Ok, some fun, > > What I'm saying Bill, is that the concept existed before we > created the > > concept. > > What the concept describes may have existed, but concepts spring > from the mind, tenuous as will'o'the'wisps > Concepts are an invention of sentience.
Right, but I don't see..... > >You have to open your mind ;-) For all we know, our current > > terms, laws and understanding are false. > > Certainly, but that is the best we have right now, with our > level of ability to conceptualize. I cannot argue with that. I just don't like the sort of 'arrogance' some have of our superiority, we laugh at the past, without considering the future. If we did, we wouldn't laugh. Or progress perhaps? Na. It'll be some 'quack' that gets an idea and proves it -- something we cannot now 'conceptualize'. Paradigm shifts aren't even sufficient to describe future 'science' Who will want to view a photograph when we can create something equal or better on the holodeck? <vbg> What I always wonder, is if I'm an cynic or a realist? ;-) > William Robb Anyhow, methinks of taking out his longest lens and find and photograph some blackholes, getting back to astro-photography :) Or will those darned things suck the light right out of my lens if I do find one? ;-) Surely US Sats. and earth optics aren't better than a good old Pentax lens? Hey, somewhat serious question. Glass is just melted sand :) It's been around, something will eventually replace it (not talking plastics and such) Is there any work or theories. Like no actual material, but magnetics and particle guns and energy charges or something? And more on topic Bill, you use a fast film eh? I won't be using a telescopic either. I just thought there may be 'the' film to do it seriously, as there are so many specialty films out there. I haven't looked at the link Peter posted for me yet. I know jack-squat, was never much of a boyscout, so I'll have to read up! Cynic, realist, chaos theory and quautum physics expert, Brad :)
