Shanghai in 2000 billion pixels

[syrwong]

With some innovation in the technology of photography and cloud data processing, Bigpixel.cn has managed to produce Asia’s largest photograph. It is a combination of many thousands of smaller photographs of Shanghai from a high vantage point. You can zoom in online quite many times to see details in a great distance.

http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46d

There are also many big photographs of some other Chinese cities and scenic points viewable on the website.

Hong Kong
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af474

Tian An Men
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46c

Aside
These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space. That means at any moment, light rays from all things everywhere converge to that point. But the rays are information carriers. How can infinite information converge or be stored in one tiny point? This is like knowing everything everywhere by knowing one point in the universe.
Can anyone answer this question, or have I stumbled on some philsophy?:bigsmile:

[Foxie Loxie]

Good question!! :highfive:

[Bill Ryan]

These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space.

Well, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (like the now-retired SR-71, and God knows what they have now that's classified) can read car number plates from 15 miles up (80,000 ft). And maybe much more than that, nowadays.

A spy satellite from 150 miles up — 10x higher — would see this image (on the right), whereas the actuality is on the left. So, resolution problems do apply.

https://sqwabb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sat-res.jpg

From very great distances, you'd get natural errors creeping in (e.g. refraction of various kinds, even in almost-empty space). And, remember, light is also quantized... meaning (kind of!) that all images are ultimately 'pixellated', really.

That means that there'd be fundamental, natural limits. The ultimate extreme would be detecting just one photon reflected from a very distant object. From that, you could theoretically determine (a) its color, and (b) if it was moving ... but absolutely nothing else.

[abmqa]

These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space.

Well, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (like the now-retired SR-71, and God knows what they have now that's classified) can read car number plates from 15 miles up (80,000 ft). And maybe much more than that, nowadays.

A spy satellite from 150 miles up — 10x higher — would see this image (on the right), whereas the actuality is on the left. So, resolution problems do apply.

https://sqwabb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sat-res.jpg

From very great distances, you'd get natural errors creeping in (e.g. refraction of various kinds, even in almost-empty space). And, remember, light is also quantized... meaning (kind of!) that all images are ultimately 'pixellated', really.

That means that there'd be fundamental, natural limits. The ultimate extreme would be detecting just one photon reflected from a very distant object. From that, you could theoretically determine (a) its color, and (b) if it was moving ... but absolutely nothing else.

While in the Air Force I was assigned to the SR-71 project as an ELINT analyst. One interesting thing was the ability for the SR-71 to take pictures through cloud cover utilizing High Resolution Radar (HRR). This was technology developed in the late 50s. This ability made it possible to image targets irregardless of the time of day or weather conditions.

My expertise was with Elint and DEF systems. Looking at the pictures in the link provided certainly brings back fond memories.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr_sensors_pg1.htm

The SR-71 was retired in 1999, I think the CIA and NASA still have a few planes operational. Not sure if this information is still classified so in my defense, I'm guessing.

[Bill Ryan]

My expertise was with Elint and DEF systems. Looking at the pictures in the link provided certainly brings back fond memories.

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/sr_sensors_pg1.htm


:bump:

Bumping that link... do take a look. Very fascinating, with a wealth of (non-classified! :) ) detail.

[bettye198]

So is it true that satellite or drone intel can actually read the numbers off a credit card from space? Or the year on a quarter?

[abmqa]

So is it true that satellite or drone intel can actually read the numbers off a credit card from space? Or the year on a quarter?

I'm not sure about the year on a quarter, but I have seen spy sat images, back in the early 80s, where you can see a man sitting on a park bench and you can tell he is reading a newspaper. I have seen an image of a soccer (football for the Europeans) match and you can see the ball. The most disturbing image that I saw was of the failed Iranian hostage mission. I could see the crashed copter and plane and the bodies laid out on the ground.

I retired from the Air Force in 1996, so sadly, I have no clue how much better things are now.

[bettye198]

Glad you made it back abmqa. So did my husband from Nam.

[Foxie Loxie]

Thanks for sharing, abmqa, what interesting work! :sherlock:

[Axman]

Dido That


The Axman
Thanks for sharing, abmqa, what interesting work! :sherlock:

[DeDukshyn]

With some innovation in the technology of photography and cloud data processing, Bigpixel.cn has managed to produce Asia’s largest photograph. It is a combination of many thousands of smaller photographs of Shanghai from a high vantage point. You can zoom in online quite many times to see details in a great distance.

http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46d

There are also many big photographs of some other Chinese cities and scenic points viewable on the website.

Hong Kong
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af474

Tian An Men
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46c

Aside
These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space. That means at any moment, light rays from all things everywhere converge to that point. But the rays are information carriers. How can infinite information converge or be stored in one tiny point? This is like knowing everything everywhere by knowing one point in the universe.
Can anyone answer this question, or have I stumbled on some philsophy?:bigsmile:

I understand the question a bit differently from Bill and some others ... to me this questions was philosophy with perhaps a bit of advanced or theoretical physics.

Light is the carrier of all information. Within light, all information should then be available. I think we may be limited by our view of light as strictly a physical phenomenon; I did read once of a non physical entity being fascinated by the concept that we perceive light as illumination, as to them, it was information. I get this.

So I think you did venture into philosophy a bit :), and I totally appreciate the opportunity to muse on it.

[syrwong]

These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space.

Well, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (like the now-retired SR-71, and God knows what they have now that's classified) can read car number plates from 15 miles up (80,000 ft). And maybe much more than that, nowadays.

A spy satellite from 150 miles up — 10x higher — would see this image (on the right), whereas the actuality is on the left. So, resolution problems do apply.

https://sqwabb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sat-res.jpg

From very great distances, you'd get natural errors creeping in (e.g. refraction of various kinds, even in almost-empty space). And, remember, light is also quantized... meaning (kind of!) that all images are ultimately 'pixellated', really.

That means that there'd be fundamental, natural limits. The ultimate extreme would be detecting just one photon reflected from a very distant object. From that, you could theoretically determine (a) its color, and (b) if it was moving ... but absolutely nothing else.

I consider all limitations to be infinitely removable. Almost with any record, what is the limit 100 years ago is no longer any limit now (except perhaps fuel efficiency).
I remember reading 40 years ago when there was more real information that a spy satellite took a photo that showed the time on an army officer's wrist watch. Plus the fact that the Hobo telescope is able to “see” planets in a distance, there must be almost unlimited potential of a point receiving all information from everywhere. The paradox I proposed should still stand, barring a provable absolute limit. But as the speed of light is a reminder, the absolute limit is breakable.
Thank you for the example of a photon received at an extreme distance. On pondering, this actually gives rise to another paradox. If a photon is sent out from a point and reaches another point, that suggests there is a limited or countable number of photons emitting from that point. These photons therefore cannot reach all points in space. And in fact, almost all points in space cannot see the originating point. This is apparently not the case. Whereas the first paradox concerns the convergence of infinite information at a point, this is the reversed paradox concerning the divergence of infinite information from a point.

[syrwong]

With some innovation in the technology of photography and cloud data processing, Bigpixel.cn has managed to produce Asia’s largest photograph. It is a combination of many thousands of smaller photographs of Shanghai from a high vantage point. You can zoom in online quite many times to see details in a great distance.

http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46d

There are also many big photographs of some other Chinese cities and scenic points viewable on the website.

Hong Kong
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af474

Tian An Men
http://www.bigpixel.cn/t/5834170785f26b37002af46c

Aside
These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space. That means at any moment, light rays from all things everywhere converge to that point. But the rays are information carriers. How can infinite information converge or be stored in one tiny point? This is like knowing everything everywhere by knowing one point in the universe.
Can anyone answer this question, or have I stumbled on some philsophy?:bigsmile:

I understand the question a bit differently from Bill and some others ... to me this questions was philosophy with perhaps a bit of advanced or theoretical physics.

Light is the carrier of all information. Within light, all information should then be available. I think we may be limited by our view of light as strictly a physical phenomenon; I did read once of a non physical entity being fascinated by the concept that we perceive light as illumination, as to them, it was information. I get this.

So I think you did venture into philosophy a bit :), and I totally appreciate the opportunity to muse on it.

Thank you for affirming there is indeed some depth to the thought experiment.
If the answer to the seeming paradox is there is infinite information/knowledge at any one point, this may be another understanding of the all is one law.

[Atlas]

[...] there are too many people, many of whom are poor.
One billion people, almost one-seventh of the world's population, now live in shanty towns.

By 2030, over 2 billion people in the world will be living in slums. (source: Megacity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#History))

https://static.domain.com.au/domainblog/uploads/2015/12/17215144/2_glqh06.jpg

[syrwong]

[...] there are too many people, many of whom are poor.
One billion people, almost one-seventh of the world's population, now live in shanty towns.

By 2030, over 2 billion people in the world will be living in slums. (source: Megacity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#History))

https://static.domain.com.au/domainblog/uploads/2015/12/17215144/2_glqh06.jpg

What we are seeing in these images is not hign tech or beauty and pride. To the future egalitarian mind, this is segregation ,poverty, and horror.

[dynamo]

...
https://static.domain.com.au/domainblog/uploads/2015/12/17215144/2_glqh06.jpg

What we are seeing in these images is not hign tech or beauty and pride. To the future egalitarian mind, this is segregation ,poverty, and horror.
agree 110%...thanks for reminding me that we are continually paving our begotten paradise.

[abmqa]

These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space.

Well, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (like the now-retired SR-71, and God knows what they have now that's classified) can read car number plates from 15 miles up (80,000 ft). And maybe much more than that, nowadays.

A spy satellite from 150 miles up — 10x higher — would see this image (on the right), whereas the actuality is on the left. So, resolution problems do apply.

https://sqwabb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sat-res.jpg

From very great distances, you'd get natural errors creeping in (e.g. refraction of various kinds, even in almost-empty space). And, remember, light is also quantized... meaning (kind of!) that all images are ultimately 'pixellated', really.

That means that there'd be fundamental, natural limits. The ultimate extreme would be detecting just one photon reflected from a very distant object. From that, you could theoretically determine (a) its color, and (b) if it was moving ... but absolutely nothing else.

I consider all limitations to be infinitely removable. Almost with any record, what is the limit 100 years ago is no longer any limit now (except perhaps fuel efficiency).
I remember reading 40 years ago when there was more real information that a spy satellite took a photo that showed the time on an army officer's wrist watch. Plus the fact that the Hobo telescope is able to “see” planets in a distance, there must be almost unlimited potential of a point receiving all information from everywhere. The paradox I proposed should still stand, barring a provable absolute limit. But as the speed of light is a reminder, the absolute limit is breakable.
Thank you for the example of a photon received at an extreme distance. On pondering, this actually gives rise to another paradox. If a photon is sent out from a point and reaches another point, that suggests there is a limited or countable number of photons emitting from that point. These photons therefore cannot reach all points in space. And in fact, almost all points in space cannot see the originating point. This is apparently not the case. Whereas the first paradox concerns the convergence of infinite information at a point, this is the reversed paradox concerning the divergence of infinite information from a point.


I think you meant to say the Hubble Telescope. Is it true that the Hubble is not able to clearly "see" the moon because it is not calibrated for that short of distance?

I feel this is Bull**** and they do not want to view the moon because doing so would reveal information tptb do not want us knowing.

Speaking of NASA Bull**** I came across the following video and am not sure what to make of it. Is this a Hoax video?? The interesting part starts near the 5 minute mark
p-3v8H-YAio

[DeDukshyn]

These pictures made me wonder. If you can see the details of extremely far objects from a point in space.

Well, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft (like the now-retired SR-71, and God knows what they have now that's classified) can read car number plates from 15 miles up (80,000 ft). And maybe much more than that, nowadays.

A spy satellite from 150 miles up — 10x higher — would see this image (on the right), whereas the actuality is on the left. So, resolution problems do apply.

https://sqwabb.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/sat-res.jpg

From very great distances, you'd get natural errors creeping in (e.g. refraction of various kinds, even in almost-empty space). And, remember, light is also quantized... meaning (kind of!) that all images are ultimately 'pixellated', really.

That means that there'd be fundamental, natural limits. The ultimate extreme would be detecting just one photon reflected from a very distant object. From that, you could theoretically determine (a) its color, and (b) if it was moving ... but absolutely nothing else.

I consider all limitations to be infinitely removable. Almost with any record, what is the limit 100 years ago is no longer any limit now (except perhaps fuel efficiency).
I remember reading 40 years ago when there was more real information that a spy satellite took a photo that showed the time on an army officer's wrist watch. Plus the fact that the Hobo telescope is able to “see” planets in a distance, there must be almost unlimited potential of a point receiving all information from everywhere. The paradox I proposed should still stand, barring a provable absolute limit. But as the speed of light is a reminder, the absolute limit is breakable.
Thank you for the example of a photon received at an extreme distance. On pondering, this actually gives rise to another paradox. If a photon is sent out from a point and reaches another point, that suggests there is a limited or countable number of photons emitting from that point. These photons therefore cannot reach all points in space. And in fact, almost all points in space cannot see the originating point. This is apparently not the case. Whereas the first paradox concerns the convergence of infinite information at a point, this is the reversed paradox concerning the divergence of infinite information from a point.


I think you meant to say the Hubble Telescope. Is it true that the Hubble is not able to clearly "see" the moon because it is not calibrated for that short of distance?

I feel this is Bull**** and they do not want to view the moon because doing so would reveal information tptb do not want us knowing.

Speaking of NASA Bull**** I came across the following video and am not sure what to make of it. Is this a Hoax video?? The interesting part starts near the 5 minute mark
p-3v8H-YAio

Hubble was actually originally a spy satellite design that had to be very heavily modified for deep space viewing. As someone who very clearly understand optics and technologies, have owned telescopes (though currently don't have a good one), I can say that if a telescope cost hundreds of millions or billions to built / modified for a very specific purpose (Hubble was designed with only deep space exploration in mind), they certainly aren't going to add in an additional few hundred million dollars for additional ability entirely, just so the can "point it at the moon". Things don't work that way. It's like asking why I can't use my microscope for looking at the moon. Or my telescope to see small bugs. Their purpose is not that therefore it was not designed and built for that. So No, you can't just turn Hubble on the earth or moon and use it as "spy satellite" - they spent a ton of money to make it NOT a spy satellite, and a deep space exploration tool.

That said, don't think that I don't think there aren't very detailed surveys of the moon already done and being updated - I think only a fool would think that these don't exist -- but it is not done with Hubble.

Off topic, but I thought I'd throw that out there. :)

[syrwong]

Hubble was actually originally a spy satellite design that had to be very heavily modified for deep space viewing. As someone who very clearly understand optics and technologies, have owned telescopes (though currently don't have a good one), I can say that if a telescope cost hundreds of millions or billions to built / modified for a very specific purpose (Hubble was designed with only deep space exploration in mind), they certainly aren't going to add in an additional few hundred million dollars for additional ability entirely, just so the can "point it at the moon". Things don't work that way. It's like asking why I can't use my microscope for looking at the moon. Or my telescope to see small bugs. Their purpose is not that therefore it was not designed and built for that. So No, you can't just turn Hubble on the earth or moon and use it as "spy satellite" - they spent a ton of money to make it NOT a spy satellite, and a deep space exploration tool.

That said, don't think that I don't think there aren't very detailed surveys of the moon already done and being updated - I think only a fool would think that these don't exist -- but it is not done with Hubble.

Off topic, but I thought I'd throw that out there. :)

Oh yes. If they did'nt have a mega pixel picture of the moon that is detailed enough to see footprints (I would say non human), they wouldn't be declaring the project for man on mars, skipping the moon altogether.