View Full Version : Invisibility
This topic has interested me ever since I read H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man: How can you make someone truly invisible?
Any ideas are welcome, as I have never thought of a scientifically (or even logically) feasible way.
Astrophysics
Sep13-03, 05:58 PM
Here's an idea...you have a suit with microscobic cells, some of these cells absorb light some are light sources, those which absorb the light give the information (colours, intesity, etc.) to other cells on the other side of this suit. So if you look at a person with this suit on you'll see what you would see if this person wasn't there.
Naturally this is only theory and hardly practicle.
selfAdjoint
Sep13-03, 10:39 PM
I had an idea like this a few years ago when I was thinking of writing a short story. In the story a peasant has rescued a witch (actually a representative of an advanced society) from the gallows and they have escaped into the nearby woods, but a search for them has been mounted. Now the witch removes her baggy dress which turns out to be just such a device as you mention, but at a slightly cruder level. She whispers to him that it wouldn'y fool anyone in the light of day, but in the woods, at dusk, it just might. They huddle under it deep in a copse of bushes and are overlooked.
poke the other guys' eye out
Originally posted by Eyesee
poke the other guys' eye out
LOL. [:D]
Yes, I thought of this, but I was hoping for something a little less violent [:((] [;)].
Originally posted by Astrophysics
Here's an idea...you have a suit with microscobic cells, some of these cells absorb light some are light sources, those which absorb the light give the information (colours, intesity, etc.) to other cells on the other side of this suit. So if you look at a person with this suit on you'll see what you would see if this person wasn't there.
Naturally this is only theory and hardly practicle.
This is what I'm told the new 007 car is like (I haven't - and don't intend to - see(n) the movie). I suppose this is somewhat practical, except that there would have to be a computer that could calculate exactly what the environment would look like (if you weren't there, that is), and change the suit to fit that calculation every time you move. Otherwise, it does seem possible in principle.
On a side note:
This is what I'm told the new 007 car is like (I haven't - and don't intend to - see(n) the movie
They actually use cameras that feed what they see to projectors laced throughout the car that projects the image.
Hey, it's a Bond movie. [;)]
Originally posted by Beren
On a side note:
They actually use cameras that feed what they see to projectors laced throughout the car that projects the image.
Hey, it's a Bond movie. [;)]
I see.
Originally posted by Astrophysics
Here's an idea...you have a suit with microscobic cells, some of these cells absorb light some are light sources, those which absorb the light give the information (colours, intesity, etc.) to other cells on the other side of this suit. So if you look at a person with this suit on you'll see what you would see if this person wasn't there.
Naturally this is only theory and hardly practicle.
This approach has been explored by the US Army. The cells were not microscopic, but small octagons about 3-4 inches accross. These were the projection screens, and they fit together like the cells of a honeycomb. At the joints between the screens, there were pinhole cameras with fiberoptic lines running to the appropriate screen the one on the opposite side of the soldier's body).
But, as you say, not practicle. Horrendously expensive to make and almost as bad to maintain, the suit only turns out to be a slight improvement on camo. The plates are large and flat enough to reflect sunlight sometimes, and produce only a fragmented image of the terrain behind the soldier. Maybe the microscopic cells you suggest would work better, but I'm not sure such tech even exists, and if it does, it would be even more expensive.
Maybe in the near future, though.
wuliheron
Sep16-03, 02:26 AM
The only real practical invisibility camoflage for the forseeable future is for stealth aircraft and ships.
The simpliest way to be invisible is just not to be there. The military already has fly sized video cameras, robotic snakes, and who-knows-what in the works. The next generation of aircraft will theoretically be mostly remote control whether invisible or not.
An aircraft or ship invisible to the naked eye is worthless.
wuliheron
Sep16-03, 03:03 PM
What you don't see can hurt you. [g)] [8)]
Astrophysics
Sep20-03, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
This is what I'm told the new 007 car is like.
Really?.....maybe I should go and work for Q then[;)]
Astrophysics
Sep20-03, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by LURCH
This approach has been explored by the US Army.
Hmmm....or maybe I should go and workk for the US Army...
There is no possible way to create complete invisibility that is also useful, although you could theoretically get awfully close. The problem is, if you are completely invisible, you cannot see!! If you allow light to pass around or through you, no light will reach your eyes. If you absord all light, you will appear black. And if you are simply projecting images for the illusion if invisibility, you will still have a heat signature which can be picked up.
Having given the millitary's approach further consideration, I notice a new possibility. Another project under developement for the millitary is the powered armor suit. It would be safe to assume that this suit, when developed, will be as stealthy as DARPA can make it. It will probably have features to decrease its heat and radar signature as much as possible. But the projection method of invisibility would also be made easier by the adbvent of such a combat vehicle. This suit would not require the flexibility of a camo uniform, and so the flat screens with flexible joints between them could be illiminated. The position of each part of the suit's surface is far more predictable, making projection easier and more realistic in appearence.
Originally posted by Zero
There is no possible way to create complete invisibility that is also useful, although you could theoretically get awfully close. The problem is, if you are completely invisible, you cannot see!! If you allow light to pass around or through you, no light will reach your eyes. If you absord all light, you will appear black. And if you are simply projecting images for the illusion if invisibility, you will still have a heat signature which can be picked up.
Yes, I'd considered this, and that's why the "invisibility suit" wouldn't necessarily make you invisible, but rather make it so that all others can see is your surroundings. It would also help to have the typical "stealth" features (undetectability by radar and the like).
... simply projecting images for the illusion if invisibility
Here's a challenge: how do you know where to project images to (if it's just this kind of illusory invisibility you are after)?
If you want to appear invisible to observers 'at infinity', a 'light pass-through' arrangement might work; if the observers are close, there's no way you can project images to all possible observers without some parallax problems arising for at least some observers (and if you don' t know where they are, you can't correct for this). Of course, that's not a problem if you're in a blizzard, but then a nice white camo kit would do the trick just as well.
Originally posted by Nereid
Here's a challenge: how do you know where to project images to (if it's just this kind of illusory invisibility you are after)?
If you want to appear invisible to observers 'at infinity', a 'light pass-through' arrangement might work...
Check out Zero's post, he addresses the "light pass-through" possibility.
...if the observers are close, there's no way you can project images to all possible observers without some parallax problems arising for at least some observers (and if you don' t know where they are, you can't correct for this).\
But what if you had a small computer in each "projector", which calculated the distance between you and observers, and thus compensated for differences in PoV?
But what if you had a small computer in each "projector", which calculated the distance between you and observers, and thus compensated for differences in PoV?
The computer would have to know the distance to all objects in the field of view (of the soldier), to even begin to eliminate parallax.
Further, each 'projector' would need to emit through a full ~ 2[pi] steradians, across the whole of the visible spectrum (and into the IR, thank you Zero), with an angular resolution of no more than ~5 arcmin, a response time of <0.1s, and a dynamic range of >5 orders of magnitude.
... and we haven't started to specify the detectors.
Hmm, not your average movie cinema projector; not your average PC.
Originally posted by Nereid
The computer would have to know the distance to all objects in the field of view (of the soldier), to even begin to eliminate parallax.
Further, each 'projector' would need to emit through a full ~ 2&pi steradians, across the whole of the visible spectrum (and into the IR, thank you Zero), with an angular resolution of no more than ~5 arcmin, a response time of <0.1s, and a dynamic range of >5 orders of magnitude.
... and we haven't started to specify the detectors.
Hmm, not your average movie cinema projector; not your average PC.
I concede that you are most likely right. I don't the folks that make 007 movies really cared much, but for practical application this is certainly a barrier.
TENYEARS
Oct8-03, 07:45 PM
I believe such thing is possible from the person who says they do not believe. It has to do with what gravity is. I also believe it is possible for a human being to become invisible under the correct circumstances. What zero said of light is true from a normal classical situations. There are some situations which are not beyond classical, but which are yet to be defined but do exist. When you understand this you will know it is possible.
Originally posted by TENYEARS
I believe such thing is possible from the person who says they do not believe. It has to do with what gravity is. I also believe it is possible for a human being to become invisible under the correct circumstances. What zero said of light is true from a normal classical situations. There are some situations which are not beyond classical, but which are yet to be defined but do exist. When you understand this you will know it is possible. Would you be so kind as to elaborate please?
TENYEARS
Oct10-03, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Nereid
Would you be so kind as to elaborate please?
I would like to, but now is not the time and maybe there will never be a time. If you want the truth or the answer to a question there is only one way there has always and always will be one way. The paths may look different on the outside, but there is and only will be one way to answer this question or any question. What you should ask yourself is what am I really interested in? This question? The result of the question? Collecting marbles? The human mind is a trickster.
instntpudn
Oct16-03, 09:02 PM
So I just wanted to let all of you pessimists know that I am in progress of developing the first FULLY spectrum invisible suit. With the new advances in OLED technology the quality, architecture and manufacturability of a REAL invisible suit now seem closer than ever. Inspired by good old Wiley Coyote I plan to have a working CAD model by the end of this year. Questions, comments or constructive or useful critisism or any experience working with OLED email scott_mcq@hotmail.com.
benzun_1999
Oct25-03, 04:32 AM
Look at coal, it is a allotrope of Carbon and it is black and absorbs light but have a look at diamond it is also a allotrope of Carbon but it allows light to pass through. So taking this as an example we can find a way to invisibility.
Originally posted by benzun_1999
Look at coal, it is a allotrope of Carbon and it is black and absorbs light but have a look at diamond it is also a allotrope of Carbon but it allows light to pass through. So taking this as an example we can find a way to invisibility.
But, if we discover a way to let light pass through us, we may become invisible but we will also become blind. See Zero's previous post in this thread.
Dark matter may be more correctly defined as "the missing light"
Fred Holy had suggested that microbes in intterstellar space are --biologic clouds of dust-- abosbing much of the missing light instead of reflecting it or letting it pass throught us.
Asorbing the light as a carbon allatope(SP) does not realy work. Allowing light to pass though does.
We need to chang our chemistry so that our frequenices do to interfere with the light.
What frequencies of EMRadiation this would be i cannot say for sure other than to guess that any frequcnies other than that of visible light i.e. between the very narrow 450 and 650 nano meters and probalyaway from those nearset to light i.e. heat(infra-red) and ultra-violet.
Then next problem becomes maintaing the integrity of our biologic pattern as EMR in location that is equanimous to where a visible bdoy would be.
Not very likely is my best guess.
Rybo
Originally posted by instntpudn
So I just wanted to let all of you pessimists know that I am in progress of developing the first FULLY spectrum invisible suit. With the new advances in OLED technology the quality, architecture and manufacturability of a REAL invisible suit now seem closer than ever. Inspired by good old Wiley Coyote I plan to have a working CAD model by the end of this year. Questions, comments or constructive or useful critisism or any experience working with OLED email scott_mcq@hotmail.com. Organic Light Emitting Diode material may be one part of the 'emitter' component of such a suit; what will you be doing for the detector components?
IIRC, OLED materials have some way to go wrt dynamic range and response time before they'd start to be useful. Also, it's hard to see how they could be architected to address the parallax issues.
Originally posted by benzun_1999
Look at coal, it is a allotrope of Carbon and it is black and absorbs light but have a look at diamond it is also a allotrope of Carbon but it allows light to pass through. So taking this as an example we can find a way to invisibility. Glass, shrink wrap, and water are, to us humans, transparent. However, if you make an object from either of these, they are still very visible! The visibility of transparent materials arises from the fact that their index of refraction is not the same as that of the air in which we see them. You're not suggesting that we could turn a human into a colourless gas?
I saw a little documantary on the discovery channel a few years ago where they showed this technology on a tank. It was pretty cool. It looked like the kind of object that one sees blured in the distance in a hot desert.
I think the way to go would have to be a bending light method and not a projector method. If a person could be wrapped from head to toe (not including their eyes) in a material that bent light around them, an invisibility effect could happen. Are there fiber optic cables that work with all frequencies of visible light? And if so what about an entire suit in which the cables were arranged so that the openings were on opposite sides of the suit.
Gabriel
Originally posted by Allday
I think the way to go would have to be a bending light method and not a projector method. If a person could be wrapped from head to toe (not including their eyes) in a material that bent light around them, an invisibility effect could happen. Are there fiber optic cables that work with all frequencies of visible light? And if so what about an entire suit in which the cables were arranged so that the openings were on opposite sides of the suit.
Gabriel
In this case, Allday, you have the following problems:
1) Bent light produces a sort of "shadow" image, and so you wouldn't be invisible.
2) Your eyes would be visible, unless you bent the light in front of them, and then you would be blind.
TENYEARS
Nov17-03, 07:26 PM
You build a high frequency sonar device with digital display infront of your eyes.
cassiopeiae
Nov18-03, 01:05 AM
Since all physical forms give off energy, would it be possible to develop a device to counter act these frequencies (not sure if that's the correct term). Almost like a cloaking device...trick the observer into not seeing? I was reading these posts and thought back to the old tales of Native American invisibility. There are stories of them being able to control their own personal energy in order to diminish the amount projected so they could have a successful hunt, or spy on a rival. I'm not sure I believe it is true or not, but it made me wonder if such a device could be possible, or if science even has a way to measure the energy levels of form (aside from heat signature) and the relationship to reflection of light?
selfAdjoint
Nov18-03, 09:46 AM
We see others by the light that is scattered off them. Light has not only frequency (color) but phase. The trick would be to match each scattered photon with a generated photon exactly 180o out of phase with it. Then the two would cancel. No scattered light and therefore invisibility. This need not interfere with your body processes that use absorbed photons - like seeing - since those photons are by definition not scattered.
To do that your body would have to infer the phase of scattered photons. I don't know how it could do that but maybe somebody else has an idea?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
[B]We see others by the light that is scattered off them. Light has not only frequency (color) but phase. The trick would be to match each scattered photon with a generated photon exactly 180o out of phase with it. Then the two would cancel. No scattered light and therefore invisibility. This need not interfere with your body processes that use absorbed photons - like seeing - since those photons are by definition not scattered.
Ah, good point. The photons don't scatter, if their absorbed by the retina...but, I see other people's eyes...so, only some scatter and others don't? How could you possibly stop only those that scatter?
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
We see others by the light that is scattered off them. Light has not only frequency (color) but phase. The trick would be to match each scattered photon with a generated photon exactly 180o out of phase with it. Then the two would cancel. No scattered light and therefore invisibility. This need not interfere with your body processes that use absorbed photons - like seeing - since those photons are by definition not scattered.
To do that your body would have to infer the phase of scattered photons. I don't know how it could do that but maybe somebody else has an idea?
But wouldn't that leave a big pitch-black outline where you stand? If the photons that would have bounced off your body are cancelled out by matching, phase-inverted photons, the impact on an observers retina would add up to zero, yes? And zero photonic impact on the retina = total darkness. So these photons, which are not allowed to travel past, around, or through your body are therefore never reflected off other objects "behind" you (from the observer's point of view), and the observer still sees the objects as being blocked by the silhouette of your body.
jringwald
Nov19-03, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Astrophysics
Here's an idea...you have a suit with microscobic cells, some of these cells absorb light some are light sources, those which absorb the light give the information (colours, intesity, etc.) to other cells on the other side of this suit. So if you look at a person with this suit on you'll see what you would see if this person wasn't there.
Naturally this is only theory and hardly practicle.
Instead of focusing on the object that is to be invisible. Maybe, focus on what is viewing the object (Or, maybe both). Find a way to alter the viewing mechanism. Poking the eye out is on the right track, but the viewing mechanism would be aware of this process.
Example: A large percentage of people wear glasses or contacts. What if the lenses could filter out certain components of light that where also being produced by the "microscopic cells". This is just one example, but I think the key is to focus on all of elements involved in the process of "being invisible".
Invisibility is in the eye of the beholder -- Joel A. Ringwald
Seems to me that Astrophysics and jringwald are on the right track.
The human visual system (shared by most mammals? animals??) has some hard-wired, low level processing capabilities - static parts of what's seen are filtered down (so 'motion' is immediately noticable), edges trigger special signals, etc. That's how low-tech invisibility (a.k.a. camouflage) works.
So a faster, cheaper, better path to an invisibility suit (than what's been the subject of most posts in this thread) may be ways to achieve better camouflage:
- more 'realist' mimicry of natural backgrounds (colours, patterns)
- better disguise of movement
goscott4
Nov24-03, 08:08 PM
http://www.chameleo.net/news.html
Just happened upon this fourm, and it seems that I did not see the US Patent mentioned.
Surprise!!!! The suit is better than you can ever imagine!!! In a room in a your house with normal light, it is "impossible" to tell if someone is there with you.
BUT this suit is really NO big deal, it's being used by ALL police departments in the US. It's the other componet that comes with the suit that will blow your mind!!! Any comments????
StarkyDee
Nov28-03, 05:49 PM
that is a great site goscott4.. so if i have this idea right..if you could mimick the radiation of heat energy produced from an object and convert it into light waves--a suit could be used just like the skin of a chameleon, in which it responds to the amount of heat or temperature. adaptive camo-technology--that is awesome..
First of all, Im 16, so dont take any of my theories too serious, this is just my thoughts from reading the majority of the posts on this thread...
I think the whole agrument rests on the meaning of invisibility. I see some of you take it literally while others take it as an advanced stealth. I believe a suit that could even make a blurred image of the surroundings where the wearer is (sorry, that was choppy) would greatly decrease the chance of being seen. I dont think it is anywhere practical to send an agent like 007 into a high security enemy base and sneak around undetected because of his invisible suit. It is, however, practical to have a distorted image of a soldier when hes near an enemy (say, 100 yards) or maybe even for a sniper. Prehaps even a blanket of some sort could be used by a sniper...if a photograph of a lot of ground could be transferred into the blanket it could be laid over the user and a create a camo that could adapt to any environment. This wouldn't allow for grealy mobile camoflauge, but never the less it would only help out. I think we need to take some small steps in this field instead of shooting for the complete invisible suit like on Die Another Day.
Also, on the argument of sight for the wearer, if the tiny little itsy bitsy cameras can project an image that they see onto the other side, whats to stop them from projecting a second image into some type of eye piece for the user, say a thin pair of glasses or maybe even a pair of contact lenses, however crazy that sounds, lol.
Thanks for wading though all that, if you did...
Email me at kyle14g@hotmail.com if you want to chat privately! [:))]
Thanks for the time,
I hope someone hasnt mentioned this yet ( I have only read 2 pages of this so far), but the designer of the stealth bomber was asked a question by top United States Military Leaders " How do you make something invisible?". His answer being, "You have to alter the planes." And so the planes of the Stealth Bomber are very different from the angles on other planes. I wonder if this could be applied to an invisibility suit. Like someone said, Making something invisible to the naked eye is worthless, this could be applied to a "projection suit" and therefore made "invisible".
I also am 16, so do not take my post as seriously as you would have I been an adult.
Also, plz respond to my post. Comments? Suggestions?
selfAdjoint
Dec7-03, 10:34 PM
The planes technology was first concieved by a soviet mathematician "back in the USSR". He reasoned that if you could get the reflected rays of a radar beam bouncing around in just the right way, they would interfere with each other and, after the manner of waves, destroy the return signal, so the radar would never see the aircraft. The mathematician figured how to do that with flat planes arranged at carefully calculated angles.
After the fall of the USSR, the technology came to the US, and was applied and improved. The basis of the whole thing though, is that there is only one radar beam looking at you. Sort of like being illuminated by a single penlight in pitch blackness. If you can frustrate that one beam, you're home free.
As you can see, the same thing wouldn't work in the open daylight, with light coming at you from all sides.
But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some engineer hasn't built a stealth kit car that is invisible to police radar.
MythioS
Dec23-03, 09:04 AM
Just as with anything else i think the identification of what the original 'post'er meant by invisibility is the question.
Personally I dont agree with the direction leaning towards the alteration of perception. In theory it sounds great but we all dont percieve things the same way. At best i think the hopes would be something like a hilucinagen that could maybe confuse you enough not to care that the person is visible but to ever actually make someone invisible through that means is like trying to take the experiment out of the lab. The conditions are no longer going to be the same and from the get go your already at a deficit in your research.
alias25
Dec23-03, 02:29 PM
i don if it's true (it could be a lie)
i heard that some time ago dunno where
but some scientist managed to make some of the skin of
a mouse (or was it a guinie pig) invisible
by injecting something into it
it was only the skin so you could still see
it's inside.
When I was reading PREY by Micheal Chrichton (I love his books) I formulated my own theory with no help just like the microbe thing a cloth of nanorobots, every other one is a reciver that recives the light and sends it to a picture thingy nanorobot that is like a LED, it projects its share of the scenery around it. So when you look at someone wearing the cloak you see a projected picture of the other side of the cloak. For the person wearing the cloak there are LED nanobots covering the inside projecting a picture of what it looks like outside so the person can see outside
By da way: How do those black fabrics covering a face when wearing a halloween costume work, you can't see in but you can see out.
Dayle Record
Jan11-04, 09:43 PM
The way that things will be made invisible, will be to use microwave to skull transmissions, that tell the looker, they can't see the object. Much like Obi Wan Kenobe, says those aren't the droids you are looking for. That is the cheapest, and most likely method.
cucumber
Feb10-04, 11:24 AM
i'm not sure if this is obvious, but i believe there is a flaw in the invisibility-suit approach; depending on where the observer is standing, the background behind the "invisible" person will be different. this would mean that your little light-emitters would have to send different pictures to different directions.
if the suit only projects the image of what is directly behind the suit, an observer standing at a slight angle would be able to distinguish the suit from the background.
that would be a fat lot of use, wouldn't it??
if i,ve missed something obvious, please let me know.
Not all that obvius, but the suit I saw under developement for the millitarry had cameras pointing in all directions. And each camera was connected by fiberotptic cable to a video screen no the opposite side of the soldier. So when viewing the suit from any direction, the observer would see a projection from a camera which was on the opposite side of the soldier, pointing in the same direction the observer is facing.
in reply to the invisible suit thing:
in terms of an invisible soldier, he doesn't have to be completely invisible, he just has
to blend into the background....and not move much. the processing power really isnt
that great. just enough to fool the human eye at a few dozen yards.
but that doesnt really make him invisible now does it? just hard to see.
now then how to truly make someone invisible? help me out on this you nifty science folk.
if i'm not mistaken most everything that we see, touch, experience is matter. matter, while
seemingly solid is mostly just empty space. the vast majority, something like 99.99999 percent is empty space. would there be a way to make that matter vibrate at such a rate
as to let light pass through and not reflect off that .0000001 percent? not likely that you
could use such a thing on a living subject. osha and peta might have something to say
about that. however on a given solid object this should be theoretically possible. just
dont have the science to get there yet.
jeffceth
Mar2-04, 01:31 PM
any 'flat' display system would fail because your depth of field changes from the same exact angle depending on what distance you are at. For an awesome example of this check out the 'vertigo effect' made famous by alfred hitchcock. however, if the object to be made invisible were very small one could construct a larger three-dimensional light distortion area out of some sort of carefully designed glass and then 'fade' the glass from distortionless at the edges to bending light around a small area in the centre and thus the difference between any adjacent areas would be negligible to the low-resolution human eye. That's my proposed method.
sincerely,
jeffceth
betalimit
Apr12-04, 09:31 AM
http://h.webring.com/hub?ring=scinobel good link for more information!
betalimit
Apr12-04, 09:43 AM
I canot tell you everything. Everything is possible we are now so advanced we can compute to infinet so go out side and injoy life once you find what you are looking for it not really what it is it's somthing else to fill the void it's called the code @ www.beyond-science.com
zeta101
Apr18-04, 08:56 PM
if you are just concerned with making someone/something invisible to human sight then you can just take advantage of how our brain processes the images...but this has already been done in the form of camouflage. Obviously camo only works when there is a background for you to hind against, if youre out in the open you are spotted easily because of the edge of your body, the patterns on camo are designed to break up the edge of your body (since this is one of the processes of the brain to look for edges in order to help recognise objects).
cucumber, i think thats what other people have said, only skim read this myself, but its also something i thought of a few years back and why i think having a suit with tiny "cameras" and LEDs (or whatever) isnt really practical.
For it to work you need to decide what kind of resolution you want the suit to have, ie for a given area on the suit how many photons it registers for the ones it ignores. Eeven the photons it ignores need to be absorbed and not reflected. This will tell you how many (and how small) and your detectors and emiiters need to be on the suit. The photons that are register at a given area on the suit also need to be coupled with the information of which direction the photons came from...off the top of my head im not sure this is possbile or at the very least i think it would be impractical. Then you have to send all this info about what colour light is hitting where and from what direction etc etc, then send this info to the approriate emmitters.
Now you have the problem of getting the light emitted in the correct direction. Also not forgetting all this needs to happen quickly because if the suit has a low "refresh rate" then its easily noticable.
I suppose the military can do with camo, and they can do without having complete invisibility, i mean all you need to do is fool someone for a few seconds before you shoot them or something lol
http://noticias.terra.com.br/ciencia/interna/0,6752,OI85263-EI238,00.html
www.davidicke.net/mysteries/history/philexp.html
(4 pages following...)
How did you like the luminous jacket done by Japanese engineer recording images from the back? I know US army has been interested in this optical system since they saw PREDATOR film. In the case of Philadelphia experience it's interesting the fact Nikolai Tesla was associated to it...someone who wasn't even mentioned by Dr. Kaku in Hyperspace, so the book mentioned in that site (not the one written by Berlitz) is a must if the author was one of the survivers. The effects the dielectric breakdown in the air near surface of the water were imitated in a film with Kirk Douglas about trasatlantic SS.Nimitz, the green cloud (like the green jacket of the photograph which is not a hoax). That was part of the magneto refraction and resonance optical invisibility in Philadelphia-Montauk-Rainbow experience. It's interesting the fact that the experience resulted in crazy people, vanishing and appearing again and even melting bodies to the metal, similar to this other odd experience:
www.amasci.com/freenrg/pyrexp1.html
www.amasci.com/freenrg/grado.html
SO, PLEASE, DR.KAKU, WHEREVER YOU ARE, SINCE YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED NONE OF THIS BUT WERE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE ODD EXPERIENCE OF CASIMIR LIQUID EFFECT, IT'S YOUR TIME TO RE-CREATE THOSE EXPERIENCES USING TESLA COILS..but, please, this time take notes or make a diary in case you literally loose your head or the ticking of time is affected in particular circumstances related to the Moon, eclipses, solstices, equinoxes, etc. If you die in the temptative (cos the experience is dangerous, at least you're gonna be remembered like the man creating mini black holes to travel into space-time:
www.keelynet.com/unclass/hardy1.htm
www.totse.com/en/fringe/tesla/hardy1.html
Don't be shock! Newton -and I repeat it once again- was the Freemason "pyramidiotic" who used Great Pyramid measures to calculate dimensions of the planet...and we have inherited his knowledge. Therefore, Mr. Kaku, you wrote about "orbifolds" and "cones", allow us to write something more concrete in terms of experiences...
www.teslatech.info/ttstore/books/590005.htm
I'm refering to the experiences as described in these sites, not mere crystal or wood pyramids using human or animal tissue, drinks, gillette. I suggest even a better material as examined by Professor Davidovitch, geopolymers, mock ups miniatures (specially the INTERIOR of the pyramids) and a space for the ark made of wood and gold, using gold white powder (monoelectric or dielectric) sealed inside, and Tesla Coils as shown in the photograph.
www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html
www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1b.html
www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1c.html
Unfortunately I haven't been able to communicate with Professor Davidovitch, yet since in this forum there are genious in other fields, perhaps you can imitate the experience with the previous information and please, use the exact time and circumstances used by Egyptians, Mayas, Incas, etc:
http://members.optushome.com.au/dingdell/gjo/arial3.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PaulBadham/themyste.htm
Since the granite used in Great Pyramid special area is quartz granite, perhaps the use of mock ups and Tesla Coil requires crystal quartz. Yet someone who is doing other experiences -Dr. Dan Burish Ph D. in Molecular Biology and Biological Systems- found that was extremely dangerous for other reasons (which make us think in entities of hyperdimensions pretty much like Egyptian hybrid human-animals and all gods from ancient past):
www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
The arial view photograph of the Great Pyramid shadow-vacuum effect unfortunately was withdrawn from every possible site that I know, even from the site of egyptologist (Egyptian himself) authority, Zahi Hawass. I think I have recorded it but I'll have to check.
shadowman
May21-04, 07:22 AM
sometimes when i get out of the shower and its REALLY cold, my thingy is almost invisible.... :surprise:
Trancid
May22-04, 06:52 AM
I saw last a video on the Internet and I want your opinion on it. This japanese guy seem to invented some kind of invisibility, but is this true or just a hoax. And if it's a hoax, how did he do it?
A newsmessage about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/02/07/japan.invisible.ap/
The videoclip:
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/images/oc-s.mpg
Tia, Patrick
I've seen that article before, as you can see in the third paragraph, the photo is a bit of trick photography intended only to demonstrate the possibilities of the final product. I assumed the video was done in a similar fashion; a technique comparable to "blue screen" or "green screen" that is used as a special effect in many Hollywood films and by nearly all weather reporters.
christian_dude_27
Jun4-04, 02:34 AM
my friend, have you ever heard of astral projection? astral projection is when you move your spirit out of your body and are actually able to walk around and do things. you can touch things and all kind of stuff like that, but no one will be able to see you. so yea, i guess that is a way of being invisable. also, if you haven't already read my theory on space and time travel with the mind, i suggest you do. because, if you were able to ever do it, you could move in and out of time and dimensions so fast to make it where you are invisable.
Don't be shock! Newton -and I repeat it once again- was the Freemason "pyramidiotic" who used Great Pyramid measures to calculate dimensions of the planet...and we have inherited his knowledge.
Hmm I understand Newtom alchemy and it has some sense, in the historical context. I have heard also about a "milenarist prediction" done by Sir Isaac from some numerology in the Bible, but I have not read any confirmed report of it. As for pyramidology, it is the first time I heard about it.
Hmm I understand Newtom alchemy and it has some sense, in the historical context..Maybe the proof that Mercury isn't good for human health :smile: ?
selfAdjoint
Jun4-04, 10:03 AM
my friend, have you ever heard of astral projection? astral projection is when you move your spirit out of your body and are actually able to walk around and do things. you can touch things and all kind of stuff like that, but no one will be able to see you. so yea, i guess that is a way of being invisable. also, if you haven't already read my theory on space and time travel with the mind, i suggest you do. because, if you were able to ever do it, you could move in and out of time and dimensions so fast to make it where you are invisable.
Bet I won't.
Maybe the proof that Mercury isn't good for human health :smile: ?
Mercury is a mental abstraction(yellow, more warring elements, with Mars influence? :smile:
The idea in distilliation, is to perfect and from a science point of view what is being distilled? What is the "vessel" used?
IN a "psychological sense" such perfection is the recognition of steps to freedom and the crowning glory. Fermentation for example, is the idea that you could be sitting with ideas on the back burner for many years and all of a sudden "eureka." Or Like those mathematicians, who spend 7-8 years on solving those mathematical problems of ponicare, fermat. Or applying sucha example to a days events and see incubation has present a chaotic idea of, in renditions in dream analyse.
Lets throw in a little Ramanujan and the idea of the octaves. Or lets throw in a little of the pryamidology,as models for paradigmal changes. This is taken from a post that I wrote for consideration.
If one were a geometer, how simple such a square could mean to the lower states of mankind, that its evolution, if sought to be represented in such a triangle, they might have found unification between the lower and higher centers?
If we had percieved the Octave to be based on eight and not seven, such a complete system would have been derived from wholeness, as of those seven, to have found the harmonics very well revealled. How do you add energy to any system?
You look for a spot? You look for a way to join the lower centers with the higher, and if the heart was such a spot, how would you introduce such energies?
If the osciallitory system and resonance of that system is to be raised, how would you do this? You would have to join the intellect with the emotive states to rise to spiritual understandings?
Only again in the gemetors eye would such a joining of the square and the triangle describe for us, what is embedded in any thought, that we have understood the emotive connections(baser qualities and solidifications)with the understanding of raising those same vibrations( look over top of the pyramid and what do you see?)
And then there is supposed to be this accomplishment.
In Reply to: For a Alchemist...... posted by sol on May 28, 2003 at 13:37:00:
If we can recognize the King(Ego), then we have gone a long way to climbing the steps of progression and the road too, what has been perfection in another man( he offers his life), that we see his Kingdom of Heaven, rests in, the consciousness of any soul? He lives again?
Have we been so devoid of understanding, that the hermeutics of religious text, has been the exercise to read between the lines? What are images and symbols?
If we can change perception, by eliciting model apprehension and change, what makes us not think the interpretations are still not open to understanding?
Would we have denied that our own heaven, in the self(turn your own eyes upward) to have not recognized what was given up for us?
A ever wondering mind that seeks clarity, is another artists move, to consider that heaven in Dali's vision of the Tresserack, was a mind's perception of higher dimensional understandings, in what heaven might mean?
You can see the ideas, and way in which one could look at things, could definitely go through some transformations once you indulge oneself in paradigmal model assumptions. Allows one to see in way they have not seen before. That is really Grokking models for change as foreign as these concepts might appear.:)
We are after the gold not the mercury in fish. Indulge that statement for a minute and you can see how it can be used to alter perception using language.
Mercury is a mental abstraction(yellow, more warring elements, with Mars influence? :smile:
You may rest assured I was reffering to mercury (ie. quicksilver) not :smile: the planet.
But,ya know there is link between invisibility and quicksilver.Couple of years ago,I watched SF episodes of "The invisible man" (I think that was the title) where main character had liquid in his body on basis of quicksilver and from time to time could go inivisible .. :smile:
Yep TeV, random alchemical allusions happen form time to time. Their theory of matter was a dualistic one, every body due to a mix of a "Mercuric" substance and a "Sulphurous" one (no planet for it!). Any manipulation of matter was to be understand in these bipolar terms. Guess it eventually evolved to Reduction/Oxidation etc in modern Chemistry.
Interestingly, the "psychological sense" invoked by sol2 is seen as crackpottery by current practising alchemists!
Interestingly, the "psychological sense" invoked by sol2 is seen as crackpottery by current practising alchemists!
And these wouldn't be sort of witches and wizzards of new age?
"Suck and see approach" in experimental physics is something else.I wouldn't call it alchemy.By no means.Word alchemy sounds too oculistic to me.Dark middleage enviroment and stuff..
"Suck and see approach" in experimental physics is something else.I wouldn't call it alchemy.
Neither me, at least in the modern implementation. On other hand, alchemy had a deep belief in its theory, actually blocking further advances, so it was replaced by modern chemistry. By "practising alchemists" I was not referring to physicist, but to practicioners of the old approach. Retro thing, but interesting hobby.
Back in Newton times, the dualistic theory of alchemical reactions was still considered a valid approach, so it was sensible for a scientist to do research about it.
selfAdjoint
Jun8-04, 09:50 AM
Back in Newton times, the dualistic theory of alchemical reactions was still considered a valid approach, so it was sensible for a scientist to do research about it.
Well Newton was about the last major scientist to think so. Ever since Boyle wrote the Skeptical Chymist, real chemistry had been differentiating itself from alchemy. Newton had his own theory about everything from alchemy to the Bible, and can't be taken as representative.
Yep TeV, random alchemical allusions happen form time to time. Their theory of matter was a dualistic one, every body due to a mix of a "Mercuric" substance and a "Sulphurous" one (no planet for it!). Any manipulation of matter was to be understand in these bipolar terms. Guess it eventually evolved to Reduction/Oxidation etc in modern Chemistry.
Interestingly, the "psychological sense" invoked by sol2 is seen as crackpottery by current practising alchemists!
I beg to differ on terms of crackpottery :smile:
Myths are a interesting thing.
I spoke on this subject in relation to Ring of Power (http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?50@80.qwgVbNnebgf.0@.1dde81eb), by Jean Shinoda Bolen. Here you see real artistry at work. One of many forms of creativity
At various times there were references that we engaged at a previous time on this subject. Some memories might be sparked, even with clear acclamations of certainty :smile:
If one was to identify such a thought of what could have been found in men who live the cycles of lives, passing things onto there children, what would have been the choice but to teach all the courage to venture out into life and be brave about it(sense of confidence would have been spoken as bravery). Dickt is right about this. Yet such boldness could have found itself exploited by a mind unaware of the extent of the way he might have lived his life, and realized to late, his children have been listening all along.
So, how is the cycle broken? Wotan in leadership, would have been devastating in the roles of a Hitler, and where would we have seen such thoughts moved into the world of a messiah complex?
Is it then, we are without the roles models for giving our children a path and image, then to have demonstrated such bull headness? Image a pure race and what hogwash, and if it was set as a ideal, what could have be transmitted to a people that were doing better then they that dream?
So what has been done but to have Hitler share his dream and what now becomes the dream of the people? I think we know what I am talking about here? And a Jewish people became the brunt of his values?
So Wotan has harbored feelings of never having enough, and to see such mindness in terms of the way life is lived in religious principles, Wotan created his own religion. His soldiers, the SS. He realize the vision his people needed, and imagine, that out of such a devalued dollar, a war machine must be developed with a purpose, to put its people back to work and expand its borders? Recover parts of the country that was lost, to have soveriety demonstrated, and acknowldeged? How many leaders(countries) have done the same?
Doc:If such archetypes exist as in the case of the "wotan" complex--which could be considered, the psyche "shadow" of God or the devil, one would have to consider the possibility that if this "center for evil" is ignored or repressed for an extensive period, it will "break forth" in its usual mischievous, tricksier mode that could result in devastation but on the other side, it could be constructive or in a merrymaking state.
Repression, and what of Hitlers life, could have found him without a role model, to discover he would institute his values? So do we say that such repression could have arisen from a self without direction? Envy of another, who might of lived a better life and what does he do. What could any culture do, that is without the resources to develope and watches as a desert is made into a garden?
Would it have been selfishness then that those who hold such values on life could have gone without their wotan complexes themselves? Wotan might have risen out of a evolutionary creature, who conscience has not been given, and who does he ignore? His own children in face of his goals and that any desire of control, being past to his sons, would have found a illusion created because he could have never relinquished control? So unaware of the people that live in close proximity, its borders, why has not the olive branch been extended instead of the guns and death in retaliation? The cycle of violence and the ring of power?
Who is the king then, that we could compared any ego, to one that has a narrow view on life, to have recognized the wider perspective of vision and awareness would have relegate such a ego to venture into the world with such bravery and self confidence. It would have required a Wotan, who had developed his compassion for others. By then he is no longer the king without a conscience but a king who might have realized that such a kingdom of heaven could have been attained in life.
Because we use such models for thinking, it might have been missed that is does not matter the way in whcih to choose to value these steps to perfection or harmonious natures ( music of the spheres). Imagine usng quantum geometry tied to the very nature of our thinking and modelling on a scale in consideration of dimension, from "least to most". What kind of thought value system would emerge?
Thoughts by there very nature discrete, while those of a fluid nature, very flexible in the world of concretize belief systems. Imagine the monte carlo method and the idealization of triangulation tied to the brains thought function as amodel for quantum gravity. :smile:
Even you arivero chose a story of Mowgli (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27005) for consideration and having a deeper meaning then you realized at first? :smile:
So sure, we use models all the time. Mathematicians do it, and summarize very nicely for us based on those formulations. These are the most interesting summations I am drawn too, because of its artistic flare that some can draw better then others?
If you want to make a deep impression you have to be colorful about it:)
calculii
Jun19-04, 10:12 PM
This topic has interested me ever since I read H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man: How can you make someone truly invisible?
Any ideas are welcome, as I have never thought of a scientifically (or even logically) feasible way.
The Philadelphia Experiment, using Einstein's unified field theory, created generators producing an electromagnetic field which refracts light, allegedly making the USS Eldridge invisible. However, the crew was harmed and therefore the use of the generators are likely harmful to humans.
selfAdjoint
Jun19-04, 10:17 PM
The Philadephia experiment is an urban legend, and I know enough about Einstein's Unified Field Theory to say it does not produce invisibility. The core of the story was probably the practice of passing coils of wire around a ship to "de-Gauss" it and make it "invisible" to torpedoes with magnetic fuses.
Michaelism
Jun28-04, 08:02 AM
My two thoughts on recieve/transmit for optical clothing are -
1. To have an image recieved on one side and projected on the other would work if the wearer was two dimensional, however wearer is not a flatplane, and clothing is not a flat plane, so to assume an image recieved on the back will be directly reflective of what would be seen at a corresponding point on the front of the wearer if the wearer were invisible, is not possible. Mutliply this distortion by thousands and visible anomalies would occur enough for early detection by an observer, enemy or scout.
2. As an earlier respondant mentioned, to view a two dimensional image at the exact same focal point as all cameras (whos images are supposedly pointing to a parallel vector) is not possible. Viewability at all angles is a very difficult perspective to achieve in image transmission.
I think for any non-planular surface, like a jacket being worn by a person, we will have to wait for perhaps image projection at a molecular or extra molecular dimension. This would achieve a greater 3D projection symmetry.
Welcome to the forums, Michael. Your point about 3-D image projection is right along the lines of what I was thinking. It is also the solution to your second problem posed in the above post, as holograms can be projected to appear the same from many different angles.
ninja nemesi$
Jun29-04, 05:34 PM
We'll never know 100% if the Philadelphia Experiment actually happened or not, becuase Einstein is dead and the US Army deny all knowledge of it's existence/occurance
Anyone got a link for the unified field theory?
If I may present an idea? It is my understanding that all matter is energy at it's most fundamental level. If one takes some of the most common forms of energy, for example, electrical energy, radio waves, microwaves, heat energy and light, and looks for a common element one immediately identifies a wave-like property. Electrical energy oscillates along copper conductors - and through the air too under certain circumstances - and at varying frequencies. So to do the others with light also having wave/particle duality. The point here is that if matter is indeed energy then wouldn't it also be fair to say that matter too oscillates at certain frequencies? Harmonics is where two distinctly different tones oscillate together in a complimentary fashion and is achieved by adjusting the frequency of the oscillating tones. I propose that the only true way to achieve body-singular invisibility is by adjusting the wave frequency of the matter that comprises our bodies. The human brain produces it's own waves, and a great many too if I am not mistaken. Perhaps there is a certain wave that can be produced that will resonate through the rest of the body matter changing it's vibrational frequency also - maybe raising it to a frequency more closely matched to an higher dimension. It would be akin to moving ones physical body in it's entirety into the same space which hosts the out of body experience. A large amount of people worldwide have validated (maybe not with an official paper) the occurences of so called out of body experiences. Many people have woken on an operating room table with detailed knowledge of events which had transpired while they were 'dead'. I believe it to be true - that we each possess a kind of energetic body overlaid on our physical one that is provided for travel in the 'out of body' plane, or the next higher dimension if you will. I believe also that it is possible to move an entire physical object there as opposed to a purely energetic form. It is all a matter of matching frequencies. We are still in the early days when it comes to understanding theta wave production in the brain and theta waves themselves are proving extremely exotic and difficult to understand. Maybe conciously generated theta waves are the key to true invisibility? There are a lot of intangibilities here I know but I say to you, the better our technology becomes the more intangible it becomes also. It's like going from atoms to quanta - the places where we find the most energy are the least tangible in a physical sense. I say the future is the human being. No technology can make us invisible. There will be no invisibility suits. There may be invisible humans but they will not need technology to achieve it. It will be a matter of understanding and will. It shall not be able to be sold. :rolleyes:
event horizon
Jul20-04, 06:22 PM
while I don't have a direct link to the article, some of you may recall that Fark.com posted an article on auditory halucination in schizophrenics. In a nutshell it stated that while the eardrum doesn't vibrate, the auditory portion of the brain misfires or is overly active. Thus the subject "hearing things" is actually hearing them just as if the eardrums were vibrating which would mean these noises are absolutely real...even if they are imagined. Now if we could target someones brain with a EM frequency that would negate synaptic firings in the brain's "vision" center we could blur or even blind them...
TechPerson1024
Jul27-04, 02:16 PM
Human cell structure change: Change the dna of a cell in our appearance to that of clear transparency: such as one of pure glass. This would work and has no effects on the function of our body. As long as you keep the original dna, you can convert the person straight back. Currently, this is outlawed, thanks to stupid politicians, but I am hoping by 2015 the ban will be lifted.
valhalla_127
Aug1-04, 05:47 PM
I think you pretty much covered everything zero lmao.
Ezekiel.
Aug1-04, 07:29 PM
creat a huge gravitational field and bend the light around you.
StealthC
Aug3-04, 02:10 AM
I don't think that you would actually have to be invisible to people, just invisible to a photon, so you would have to eliminate the interactions that photons have with the matter in your body; not an easy feat but you would be invisible if you did that.
So there's you answer, but then how do we get the things in your body to stop interacting with photons, and to that, there is no real answer that wouldn't involve some assumption of things, but, I would guess that it's a small scale force which is entirely dependant on the fact that your photons are slamming (or more often not because it's like two galaxies colliding) into the bits that make up matter and being deflected. The light also loses energy but because it's got bits that make it up too.
You can't bring yourself out of phase, sorry but that startrek concept doesn't exist or work, but you can possibly meddle with what supports that reaction. You could make the spaces in between bigger and that would make the forces responsible for your visibility less effective, or you could even change the flavour of the soup that you ("the chunks") are floating in, but not enough (and this is where it gets tricky) that you cease to function properly. Which could both possibly be the same thing. If you decreased quantum foam pressure (not sure what to call it pressure fits well sorta), by increasing density, then density of solid chunks should naturally increase by force of pressure, or opposite by a repelling force so you would have to increase the density if that were the case.
Good luck doing that....
DopeyGuy
Jun12-05, 01:21 PM
lol sorry for bumping this topic back but i really like invisiblity and i know alot about it.
YES, IT CAN BE DONE. THERE IS A INVISIBLE CLOAK MADE IN JAPAN. AND AN INVISIBLE SHIELD MADE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
The one made in japan, you need like a camera on the back of the person, and he needs to where a suit so he could be like a tv screen, so when the camera is turned on, you see right through him, making active camouflage.
Gokul43201
Jun12-05, 01:38 PM
Let's not have parallel discussions on the same topic...especially one that's been dead a while.
Dopey, what you are doing is spam. Stick to one thread.
I'm closing this and leaving the thread (of this same title) in Gen Engg open.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.