself. Of course, a specific area of the screen can contain outrageous bits of information, maybe even the number that you stated.the most information you can get from this image is about 3 x 10^65 bits for a normal sized computer monitor.
geckzilla wrote:And that teapot defies gravity. Why did they have to create that image with a tangent at the lower edge of the teapot? And those garish colors... This APOD offends my design senses in multiple ways.
http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheGymnast.html wrote:
MR. PITT: Oh, this is very odd.
KRAMER: (looking at picture) Yeah, it's 3-D art. Computers generate 'em. BIG computers.
MR. PITT: Yes, I've heard about these. How do they work?
KRAMER: Well, you blur your eyes like you're starin' straight through the picture. And you keep your eyes unfocused. And then... (Kramer and Pitt stare at picture) Oh, oh, oh, YEAH!
MR. PITT: I don't see it.
KRAMER: Yeah, it's a spaceship, surrounded by planets, asteroids...
MR. PITT: I still don't see it.
ELAINE: Okay, Kramer, that's enough. Mr. Pitt has got work to do.
KRAMER: Ya' ever dream in 3-D? It's like the boogeyman is comin' right at you.
MR. PITT: A spaceship, where?
KRAMER: (pointing) Right in here. Just keep your eyes unfocused.
ELAINE: (pointing at 3-D picture) Look, there's a spaceship! That is so cool!
MR. PITT: Where is it?
ELAINE: (pointing) Right here.
MR. PITT: I'm looking there!
ELAINE: No, no, unfocus.
MR. PITT: I am unfocused!
(phone rings)
ELAINE: (answering phone) Hello? Oh, yeah, okay fine. Uh, he'll be right down. (to Pitt) Car's here to pick you up and take you to the meeting.
MR. PITT: (still staring at picture) Meeting?
ELAINE: Yeah, the Poland Creek merger?
MR. PITT: Why don't you go for me?
ELAINE: How can I go?
MR. PITT: Oh, all they're gonna do is read the report.
ELAINE: Mr. Pitt, I do not think that is such a good idea.
MR. PITT: Oh, DAMN this thing!
ELAINE: (on phone) Oh, yes, yes I'll tell him. Yes, thank you. Um, um hold on. (to Pitt) Mr. Pitt!
MR. PITT: (staring at 3-D poster) I think I'm on to something!
ELAINE: Mr. Pitt! The board of directors is on the phone. They've called an emergency meeting. They want you to be there to discuss the merger!
MR. PITT: You said keep your eyes out of focus, which is misleading. You want DEEP focus!
ELAINE: (on phone) Yes, hi. Okay, fine, yeah, hold on just a second. Lemme just... (reaches into purse) Yeah, I've got it... (pulls out both hands completely covered in black ink) Oh! Oh! Yeah, yeah, he'll be there. (drops phone, rushes to Pitt) Mr. Pitt, you have GOT to stop staring at that poster!
MR. PITT: I see something that could be a spaceship. Is it round? Is it pointy?
ELAINE: (grabs poster, smashes it) No, you don't see it, and you're never going to see it! (grabs Pitt by the lapels, getting ink all over his jacket) Mr. Pitt, you have to meet with the shareholders, you have to leave now. Do you hear me? Do you hear me?!
----------------------------------
Astronomy, the connection? Apodman's teapot, of course.Star*Hopper wrote:All well & good, I suppose....but somebody help me out here. What does the 'A' in 'APOD' stand for, again?
neufer wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090913.html wrote:
"...Beware, other people looking at the above image may not claim
to see 3 x 10^65 bits -- they might claim to see a teapot."
- And we all know who that particular person is.
"It can arise from generalizations from seemingly distant speculation that the information held by a black hole is determined not by its enclosed volume but by the surface area of its event horizon."Star*Hopper wrote:All well & good, I suppose....but somebody help me out here. What does the 'A' in 'APOD' stand for, again?
~*
I look for a couple of contrasting areas about eye spacing apart. In the APOD pic there are some darker patches across the middle - line up your eyes on the dark matter with your face about, oh, 30 to 50cm from the image, then defocus ie dont 'look' at anything in particular, then slowly move your face closer close to the image. Maybe, just maybe, the 3D will slowly resolve as your brain sorts it out. It does not suddenly pop into 3D for me - just slowly builds over a few seconds.dduggan47 wrote:The heck with the physics. Just once in my life ... someday ... I'd like to see the image in one of these pictures. ...
When such 3D hidden images became very popular at least 15 or more years back I never had any problem seeing what was in them but I knew several people that never could. Shame really as the effect when seen is remarkable, as in the APOD with a teapot that looks to be floating. I hope dduggan47 that you do make out the hidden image in this and other similar holographic images.dduggan47 wrote:The heck with the physics. Just once in my life ... someday ... I'd like to see the image in one of these pictures. Never ever have I been able to see them.
What's wrong with me?
I suspect you know this, but to be clear, there is no connection between this image (which is based on random dot stereography) and holography. This isn't a "holographic image".DavidLeodis wrote:When such 3D hidden images became very popular at least 15 or more years back I never had any problem seeing what was in them but I knew several people that never could. Shame really as the effect when seen is remarkable, as in the APOD with a teapot that looks to be floating. I hope dduggan47 that you do make out the hidden image in this and other similar holographic images.
Just to make it clear, yes I knew that Chris. I simply used holographic image as that is what these types of 'images' are often called in general use and as they usually were when they began to appear many years back.Chris Peterson wrote:I suspect you know this, but to be clear, there is no connection between this image (which is based on random dot stereography) and holography. This isn't a "holographic image".DavidLeodis wrote:When such 3D hidden images became very popular at least 15 or more years back I never had any problem seeing what was in them but I knew several people that never could. Shame really as the effect when seen is remarkable, as in the APOD with a teapot that looks to be floating. I hope dduggan47 that you do make out the hidden image in this and other similar holographic images.
I can assure you apodman that it is no false claim. There really is a teapot in the image. It is a shame you don't see it, as the 3D effect in this and other autosterograms is amazing.apodman wrote:The A stands for autostereogram. I'm cool with connecting the holographic principle to astronomy via black holes, but using a hologram to represent the holographic principle is one stretch and using an autostereogram to represent the hologram is another stretch. Alas, stretch is all you can do since there is no way on a monitor to illustrate the appearance of an actual black hole or the appearance of an actual hologram. I am one of those autostereographically challenged folk, so (contrary to published assumptions) I see no teapot (nor anything else other than a 2D abstract pattern) and remain unconvinced there is one. I remain unconvinced that autostereograms are anything other than a hoax designed to waste my time defocusing while the jokers point and giggle.
Amazing.Hi apodman. Though I have no problem seeing the 3D effect in such images as the APOD I can never succeed in doing the cross-eyed way to see stereoscopic images and so, where possible, I have to rely on red/blue glasses. They always work well for me but I know from older APODs discussions that some prefer the cross-eyed method as they find it easy.apodman wrote:Oh, I believe y'all. It's just that, despite my efforts, I remain disappointed and unconvinced in the evidential sense. And how many other untested abilities might my brain be missing?