Digital cameras CAN see buried gold

[searching]

lamar,

i dnt know if this is the right page to post this pic but i think you must try to help me with what my camera has pick up. i took this pic just outside the cave's entrance. this was taken last week and i just today notice this bright circle spot almost at the top portion of the picture. when i enlarge that portion i could see its like a solid ball of fire with flare on its perimeter.

thanks for taking the time.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[searching]

lamar my friend,

i was fishing for a second opinion in the other page. now i know you are the MAN when it come to photography (did i hear any objection?)

i have another pic (below) by the river and the bamboo groove. is this the same story with previous pics?

thanks

 

[searching]

what about this? an older picture taken by another person but on same area with my first posted pic...on the bamboo groove fronting the river...

 

[lamar]

Dear searching;
The last two photos that you've posted show an effect called refraction. Refraction occurs when the sun is above and either in, or out of the frame. This effect typically occurs on hazy days, with the haze either coming from moisture vapor in the air, dust particles or even smoke. The light from the sun attempts to pentrate the layer of haze and in doing so, the rays of light become refracted, that is to say that they split into the seven primary colors of the rainbow, which are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

When a ray of light enters a media, such as a haze it's path tends to bend somewhat. It's this ending which causes the effect, my friend, because the red portion of the light ray bends at a lesser angle than the portions of the ray which are green and blue. The green portion bends at an almost constant angle, whereas the blue portion tends to bend at a greater angle than either the green or red portions.

Because of this light ray bending phenomenom, the light ray scatters into three separate beams of light, those being red, green and blue. The zone between the red and the green, and the zone between the green and the blue make up the other colors in the rainbow, those being orange, yellow, idigo and violet.

Also, inexpensive camera lens can greatly magnify this effect by further separating the individual light beams. This type of aberration is known as *chromatic aberration* and it cannot be easily resolved. Most generally, chromatic aberrations occur when a camera uses a single lens without the use of a secondary achromatic doublet lens, the purpose of it being to re-concentrate the separate light rays into one single coherent ray.

Many modern day upper end digital cameras such as the Panasonic Lumix cameras can automatically reduce or eliminate chromatic aberrations immediately after the photograph has been taken, however this technology is still rather new and therefore somewhat expensive. In digital photography, most lenses experience chromatic aberrations to one degree or other due to the digital sensors which are used. One of the most common chromatic aberrations is the dreaded *purple fringe* which occurs in areas where there exists a stark transition between light areas and dark ones.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening 10 claw my friend¨: Apologies for being so tarde in answering your excellent post. Frankly I missed it. You posted -->

yes to tayopa i am a novice treasure hunter
========================

My reply was not intended to be a down play but part of a bit of humor regarding not taking a Delectable female with you hehehe

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[10claw]

morning tayopa, i knew you were kidding. i never try to down anyone or 'rattle their nerves' except the big 3 on here that downs everything, and have'nt gone that direction but 2 times. i really enjoy your posts so you need to post more, o.k? folks that have been there and done that are very helpful to the younger ones. catch u later===tenclaw===

 

[larrylwill]

Before I forget, here are the latest of my pictures as promised. They have not changed from the first pictures I took. I am going to post them as unmodified except for image size so as not to bog down the tnet servers.

I made some enhancements to your pictures.

 

[JohnnieWalker]

Here is an IR photo I took a few years ago.
I don't see any metal auras do you?
I still have the filters and cameras can easily take a shot and post it but need to know if there is anything special I need to try.

 

[Letsgethammered]

A very interesting read , thanks all.

 

[MoonWalkThePlank]

This is the greatest post I have ever read. Its got everything! Science, adventure, wives tails, history, ideals, principals, vampire stories, love, hoaxes, etc. I just love it.

My degree is in horticulture. I have studied soil sciences and am well aware of the scientific process. I state this in hopes that it lends weight to the following opinions and facts.

1. The original poster is the author of the book. While this doesn't prove or disprove anything, it should invite some skeptisism. I would also note that I found postings by Nedes to be similar in content and style to those by Midas, and since they support Midas, again invite some skeptisism.

2. Some have ridiculed scientists as being close minded, this opinion comes from a lack of understanding of the scientific process. Yes some scientists are close minded; some jews also eat pork.

3. If you are considering purchasing the book because you find the posibility of gold auras intriguing, I encourage you to read SWR and StogieJim's posts. StogieJim in particular, through sequential and coherent chains of logic, crushes the theory of that gold gives off photographable aura.

4. I won't even say the science involved with the theory is bunk, because it is not science at all. If you don't know, I will say it again, science requires a hypothesis. You must be able to devise a test or experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis. The test must be designed in such a way that others are able to repeat it. The results must match yours.

insert thought (some say well what about Gallileo and the Wright brothers, they had ideas, experimented, and the results were duplicated and are still being duplicated ie airplanes)

Keeping that in mind, ask, have Midas' results been duplicated by anyone? Given SWR's extensive scientific background, why wasn't he able to repeat Midas' results? Noone with a mind free enough of rubbish and pseudoscience has been able to duplicate the results.

5. Repetition here -because some of you will not read through the entire post- if this idea was at all, in any way plausible, the process would have been patented, and people would be making millions from it. The perpetrators of this WACK JOB theory would be using it to make their fortunes, not trying to sell you a book on a forum.

6. I believe that Real de Tayopa truly believes what he is saying, but the science and conjectures and ideas and comments he makes, are so absurd and circular they actually fried my brain. Here on display is the mind of a genius practicing sophistry on itself. I see you, tilting at windmills, man from la Mancha. It is truly amazing the skill at which you have deflected very simple and very straight forward, requests to defend your conjectures.

You and Midas claim the gold must be in the ground to emit an aura because the ground contains the necessary chlorine. Heres a thought, introduce chlorine to a piece of gold lying on a table. Hell, use a pound of gold (which im sure you have RDT) and a gallon of chlorine, and SNAP SNAP SNAP away. I submit without the use of photoshop (or some other photo editing program), you will NEVER be able to document (in a repeatable way) the presence of a "gold aura."

ITS FREAKIN 2:30 !! Love you guys and gals, as always I encourage you to point out any flaws in my post. I'm always happy to learn...

 

[geo4472]

very well put Blacksheep

Ditto

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ah ha ! good afternoon Moon who is about to walk the plank, and my friends I sense a series of fun posts, pro and con.

Plank walker, you posted -->6. I believe that Real de Tayopa truly believes what he is saying, but the science and conjectures and ideas and comments he makes, are so absurd and circular they actually fried my brain.
*********

Interesting comment, I certainly hope that your brain isn't fried, since we are still in the theoretical stages of posibilities, would you please point
out which are absurd and do not fit into the latest theoretical physics developments? As a matter of fact some are soo simple and a bit childish that some of my friends, that are theoretical Physicists, simply say "sheesh, you are so out of times, even a high school major can prove their existance and possibilities. If there was a true need, belief, and $$ backing, a suitable instrument could be placed on the market in just a few weeks". Who knows?
________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted --> I will say it again, science requires a hypothesis. You must be able to devise a test or experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
*************
Tests to prove the 'basis' of most of my remarks already exists, in mutiple forms, but to put the package together to form a working model which can be used as the final blueprint for detecting metals underground is up to you and the other posters. I am personally too lazy, so will stick to the theoretical end.
_______________________________________________________________________________

You also posted -->You and Midas claim the gold must be in the ground to emit an aura
++++++++++++

Have you considered that naturally occuring earth currents may have a hand in this via harmonic reaction? These do not occur with the same strength in the air, which is one reason earth based radio is far stronger and more efficient than air based radio. I agree, there are other reasons for finally adapting Air radio. However, there exists the distinct possibility of actual earth contact being necessary.
________________________________________________________________________________

You posted-->My degree is in horticulture. I have studied soil sciences
***********

Congratulations, that is a fine subject of a critical, expotentially growing need every year, but I do not see where that, as such, fits into the present discussion, other than the indicative ability to think and learn.
________________________________________________________________________________

I see you, tilting at windmills, man from la Mancha.
**************

That was developed to address over developed & over bearing egos that tended to lord it over possibly lesser educated posters. Originally, I was 'Till Eulenspiegle', a mythical Germanic prankster that specialized in playing tricks that exposed the same to the ones in that period.

This will do for a gentle opening my friend, I hope to see many many posts from you. We are going to have fun.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[MoonWalkThePlank]

REJOICE ! REJOICE !

For now I bring tidings of resolution to this debate!

We remember, how David was so terribly distraught at the discontinuation of Polaroid.. He would no longer be able to use the sure fire method of using Polaroid photography to find gold auras.. He was so distraught in fact, that he set out to discover how to replicate the process using a digital camera.

Well at last my friends, a company in the Netherlands, has announced the rebirth of Polaroid photography. The company is formed and is getting ready, to once again, produce SX-70 film. We will once again be able to take polaroid pictures !!!

if you wish to learn more about the company, here are some links: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10634000&ref=rss
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/33759


FINALLY it will all be so very easy, Midas can simply used the tested, tried, and true methods of using Polaroid photography to find treasure. We will all be able to duplicate his results...

and lucky for Midas, we will no longer need to purchase his book on how to perform this technique using a digital camera.

OH THANK THE HEAVENS !! I EAGERLY ANTICIPATE THE RESULTS UNDOUBTEDLY TO COME FLOODING IN !!!

(Real de Tayopa, I did not forget about you however, in light of this recent announcement, I feel, we must pause and reasses. I also thank you for your cordiality, in response to my post, which may have not been so cordial. I find you genuine, fascinating, and friendly, but I also think you are a Nut Job )

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Evening plank walker: You posted --> I also think you are a Nut Job
***********
It isn't fair to first talk to my wife, then post. sheesh.
______________________________________________________________________________
As for the polaroid thingie, do you remember Dr. Land and the principal that he worked with?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

PLANK WALKER where are you SNIFF

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[wan]

IFF this works as claimed, with the sensitivity indicated by the posted pictures, then:
1) It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold.
2) It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.

Furthermore, the association with Geochemical prospecting is untenable. The ionic transport spoken of in Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection. Much like rain exposing gold nuggets, except at the atomic level. If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.

[...]is this an aura of a long buried gold treasure or what?

No, this is a very well known Quantum Mechanical effect of light in the lens itself, like the colors of an oil film on a mud puddle. Rainbows work by the same principle, and it's how we know so much about the composition of the Universe.

Here's a more detailed phenomenological explanation of what's happening in this case:
If you take a pane of glass of a certain thickness, it will transmit almost all light (at certain frequencies) though it. If you slowly increase the thickness if this glass you will notice that less light transmits through it. However, if you keep increasing the thickness it will reach a point where almost all the light transmits through it again. This will repeat over and over, and is related to the 'quanta' in Quantum Mechanics. This is also why rainbow run from you when you chase them, and fish in the water appear closer than what they really are.

Now, the lens in your camera has a certain thickness. But, if a light hits your lens at an angle, then the effective thickness of that lens changes with that angle. Thus at certain angles you get very strong refractions, that over-expose your film at that location. Under the right back-light conditions you can even take digital ghost (see through) pictures of yourself without any photoshopping.

Oh, Buddha, or whatever, people want to claim is connected to Quantum Mechanics doesn't fly. There are some 'foundational' issues in physics which warrant the inclusion of some related notions, on purely conceptual grounds. Unfortunately people are simply mistaken meta-theoretic concepts, used to 'search for' theoretical extensions, as the theory itself. It most certainly is NOT. A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.

There are some outrageous technologies in the pipes. Invisibility cloaks, bedrooms that change to living rooms at the flip of a switch, like a screen saver, etc. You may even want to sit in a jungle (your living room) and watch the TV screen floating in front of you, or redecorate your house with a thought. The worst mistake you could make though, is to allow a misperception of these possibilities to be a tool for snake oil salesmen.

I'll not discourage those who want to test whatever strange invention, or notion, they wish to test, without any burden of evidence. But the burden of evidence most certainly is entirely on the shoulders of the claimant, when they seek to sale their widget or ideology as truth to others, not the person asking for this evidence.

Perhaps, within the context of detection devices here, I can write a non-technical phenomenological essay on Quantum Mechanics, and how it differs from the meta-notions so often falsely described as Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps, with some disciplined thinking, someone will invent a workable toy that achieves seemingly magical effects, and finds you the motherload. The hunt, in technological innovation and treasure hunting, is where the real fun is found. No sense wasting time with fantasies with so much real fun to be had.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning WAN: On your post-->

(1) You posted --> It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold
**********
Sorry, you are forgetting frequency sensitivity. the very reason that one cannot see this right now.
_________________________________________________________________________________(2) You posted --> It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.
***********
Since all gold is of a basically different composition, however small in difference, it would be theoretically possible but highly impractical.
_________________________________________________________________________________

(3) You posted --> Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection
**********
A slight correction, in geochemical prospecting we are speaking of "Ions". Ionic transportation is independent of up or down.
_________________________________________________________________________________

(4) You posted --> If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.
*********

This is an interesting thought, often brought up. Just how much of the original materiel is actually needed for this reaction to take place. Since we can't duplicate it, we certainly cannot measure it.
_________________________________________________________________________________

(5) You posted --> Quantum mechnics ?
**********
Actually most is explained in simple (??) optics by refraction and diffraction. Optics are actually an extremely complex subject, beyond any need for Quantum effects. Too complex to be addressed in here. This is why no perfect lens has yet been developed, however they are extremely close for any practical effect.
_________________________________________________________________________________

(6) You posted -->A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.
************
Of course, but if you carry that to it's infinite logical conclusion ------
_________________________________________________________________________________

(7) As for light being broken into it's primary colors (frequencies) by an oil film, rain droplets in the rainbow effect, or Opals, it is caused by the same basic reason, but, by different physical agents.



I enjoy you posts my friend, please post more. I apol for being so late in answering your post, but just found it today.

Don Jose de la Mancha

 

[wan]

good morning WAN: On your post-->

(1) You posted --> It would be trivial to dispense with the camera, and make a set of goggles you just walk around wearing till you see the gold
**********
Sorry, you are forgetting frequency sensitivity. the very reason that one cannot see this right now.

I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies. Any filter lenses, even designed to pass the appropriate frequencies, actually reduce sensitivity to that wanted frequency.

Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.

As far as raw "sensitivity", we have CCDs, like in a digital camera, sensitive enough to detect 'single' photons, and sensitive enough to distinguish between individual electron orbitals on a single atom. By spectral distribution, which puts the filtering efficiency of lens filters to shame, what was represented in the posted photos would stand out like a million candle power spotlight in the face. Neither would it be limited to the visible spectrum in order to be made visible this way. Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency in some way to effect the CCD, it would only indicate the requisite 'sensitivity' is orders of magnitude better than assumed in the above considerations.

_________________________________________________________________________________(2) You posted --> It would be trivial to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket. There would be no, or very little, missing gold anywhere in the world.
***********
Since all gold is of a basically different composition, however small in difference, it would be theoretically possible but highly impractical.

If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical. Comparing the sensitivity of a digital camera to what is 'routinely' applied in the sciences is like comparing a rain drop to the ocean. If the camera trick works as posted in these images, satellite detection is trivially practical. Even variations of compositions would be far less an issue than it would be for the digital camera trick.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(3) You posted --> Geochemical prospecting is a transport of actual gold (etc) atoms to the surface for detection
**********
A slight correction, in geochemical prospecting we are speaking of "Ions". Ionic transportation is independent of up or down.

Well of course ionic transport is not directional. Yet this detection method for gold atoms transported by ionic transport still depends on those atoms that get transported to the 'surface' for visibility. Just like gold nuggets can both get buried or uncovered via geologic processes, yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(4) You posted --> If this effectively occurred in the posted pics the buried coins would be awfully corroded, or completely so.
*********

This is an interesting thought, often brought up. Just how much of the original materiel is actually needed for this reaction to take place. Since we can't duplicate it, we certainly cannot measure it.

I can't be sure, but you speak of 'reaction' as if it is the ionic reaction itself that is emitting the photons being detected. This is certainly not the case in geochemical prospecting, and untenable in the camera trick case. The ionic reactions is merely the method of transport of the atoms. Detection still requires surface visibility 'after' transport, and this visibility comes from the same reflection properties as normal sight uses. Trying to detect the ionic reaction itself in this manner would be like trying to watch a stalagmite grow.

If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions, why even bother to take the lens cover off the camera? In fact, if this is the case, you could just build a fully enclosed CCD with internal focusing and an LCD readout that graphed the interesting frequencies. It would work like a directional metal detector that worked at a distance. It would also invalidate CCD based spectrometer data from experiments billions of times more sensitive than the camera.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(5) You posted --> Quantum mechnics ?
**********
Actually most is explained in simple (??) optics by refraction and diffraction. Optics are actually an extremely complex subject, beyond any need for Quantum effects. Too complex to be addressed in here. This is why no perfect lens has yet been developed, however they are extremely close for any practical effect.

Yes, mostly, but the way refraction varies is strictly an effect of Quantum Mechanics. At the phenomenological level Quantum Mechanics is pretty simple in itself. It is only when you mathematically model it, then try to reconcile this mathematical model with our sense of objects and cause and effect that it turns weird.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(6) You posted -->A metatheory is a theory of a theory, thus it is NOT the theory it is a theory of, if you can follow that.
************
Of course, but if you carry that to it's infinite logical conclusion ------

But wait, if it's invalid to call a metatheory about a theory the theory it refers to, then it's likewise invalid the call a theory about metatheories a specified theory, add infinitum. Thus the logical conclusion is exactly the same regardless. Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress.

_________________________________________________________________________________

(7) As for light being broken into it's primary colors (frequencies) by an oil film, rain droplets in the rainbow effect, or Opals, it is caused by the same basic reason, but, by different physical agents.

Quiet true. I wanted to point out the strictly Quantum Mechanical aspects, to illustrate how simple and straightforward Quantum Mechanics is phenomenologically. Apart from the logical idioms, at the theoretical level, that often get applied to woefully inappropriate domains of applicability and scale. Certainly you can show the math of how some of it applies to our scale. For instance, you can get the classic double slit interference pattern by throwing people through a double slit experiment. Yet these people would have to move through these slits so slow that it would take trillions and trillions and trillions of times longer than the age of the present incarnation of the Universe to achieve. At the theoretical level these issues are immaterial to the facts, but at the level of claims sometimes made the absurdity can become excessively extreme.

I enjoy you posts my friend, please post more. I apol for being so late in answering your post, but just found it today.

Don Jose de la Mancha

No problem with the timing, we all have lives outside this forum. I am more than willing to consider new physics and explore novel effects, even seemingly absurd ones, but vetting them against known physics and phenomenology is an inviolable requirement. Certainly there are many effects we have failed to note or fully understand, yet many times claims involve effects that are simply impossible to not notice in other observations and equipment. Perhaps there is something novel about the equipment, but some understanding of the equipment and the physics they're based on puts severe constraints there to. People often severely underestimate how often seemingly unrelated equipment is related, from digital cameras to star and galaxy spectrometers. At the physics level, even radios and binoculars are related, and the CCD in digital cameras was invented based on this fact. Nondirectional solar cells that more than doubles even the theoretical efficiency limit of present design is presently being researched, based on the same principles.

I understand these technologies, and many more that's not even on the drawing board yet, for purely technical reasons. So when I hear of a technological claim that, if true, would invalidate known working technology I have to question it. Perhaps the effect is real, but misunderstood and claimed to be the result of the wrong phenomenology. Yet generally the equipment is understood and used to such an extent that such an effect is impossible not to notice. That's the situation I see here, and phenomenological misrepresentations of known technologies and physics only exacerbates the issue.

I'll remain open to corrections, and continue to consider possible avenues for describing something new or unusual. But unfortunately the camera trick is thus far failing every test at every level.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good evening Wan: I sense that we are going to have fun, thanks.

you posted -->I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies.
*********

I see two problems,

A) you are talking about pass filters and blocking filters, which are pertinent in this issue?

B) why are you limiting yourself to simple visual frequencies when the key frequency may be any one of an infinite no., or it's harmonics / sub harmonics/?
_________________________________________________________________________________

You posted-->
Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.
***********

Sensitivity is a basic fixed factor under certain parameters, time does not increase sensitivity , but only the amount of energy, or energy reaction gathered.

Crude example, you have a source that delivers 1 litre of say H2O per unit of time. If you allowed one litre to be instantly dropped on say one sq. Hect. it wouldn't be noticeable. However, if you accumulated it for say 100 years (time exposure) then released it, it would be very noticeable.
_________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted -->

Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency
***********

Interesting, can you explain how this might be accomplished. As far as I can see a filter either blocks certain frequencies or passes them. IT does not change them as such.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Orig post -> to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket

Your post-->
If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical
*************
I agree theoretically, Gold, even highly refined Gold is individual in it's composition, each and every piece is Unique. It would be possible to detect that individual coin in your pocket if you had the pretest physical pattern. Otherwise it would require a broad spectrum approach. An indication of this is that different alloys have different visual changes. Eventually we 'will' be able to single out the basic Atomic freq. and sensitize a detector for just the just the gold factor. By comparative data we can do that to an extent today with an A A unit.
__________________________________________________________________________________
You posted -->yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.
*********

I am glad that you posted that, I was about to take issue. However geochem does not rely upon visual metal for it's results, but a chemical reaction of say Gold which may be well below visual
ability / acuity
_________________________________________________________________________________
You posted --> If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions
**********
Ionic reactions from a 'multiple' no of sources, yes. But is earth basically transparent to some of them ? Find them and sensitize your detecting device to them, and you are on your way to success.
_________________________________________________________________________________

You posted -->Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress
***********
Agreed, I propose a theory, you propose a metatheory arguing against some part of my theory, then I in turn propose another in reference to the trueness of your metatheory, and on.
________________________________________________________________________________-


_________________________________________________________________________________

 

[wan]

good evening Wan: I sense that we are going to have fun, thanks.

you posted -->I'm not forgetting frequency sensitivity. Indicated by the fact that the camera CCD picks it up, and the filter used to remove unwanted frequencies doesn't block it, is absolute proof that 'sensitivity' to that frequency is not the technical issue, but rather being swamped by even more intense frequencies.
*********

I see two problems,

A) you are talking about pass filters and blocking filters, which are pertinent in this issue?

B) why are you limiting yourself to simple visual frequencies when the key frequency may be any one of an infinite no., or it's harmonics / sub harmonics/?

A) It makes no difference. Nothing is 100% efficient, and any material will block some part of those frequencies it was designed to pass. Even if were talking neutrinos here. If your presuming these photons were emitted underground, then it's hard to explain why they would then reflect off objects above ground, as in the pics. Or react with camera lenses and film for focusing and pictures for that matter.

B) I'm not making any such limitations, which is why I brought up frequency shifts to begin with, to avoid just such a priori limitations.

Note: When I speak specific physical effects in reference to an unmodeled effect, I do so in the broadest possible sense. 1) To avoid pedantic responses. 2) It avoids unnecessary restrictions on possibly legitimate explanations. 3) If it makes sense in the broadest possible sense, then it becomes a simple academic issue to nail down the particulars of the physics. The particulars do induce further restrictions, thus these broad considerations are merely a litmus test that must be passed to continue. Passing such test, which the camera trick still fails, is not by itself proof of concept. But it would go a long way in justifying more in depth investigation. I'm still willing to hear what I may have missed in a broad sense, but in depth physics is out of the question at this time.

_________________________________________________________________________________

You posted-->
Since the shutter speed on digital cameras slows in dimmer light, sensitivity is increased in this manner with a filter, but this wouldn't apply to the instant cameras it was ostensibly adapted from. Neither is this shutter speed effect an issue with a full open shutter design, as in an instrument like I mentioned designed to wear in real time or in a satellite.
***********

Sensitivity is a basic fixed factor under certain parameters, time does not increase sensitivity , but only the amount of energy, or energy reaction gathered.

Crude example, you have a source that delivers 1 litre of say H2O per unit of time. If you allowed one litre to be instantly dropped on say one sq. Hect. it wouldn't be noticeable. However, if you accumulated it for say 100 years (time exposure) then released it, it would be very noticeable.

Fortunately time does effectively increase sensitivity in CCDs. That is exactly why digital cameras use a light meter to decrease shutter speed in low light conditions. Traditional cameras requires choosing the right film for the given light conditions beyond very narrow ranges. Consider your water drop example: When the CCD detects light on a single pixel, a single point on the picture, then that data doesn't go away, like water evaporating, while it waits on more light detection to fill in more pixels. Thus digital cameras can save up photon detections over 100 years, the same way you saved up 100 years of water to drop on the hector of land. This is an advantage digital photography has, because the CCD detection events are stored digitally, 0s and 1s which don't go away, while waiting on more photon detections.

_________________________________________________________________________________

You also posted -->

Thus, assuming the filter used is shifting the frequency
***********

Interesting, can you explain how this might be accomplished. As far as I can see a filter either blocks certain frequencies or passes them. IT does not change them as such.

In the most general sense, any non-visible frequency that shows up as a visible color on film shifted the effective frequency in some manner. Otherwise you wouldn't see it on film either, as in the posted photos. Most such false color pictures simply record photon detections of one frequency as if it was a photon detection of another visible frequency. In my statement above I also mentioned the filter itself. No matter how unlikely I didn't want to leave out any possibilities, or unlikely new physics. The good example of a frequency shifting filter is "spontaneous parametric down-conversion".

_________________________________________________________________________________
Orig post -> to place a satellite in space that could track the single gold coin in your pocket

Your post-->
If this made satellite detection impractical, it would also make digital camera detection impractical
*************
I agree theoretically, Gold, even highly refined Gold is individual in it's composition, each and every piece is Unique. It would be possible to detect that individual coin in your pocket if you had the pretest physical pattern. Otherwise it would require a broad spectrum approach. An indication of this is that different alloys have different visual changes. Eventually we 'will' be able to single out the basic Atomic freq. and sensitize a detector for just the just the gold factor. By comparative data we can do that to an extent today with an A A unit.

Two composition issues here: Atoms and molecules. A gold atom is a gold atom, no matter what other atoms/molecules (trash) is mixed with it. Any such 'signature' is universal, and any such mixtures, that create visual changes of color, can be trivially filtered from the data received from a CCD. The only exception being when the gold atoms are chemically bonded to other atoms, i.e., molecules. Yet any such molecules will themselves have a universal 'signature'. Even in dirty impure gold nuggets, there remains a significant portion of the individual atoms that remain pure gold, and/or common gold molecules. Thus your "composition" argument has well defined physical constraints that effectively removes the compositional difficulties you've proposed.

__________________________________________________________________________________
You posted -->yet you will only see those that are transported to the surface either by geology or a shovel.
*********

I am glad that you posted that, I was about to take issue. However geochem does not rely upon visual metal for it's results, but a chemical reaction of say Gold which may be well below visual
ability / acuity

No, it is not a "chemical reaction" that is being detected, but the surface reflective properties in the same way standard visual sight works. Only it is well below normal visual acuity and full of noise due to the 'compositional' mixtures of other chemical. Ionic transport is merely the reason they're there to be viewed at all. These frequencies are sorted out and amplified in *exactly* the same way I explained above that your "composition" argument wasn't valid.

_________________________________________________________________________________
You posted --> If we presume the posted photo is photon emitted from underground ionic reactions
**********
Ionic reactions from a 'multiple' no of sources, yes. But is earth basically transparent to some of them ? Find them and sensitize your detecting device to them, and you are on your way to success.

Assuming there is some legitimacy to the photos, at some level, I wouldn't be so willing to place such a priori restrictions on the mechanism as you provided here. If earth, which includes a wide variety of materials, is so transparent, then why does it reflect so readily off the trees and ground, or react with the cameras CCD for that matter? Such absurdities are beyond excessive. Even if there was a frequency shift, induced by the earth (a stretch), the ground would then be opaque to the resulting frequency, leaving nothing for you to detect.

_________________________________________________________________________________

You posted -->Don't pretend a metatheory is equivalent to the theory it references, even in a single level of abstraction, much less in multiple regress
***********
Agreed, I propose a theory, you propose a metatheory arguing against some part of my theory, then I in turn propose another in reference to the trueness of your metatheory, and on.
________________________________________________________________________________-


_________________________________________________________________________________

I didn't propose a theory or metatheory, I merely stated that metatheory should be avoided as justification for any theory. Nor did I use metatheory to argue against any theory of yours. Rather I pointed out that using metatheory as if it was itself an operational theory is not valid. In fact, in accessing the claims, I have avoided requiring strict adherence to even basic theoretical constructs. Rather, I have based my arguments purely on observational constraints, from which theory derives its sole source of legitimacy. This gives unduly broad benefits to the claim, but it allows for possibilities that may not be well defined by science. When accessed at this level, legitimacy can be interpreted with the same observational certainty as the claim the Earth has two identical moons always on the opposite side of Earth. This is the lowest level of evidence, yet most certain. Unfortunately I still haven't found, or been given, a phenomenology of the camera trick that passes even this base test.