It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hubble: Why It Can See Galaxies But Not That Moon Rock.

page: 5
93
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: blacktie
a reply to: Zaphod58

moons and various other locations

The Moon and "various other locations" are "intelligently crafted objects"?!

Any evidences to support the claim that some alien built a "spacecraft" weighting some million trillions tons, and what kind of fuel they used to accelerate it into orbit around Earth?



Nothing we have yet discovered comes close, so we have no frame of reference to say what fuel, how it may have been built and of course, by whom and for what purpose.

You're asking for evidence for as yet, impossible engineering, impossible physics and impossible motives...impossible by our current standards at any rate.

How does he know then i hear you ask? Probably the same way many millions of people 'know' there's a god or a pantheon of gods guiding their daily lives...faith.

OP...thanks for your thread...i found it to be quite refreshing, non-patronising and written in a friendly prose..i don't necessarily agree with all you've said, but i appreciate the way you wrote it.



edit on 27-6-2015 by MysterX because: added text




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

Pretty amazing the lengths taken to not photograph the moon, our closest neighbor with anything at all that can give good quality resolution.

Or is that just the usual incompetence ???

Where are the MOON SATELLITE HI-RES PICS.

We have only been waiting for, well FOREVER for them.


The only incompetence is by people like you.



Rocks on the central peak in the Tycho crater scale on picture.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace


I can't help that this is one of those petty and purposeless arguments that serious and informative ATS threads get sometimes littered with.


Yes serious and informative...except the information was of by at least an order of magnitude...the size of object that Hubble can resolve on the moon.

You asked for the impossible, I showed you the best Terrestrial technology can do, and you criticize my effort. I'm not an Astronomer, I'm a Hardware/Software Engineer, but, I can safely say I know a whole lot more about the exoplanet technologies that virtually anybody here at ATS...even the Astronomers...

So y'all just never mind my comments, and please carry on in your partial fantasies, meanwhile, I'll continue implementing my robot. Then, even with my little 11 inch telescope, I'll look at and marvel over exoplanets.

Did you know that my 'bot will be able to "see" if there is a civilization? It's all in the atmosphere...

You are all such experts...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz




Yeah Im not all Knowledgeable in Astrology...


Considering this thread is not about Astrology, I would be worried.

Since it's about telescope resolution and astronomy......



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

It is quite sad that you claim to be working on projects to provide planetary imaging, but are insisting you are correct on something, that you're actually not correct on.

Most engineers and scientist I've worked with in the past normally do not act this way. Competitive, sure.

But not the way your posts read.

Great images by the way. Still not seeing any details like land masses or gas bands. Got any of those?

Seriously. That's what this thread is about: a telescope's ability to resolve detail. I'm not seeing any in those images. Yet you are insisting that we can apparently.

Still waiting for those images.


edit on 6/27/2015 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: tanka418

It is quite sad that you claim to be working on projects to provide planetary imaging, but are insisting you are correct on something, that you're actually not correct on.



Comprehension problems? I didn't say I was working on projects to provide planetary imaging. IF you had bothered to check out the link below you would have seen that I'm building a robotic telescope. It's primary mission is exoplanet hunting, its secondary is providing entertainment to those who like to star gaze.

Now then; just what is it that I'm wrong on? The resolution of Hubble, or the fact that exoplanets have been imaged?

I think if you look you will see that I correct on both counts. What gets me though is the unreasonable expectations people have when they know nothing about the technologies involved. And you especially...you are so close, yet still unrealistic expectations.

I know you want land masses, oceans, and all that. But, gee, ya know those planets are so far away...Fomalhaut is 25 ly, and its an "A" class star...very bright, makes "seeing" anything else difficult...and you expect landmasses. lmao.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz



Lets LOOK at the original claim & picture






You See those TWO Big Stars, there from of this Galaxy those TWO Big Object's ( right of the Screen )

Those Stars are from the Outer Reach's of OUR Own Galaxy... you know , as the Milky Way..


Now you use this picture ironic as it's a Hubble image of M31



The star in the lower box was not clear in the first image and the other next to M32 is a star.

Neither show any detail, it's also noted you didn't comment on the M31 image taken by the Hubble which has far more detail than you claimed


So just in case you missed it Hubble does show better images LEFT click on M31 BELOW when the picture loads right click on it for a zoomed in view.

M31




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

As grating as your behavior is (lmao ? Really?), it's Off Topic.

Thread topic is the resolving power of Hubble. Why it is able to provide details of certain objects, and why it can not provide details of smaller objects.

Hubble, nor any telescope that currently exists can show surface detail of any exoplanet at this time.

Do you, or do you not challenge that?

It's as simple as that.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: tanka418

As grating as your behavior is (lmao ? Really?), it's Off Topic.

Thread topic is the resolving power of Hubble. Why it is able to provide details of certain objects, and why it can not provide details of smaller objects.

Hubble, nor any telescope that currently exists can show surface detail of any exoplanet at this time.

Do you, or do you not challenge that?

It's as simple as that.



No I do not. However, I find it rather remarkable that Hubble is able to resolve an exoplanet at all.

Fomalhaut is 25 ly away, yet, Hubble is able to image the planet. My issue was the scoffing attitude at this technological marvel, and the unrealistic expectations of exoplanetary imaging. What I've told you, shown you are truly remarkable, actual images of an exoplanet, and all you can say is; "where is the surface detail?" Wholly, completely unreasonable!




edit on 27-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

I never said it was not remarkable that Hubble or any other telescope can detect a point of light that is an exoplanet.

My OP explains why Hubble can't show those details.

You're getting irate at me over nothing it would seem.

Find a way to block or reduce a star's blinding glare, expose a film frame or CCD chip long enough, and you certainly should be able to detect that faint light, as long as the CCD chip does not end up over saturated with noise, or the film plate looses it's sensitivity.

It can be done with present day telescopes.

But none of them are able to zoom in and give us a detail image of Curiosity on the surface of Mars. It's just too small, and too far away. Nor will they be able to show us new and interesting looking land masses of a planet orbiting another star.

If we want to see that: we need very, very big telescopes, or send something there with a camera.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: tanka418

I never said it was not remarkable that Hubble or any other telescope can detect a point of light that is an exoplanet.

My OP explains why Hubble can't show those details.

You're getting irate at me over nothing it would seem.

Find a way to block or reduce a star's blinding glare, expose a film frame or CCD chip long enough, and you certainly should be able to detect that faint light, as long as the CCD chip does not end up over saturated with noise, or the film plate looses it's sensitivity.

It can be done with present day telescopes.

But none of them are able to zoom in and give us a detail image of Curiosity on the surface of Mars. It's just too small, and too far away. Nor will they be able to show us new and interesting looking land masses of a planet orbiting another star.

If we want to see that: we need very, very big telescopes, or send something there with a camera.



While we can't see any land masses, I truly hope that you are aware that when you look at Mars, all you are seeing is the light of Sol reflected off the Martian surface. What we see, very literally, when we look at Fomalhaut B, is the light of Fomalhaut reflected off the planet surface...just like Mars.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Wolfenz




Yeah Im not all Knowledgeable in Astrology...


Considering this thread is not about Astrology, I would be worried.

Since it's about telescope resolution and astronomy......


Grammar finders General you are ..

yeah I meant Astronomy

Astrology LOL ... that wouldn't help in prayer for this thread would it.. lol...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Vocabulary, not grammar.






posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

I'm not an Astronomer, I'm a Hardware/Software Engineer, but, I can safely say I know a whole lot more about the exoplanet technologies that virtually anybody here at ATS...even the Astronomers...



seriously?



So y'all just never mind my comments, and please carry on in your partial fantasies, meanwhile, I'll continue implementing my robot. Then, even with my little 11 inch telescope, I'll look at and marvel over exoplanets.




How do you propose to get over the 'small' problem of scintillation? As a former software engineer I'm genuinely fascinated. Are you sure you're measuring exo-atmospheres?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008


originally posted by: Wolfenz



Lets LOOK at the original claim & picture






You See those TWO Big Stars, there from of this Galaxy those TWO Big Object's ( right of the Screen )

Those Stars are from the Outer Reach's of OUR Own Galaxy... you know , as the Milky Way..


Now you use this picture ironic as it's a Hubble image of M31



The star in the lower box was not clear in the first image and the other next to M32 is a star.

Neither show any detail, it's also noted you didn't comment on the M31 image taken by the Hubble which has far more detail than you claimed


So just in case you missed it Hubble does show better images LEFT click on M31 BELOW when the picture loads right click on it for a zoomed in view.

M31




Its not Ironic ,, I was trying to use a Picture between the turn of the Century to the 1950s "originally"

as in the First or Early Plates of these Images Avoiding the a Hubble Image ..
then I Used An Image from the Hubble scope is the exact same position of the 1899 Photo ...

Trying to Explain Myself a little more Clearly .. What i should of done is boxed in the stars from the 1899 Photo of Andromeda from Issac Roberts ... for the Purpose of the Argument of what Two Stars , I was Referring too i used the more clarity colored Image from the Hubble Scope

Yes its is a Star ..

The Argument / Debate Im trying to make Is Those a Stars ( Boxed ) from Our Galaxy Our Milky way Caught in the View of Andromeda in modern terms , Some of those stars are BOMBING the Photos


And if So why cant we see a little more clearly as to Filter that Star and Zoom in !

from Hubble or a X-ray telescope

Andromeda Galaxy's Exotic X-Ray Signal Actually a Bright Black Hole
www.space.com...




Why cant we see stars like this !


Ohh we can ,, just not Our Own Galaxy Apparently


yup Distortion, Distance , Perspective,


What I like to Know is why isn't the government,,

making anything so it can see Great detail on other planets for near by stars and their planets at least ...,


Well it would be nice to see something like what Spy Satellites did during the cold war ...


HISTORY OF REMOTE SENSING, SATELLITE IMAGERY,
PART II

Professor Paul R. Baumann
Department of Geography
State University of New York
College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820
www.oneonta.edu...

the Slight Problem is Light Years to Capturing those images on the lens



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
How do you propose to get over the 'small' problem of scintillation? As a former software engineer I'm genuinely fascinated. Are you sure you're measuring exo-atmospheres?


Differential photometry.

Yes, I am quite sure I'm measuring an exoatmosphere, when I get the opportunity. It is actually quite easy to verify...emission and absorption lines are quite distinctive.

edit on 27-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Differential photometry.

I understand what it means, but I'm just not sure it's feasible. But, best of luck all the ways!



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
there's an awful lot of crap in our own atmosphere! I'm simply concerned that you're measuring that.


edit on 27-6-2015 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Whichever stars you picked, your question was answered here.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Differential photometry.

I understand what it means, but I'm just not sure it's feasible. But, best of luck all the ways!


Here a couple resources...

A new algorithm for differential photometry: bulldog2.redlands.edu...

and

OSCAAR: oscaar.github.io...
OSCAAR is an open source differential photometry package specifically for transit events. It was written in python, I'm building my own system based on OSCAAR and the above linked whitepaper...I'm writing it in C#...as opposed to C+, or managed C+ mostly for the "Garbage collection" attributes. A system like this will remove all of the variable magnitude effects caused by the atmosphere. It will also provide a list of stable "reference stars", which I will keep in a SQL Server table.

Differential photometry is used by many large telescopes, and NASA.

edit on 27-6-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join