Trance Forum | Stats | Register | Search | Parties | Advertise | Login

There are 0 trance users currently browsing this page
Trance Forum » » Forum  Trance Art - Pictures from hubble

1 2 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon
Author

Pictures from hubble

EYB
Noized

Started Topics :  111
Posts :  2849
Posted : Oct 3, 2004 19:00
Check this site:

http://www.hubblesite.org

It is the official NASA hubble telescope homepage. You will find there unbelivable nice pictures from space that look unrealistic beatiful.
Plus infos about hubble and the pictures
           Signature
Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics :  33
Posts :  1560
Posted : Oct 3, 2004 23:18
Yeah, unrealistic is the word.
I saw a show where they show how they colorize the black and white pictures that the telescope provides.

from http://hubblesite.org :
"There are no 'natural color' cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been. The optical cameras on board have all been digital CCD cameras, which take images as grayscale pixels."
EYB
Noized

Started Topics :  111
Posts :  2849
Posted : Oct 3, 2004 23:37
Yes but this is great

The real structures colorized to great pictures.
           Signature
Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics :  33
Posts :  1560
Posted : Oct 4, 2004 19:17
I guess I could appreciate those pictures if you could look at the originals as well.
To only put out the edited pictures is lying to people.
It might be a beautiful lie, but still a lie.

Let me ask you something....
Do you know the difference between a star and a planet.....?

You probably think you do. The stars is just like the sun light emitting, and the planets is just reflecting like the moon or mars.

Try now to think about what actual evidence you have in your mind to prove that.
If you think you have any obvious proof tell me, I'm very interested in finding that.

I been looking at pictures on hubblesite to try to see if there would be ant proof there, but from them you just can't draw any conclusions.
Normally you can from most telescopes either, all stars still show up as blurry white dots.
Bigger than when you look with your eye, and more of them, but still blurry dots.
Unfortunally, the best telescope you can't draw more conclusions from , because the images is only provided as heavily manipulated.

For me is anyway disturbing when it's presented to people as "this is how it looks in deep space" when the image is so far from what the telescope actually saw.
EYB
Noized

Started Topics :  111
Posts :  2849
Posted : Oct 7, 2004 06:49
Yeah just beautiful picture

No one lies there, no one say that this pictures are not colored.
They are colored to make them more useful, for getting more visual information from them.

It is like a map, a colored map is easier to use than a greyscaled one. U can give more informations through colors, for example a map shows how high a area is.

I don't want to proof that the sun and other stars are is emitting light nor i wanna proof that´the moon is reflecting it. I just like the pictures            Signature
resonance


Started Topics :  1
Posts :  0
Posted : Oct 8, 2004 02:28
how can something so beautiful just happen
Pointy


Started Topics :  6
Posts :  278
Posted : Oct 8, 2004 02:56
Quote:

On 2004-10-08 02:28, resonance wrote:
how can something so beautiful just happen



It doesn´t happen like this.
At least we don´t really know if it does.
The pictures are heavily manipulated.

See EYB people do easily misunderstand and take these pictures for real.

You say coloured maps are useful. I agree. They are a fairly accurate representation of altitude and landscape based on something we can actually see.

The colouring of the hubble pictures is done on pure theory, we don´t actually know how it looks like.

Enjoy the pictures.
Good for spaceing out
Mike A
Subra

Started Topics :  185
Posts :  3954
Posted : Oct 10, 2004 20:57
Just to clarify some things.
The pictures are not colored to make them look nice (ok maybe they are) but there is a purpose behind it.
The pictures are taken in greyscale at certain lengthwaves.
Light reflected from hydrogen, oxygen, etc etc etc.
Then they give a color to each element thus seeing how the elements spread within the nebula or galaxy or whatever. Most of the time these things will look as white, gray or red if seen in visual light. The coloring is to distinguish elements within the picture.
Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics :  33
Posts :  1560
Posted : Oct 10, 2004 23:56
Did they go there and measure the hydrogen level before they drew the colours?

Well...the colours are not based on facts, they are based on theory.
How exactly do the tell from some black and white blur what the clouds is made up from?
Why do you think they don't publish the originals, so we can see what the telescope actually sees?

They come up with what a star or planet is constituded from using the spectral shift theory.
Basically different substances reflect a different spectrum.
By looking at the spectrograf you can then say how big, how far away and what the object is made up from.
The spectral shift theory is the basis for most of our ideas how space is looking.
It's still called theory, and at least in sweden you learn in university that most theories in the history of science is proven wrong eventually.

Again, do you think you can show me any actual evidence about a really basic fact:
stars emit light, and is not merly reflecting light from the sun.

Dig into what original, unedited pictures you can find, and see if you can find anything proving that.
Sure, the hubble pictures will make it look like that because it's made with the basis of the theories involved in astronomy today.

Believe me...there will be more Gallieo's, Einsteins and newtons in the future....and those pictures will need to be re-edited to fit with the new theories.

Believe in what you can understand or see with your own eyes......don't buy things as real just because everyone around you say they are.
          (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)

http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth
Mike A
Subra

Started Topics :  185
Posts :  3954
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 01:14
What does it matter what the color is?
It may be red green or blue but it still represents hydrogen.
Hydrogen reflects certain wavelengths of light, which only hydrogen reflects. So when they see it coming from space it must be hydrogen. The greyscale images show how strong the reflection is. Brighter areas show higher concentrations of hydrogen (assuming the photo was taken at hydrogen wavelength). Other pictures of the same area represent other materials such as sulfur, carbon or whatever. Each different greyscale image is given a certain color and they are all combined together to give you the big picture of what the nebula is composed of. If you'd look at it with visible light alone it will just look red or blue. All of it. And there is no scientifical value in it.
Of course it may be something else, but again, we may all be batteries powering the matrix.
Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics :  33
Posts :  1560
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 12:39
What does it matter what the colour is?
For me it matters because when people see them they think they know how the universe actually looks.
I understand it might not seem like an important issue.
But look at it from another perspective, and it seems like quite an issue if people go around thinking they know what the universe is made up from and how it looks, when as a matter of fact they dont.

I'm sure you would protest if your teacher would start to tell you the the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat.
It might not be important, but still a bit disturbing.

All we actually see in the skies, even with a telescope like hubble, is white blurry dots.
Now on the basis of the spectral shift theory, we say that we know a lot of facts about different objects in the sky.

In the way you describe the theory, it seems like it's very straightforward.
There is one fundamental problem though.
If you measure the wavelength of light reflected from hydrogen on earth, it will be different than on a space cloud lightyears away.
That is what is called the "red shift".
It's due to that part of the theory that we belive we can tell the distances.
All of the calculations needed to use the spectrograph to figure out density, substance, size and distance from that blurry dots is again based on other theories.
Say what if the stars would not emit light, but mearly reflect it. How would that offset the red shift?

At least to me it feels good to actually be able to say that i only know that what i see in the skies is some white blurry dots. Can be some rocks reflecting light or other suns....i simply can't tell myself.

I do worship the sun as the life giving force in our existance anyway, and it feels like these pictures and all the theories people think is hard fact draws the attention away from our own amazing existance.

All we see in space is still some white blurry dot's.
The rest of our knowledge is made up from scientific theories.
Theories get proven wrong most of the time.

And yes....the matrix was great in the way it drew paralells with man kind of today.           (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)

http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth
Mike A
Subra

Started Topics :  185
Posts :  3954
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 15:13
You claim two things. That the false color images make people think that this is how the universe really looks. Well most of the time there is a description attached to the image saying that it is a false color or composite images. If people choose not to read it, it's their problem. You can't blame the astronomers for making ordinary people think that the universe is a beautiful colorful place. It is actually, take a look here:
http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellinger/
Long exposure, true color, images of our galaxy.

You also say that all we see is only blurry white dots and that everything else is theories. All we see if not blurry white dots. Those pictures are actual photos. This is exactly like taking a picture of me and saying that this picture is a theory. Those pictures provide proof.
Lets take it away from astronomy. Everything that you see around you, is based on science and theories. The computer that you are using is based on electrons running though elements such as silicon, germanium, gold, etc. Can you actually see the atoms? Can you see the electrons? You know that it's there because it behaves in a certain way, and it works. You don't have to see everything with your own eyes in order to proof it. What is more interesting is that not always what you see is real. It's only the interpertation of your brain. Sometimes you need to trust machines and rely on instruments, math and physics in order to theorize something.
EYB
Noized

Started Topics :  111
Posts :  2849
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 17:21
Very true point Mike,

we are only able to see the a small part of the elctromagnetic spectrum. This part is visible light, a very small part. Others are Infrared, Xrays, Ultraviolet and Gammarays. All these and more can be 'photographed' with modern telescopes. We can see only the visible light, we can't see the other but they are still there. So if we have photographed them they are 'colored' even if they are greyscaled, there is no other way to make them viewable for us.

Saying something is not true coz u can't see it is not very clever and can be dangerous            Signature
Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics :  33
Posts :  1560
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 19:16
EYB:
I think it's more dangerous to belive in whatever images you are fed.
And I'm not saying that anything in particular is not true.
I just say that I know hardly anything about the universe as fact myself and that those images are not actual photos.

Mike A:
That was nice to see what appears to be unedited colour pictures of the galaxy.
I was looking quite a bit for something like that myself, but was mostly confronted with the more spectacular hubble images on my searches.

I'm not saying that the universe is blurry white dot's.
But the hubble pictures is more than compositon images, they are edited to have the maximum appeal and impact on people.
They are not actual photos.

Remember it was a costly project, and the us public is happy to see some spectacular images as a return from their investment.

And the difference between a picture of you and me and something NASA releases: if I was not tooo out of it, I would remember the photo being taken, and have some experience to back up that it is an actual unedited photo of that event.
Sure memories can be faked as well...etc,etc but I think you know what I mean.

Retouching is a lot older art than photoshop, and I for sure don't take ANY photos from NASA as a fact.

Just do a search on "nasa fake pictures" and have a look at what come up.

And I did a google fight:
NASA "real pictures" vs NASA "fake pitures"
And the winner is "fake pictures"
2850 agains 650

          (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)

http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth
EYB
Noized

Started Topics :  111
Posts :  2849
Posted : Oct 11, 2004 19:44
ah, a google fight then u must be right.

           Signature
Trance Forum » » Forum  Trance Art - Pictures from hubble

1 2 Next Page →
First Page Last Page
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on StumbleUpon


Copyright © 1997-2024 IsraTrance