Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,896   Posts: 1,520,989   Online: 877
      
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 99

Thread: Infinite shots

  1. #71

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,973
    clive

    would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
    loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  2. #72
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,097
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    clive

    would they have to process the film too or just make the exposures ?
    loading the film on reels can be more difficult to some than loading an olde leica ...
    No, I think the task is difficult enough already, so lets say people will do the processing as they did for HCB. By the way I think one of the monkeys has just managed to reload a leica II, but unfortunately has the film the wrong way round.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  3. #73
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,092
    Images
    5

    Infinite shots

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    I suppose the same stuff (or non-stuff) that surrounded the point right before the Big Bang. And if anyone comprehends the whole universe as a point, they must truly be crazy.
    Ah, but there's the point. There wasn't any stuff, or non-stuff, surrounding the not yet point.

    What didn't exist was the surrounding. It's not that there wasn't anything there. It's that there wasn't any there to have nothing in it.

    So Oblio returns from the forest with the knowledge that "A point in every direction is the same as no point at all." And this, my friends, explains why going any direction on a sphere doesn't get you to the edge.

    MB
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  4. #74
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Clearly, Stephanie you are young.

    I hear it in the voice of James T. Kirk (William Shatner).

    It needs that special Canadian tone.
    I grew up with reruns of TNG. The first I was able to watch while it was actually making new seasons was Deep Space Nine. However, I'm also a Voyager fan.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

  5. #75
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,623
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    So I guess that means the whole universe is pointless.
    Except to someone crazy.
    Crazy Wisdom...

    A fun book -- https://www.google.com/shopping/prod...=0CGsQ8wIwBjgK
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,319
    Perhaps this will become the Infinite Thread.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,319
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Ah, but there's the point. There wasn't any stuff, or non-stuff, surrounding the not yet point.

    What didn't exist was the surrounding. It's not that there wasn't anything there. It's that there wasn't any there to have nothing in it.


    MB
    Yes. Thank you for understanding that very important part of the BB theory.

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    294
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    No need to argue. The universe will go on the same regardless of how we define it.
    It does not prevent to be rational.

  9. #79
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    It does not prevent to be rational.
    I don't think you are more rational than all those philosophers of the middle ages trying to demonstrate the existence of God by pure logic*. Logic, just like mathematics, is entirely inside the mind of the man. Whatever theory that is only demonstrated only "mathematically" or "logically" is just self-sustaining interesting reasoning but no science.

    I'm still with Galileo. No empirical demonstration, no science. The cimento (test, trial) gives the demonstration that the theory was good. Never the theory itself.

    The idea, for instance, that before the big bang there was no space to be there is just a negation in words of the problem the mind has (and cannot solve). If the big bang is an explosion of matter, that matter will explode into some space which has to have been there to receive that matter. Besides, big-bang theories normally as far as I know talk about a pulsating universe, with infinitely repeated big-bang-expansion-contraction-big-bang cycles!

    Saying that it is energy, or mass, (or energy-mass if you prefer) that creates space contravenes what our mind thinks when we think of mass, energy, or space. This negation is as far as I know performed either as pure imagined concept or, in the case of some other theories, with advanced mathematical "demonstrations". But yet again, no cimento, no science. Only theory with maybe a very intelligent and elegant layout.

    According to the imperfect infinitesimal calculus of the ancient Greeks Achilles would "never" reach the turtle. The logic mistake in the reasoning is easily shown, first of all, by noticing in real life that Achilles does reach the turtle. If the reasoning could be performed by some creatures in a world where there is no Achilles and no turtle, so to say, to prove it wrong, the brilliant mathematical construction might go on being right in the mathematical mind of the mathematical theorizers. Mathematics is not empirical evidence. Human brain can fail. Mathematics is a creation of the mind. Pushing it to its boundaries might give incorrect results.

    In the beautiful work Life of Galileo Bertolt Brecht shows us Galileo while trying to convince two Dominican friars to look inside his telescope, to see the "Medicean planets". The Dominican friars, I go by memory, answer that they are not interested in looking inside the telescope until they don't have an acceptable theory first that may justify them looking into it. The instrument might have defects but the human mind when properly used cannot fail, that is. Such is the presumptuousness of the human mind.

    * Failing miserably but often becoming "saints" in the process.

    PS I still don't get which are the two notions that I go on mixing.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 11-10-2012 at 04:34 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #80
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,097
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I don't think you are more rational than all those philosophers of the middle ages trying to demonstrate the existence of God by pure logic*. Logic, just like mathematics, is entirely inside the mind of the man. Whatever theory that is only demonstrated only "mathematically" or "logically" is just self-sustaining interesting reasoning but no science.

    I'm still with Galileo. No empirical demonstration, no science. The cimento (test, trial) gives the demonstration that the theory was good. Never the theory itself.

    The idea, for instance, that before the big bang there was no space to be there is just a negation in words of the problem the mind has (and cannot solve). If the big bang is an explosion of matter, that matter will explode into some space which has to have been there to receive that matter. Besides, big-bang theories normally as far as I know talk about a pulsating universe, with infinitely repeated big-bang-expansion-contraction-big-bang cycles!

    Saying that it is energy, or mass, (or energy-mass if you prefer) that creates space contravenes what our mind thinks when we think of mass, energy, or space. This negation is as far as I know performed either as pure imagined concept or, in the case of some other theories, with advanced mathematical "demonstrations". But yet again, no cimento, no science. Only theory with maybe a very intelligent and elegant layout.

    According to the imperfect infinitesimal calculus of the ancient Greeks Achilles would "never" reach the turtle. The logic mistake in the reasoning is easily shown, first of all, by noticing in real life that Achilles does reach the turtle. If the reasoning could be performed by some creatures in a world where there is no Achilles and no turtle, so to say, to prove it wrong, the brilliant mathematical construction might go on being right in the mathematical mind of the mathematical theorizers. Mathematics is not empirical evidence. Human brain can fail. Mathematics is a creation of the mind. Pushing it to its boundaries might give incorrect results.

    In the beautiful work Life of Galileo Bertolt Brecht shows us Galileo while trying to convince two Dominican friars to look inside his telescope, to see the "Medicean planets". The Dominican, I go by memory, answer that they are not interested in looking inside the telescope until they don't have an acceptable theory first that may justify them looking into it. The instrument might have defects but the human mind when properly used cannot fail, that is. Such is the presumptuousness of the human mind.

    * Failing miserably but often becoming "saints" in the process.
    Galileo was a great thinker, but Isaac Newton was on another planet in terms of human creative thought and scientific progression.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin