S&S vs. SF in BotNS

entonio at gmail.com · 24 Dec 2011, 10:13 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (entonio at gmail.com)
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:13:11 +0000
Subject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS
In-Reply-To: <4EF59128.8040109 at clueland.com>
References: <SNT123-W6264EC536A69C6A6153331CFAA0 at phx.gbl>
	<4EF414CF.3000700 at clueland.com> <4EF462C8.909 at gmail.com>
	<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>
	<4EF495C8.90405 at hyraxes.com> <4EF4B5C2.3080400 at irit.fr>
	<4EF59128.8040109 at clueland.com>
Message-ID: <53C9B3A7-385E-4AD4-9DB2-AD7AD4F25A5A at gmail.com>

No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:45, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at clueland.com> escreveu:

> On 12/23/2011 11:09 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
>> You should not trust so much journalists, even scientific. Once I've
>> seen a picture of a sort of orange solar disk
>> and a smaller black disk crossing it - with the title "an exoplanet
>> photographed. This was rubbish, because
>> no telescope is powerful enough to make a star (except our Sun) visible
>> as a disk, not to speak about
>> an exoplanet. It was just a reconstruction (star is dimmer when the
>> planet passes before it).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets#Direct_imaging
> 
>> And when they
>> write "a photo of an electron" - what is it? The trace of some process
>> on photographic film, usually
>> with many intermediate steps and a lot of mathematical formulas and
>> nuclear physics to convince
>> you that it is related to an electron. Like they photograph flashes of
>> light in big tank of pure water
>> underground and they say that they photograph neitrinos (and you have to
>> believe).
> 
> Do you believe any images that you see on television are truly representative? They also require many intermediate steps and manipulation via mathematical formulas and electromagnetic physics to relate them to the scene observed by those present.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Color_encoding
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL#PAL_signal_details
> 
> 
> Can you name an instrument that produces a photograph that you agree is truly re3presentational?

I covered this with my 'understandable raw data' comments.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net