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: 8
93
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Of course the Keck telescopes can do what you're saying.

Why?

Because you are talking about two telescopes that each have an aperture of 10 meters big. They are both 4.16 times bigger than Hubble. Which means their resolving power is better than Hubble's.

As wmd pointed out: each telescope's primary mirror is actually made up of 36 individual hexagonal shaped mirrors which are flexable and adjusted to counter the atmosphere.

No where in my OP did I say that Hubble is the most powerful telescope.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Because everything we know about 'space' is a lie! Pure and simple.

I'll give you a few other things which don't make sense relevant to the question you asked; to give you perspective of the extent of the lies we are fed regarding space.


Firstly; there are over 3,000 satellites in orbit; yet you very rarely see ANY in NASA footage. Some say this is orbital heights; which is true to a certain extent; but not when you are looking outwards at the curvature of the Earth; where you should easily see these METALLIC REFLECTIVE OBJECTS in circular orbits. The space shuttle 'orbits' are relative to the orbits of the satellites; yet you don't see them.


Next thing which doesn't make sense;


How does the same part of the moon always stay facing Earth, if the moon is spherical? Is it not subject to the gravitational orbits of other bodies in the solar system? It should rotate; even if only slightly. But it never does. Just 'wobbles'; which means the side facing Earth is HEAVIER than the opposite side.

Like a bottom-heavy ship; sitting in a dock; moving with the motion of the waves, the lighter side is pulled around by the (so-called) gravity of the orbits; which gives the heavy bottom the wobble movement.



Next thing which doesn't make sense?


The Apollo 11 landing was received and broadcast; through a TELESCOPIC SATELLITE DISH located in Australia. The problem with this? Australia was on the EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD TO THE MOON at the time when they supposedly broadcast the signal. WTF right???

They say Australia was used because the other transmission system 'went down' and they had to go to Australia as a back-up. That's one HELL OF A BACKUP! Considering it was LITERALLY ON THE BACK! And couldn't be seen; let alone focus on the moon to receive a signal from it.

If they had transmitted through a (1960's) satellite network (which I don't believe officially existed at the time); then why would they transmit the signal around to the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD; and then back around to receive it in America?

It makes absolutely no sense that it originated from Australia. And I don't see any possible way to explain this; other than it was easy to FAKE the origin of a signal, by saying it came from Australia.

*(Time below is Sydney, Australia time. It was 6AM (the following day) when they landed on the moon. And around lunchtime when they went for a moonwalk.)*





And the most interesting thing which doesn't make sense???


One side of the moon always faces us. There are craters on the moon that are said to have originated from 'impacts' of meteorites, etc.

The problem with this? Is that most of them WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE LAUNCHED FROM EARTH FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE

That is of course unless they were able to pass THROUGH the Earth to hit the moon!!

The only way these impacts could possibly be 'impact craters' is if the moon originated ELSEWHERE in space; and came to Earth in (almost) the condition we see it in today.


We will eventually (if not very soon) discover that the craters on the moon are not all 'impact craters' as we are led to believe; but that the moon was actually mined. And that the Governments and Churches have known this for a VERY LONG TIME; but have kept the truth from us.

If you wish to understand the reason why it would be mined; take a look at the design of the spacecraft in the movie 'Sunshine'.

A big deflector dish on the front. That protects the ship in long-distance travel.

This is essentially what the moon is.



They (very cleverly) built their ship into a meteor or asteroid; that was rich in the fuel they needed to power the engines they strapped to it. In order to ensure they didn't run out of fuel to propel it.

They basically brought the mine they required for fuel and materials with them; so that they could survive (and be propelled) for an undefined period of time to travel great lengths through space.

As I stated; the 'powers-that-be' know this very well. They just hide it from us. They say that the moon is rich in Helium3; and they have also known for a long time that Helium3 can be used for fusion power. This would be how they 'know it'; even though it is (as far as the public is aware) still only theoretical.

The paths and craters you see on the moon; are open-cut mining; that was used to power the ship on its journey to Earth; where it parked in orbit around us.

Anyone familiar with the Ancient Mythological tales of 'The winged demon', and the 'star people' coming into our sky; and the 'Great floods'?

This was when the moon original arrived and came to land. It left a tail behind it as it approached; and as it came in to 'land' in orbit around the Earth, it pulled the oceans inwards towards the centre. Shifting us slightly on our axis.

This caused volcanoes, earthquakes; and most of all; worldwide flooding along the coastlines. So much so; that it buried entire cities that used to sit on the shoreline.

THE GREAT FLOODS WERE CAUSED BY THE MOON; COMING TO EARTH!

The sea level 'rose'; because it was pulled in to centre by the moon.

Killing millions; and burying entire coastal civilisations.

The moon is an artificially created 'space vehicle' created within a natural asteroid rock formation. For long-distance; deep-space travel.

And if we as a species were to build one of these today; we would logically fill it with genetic specimens of all types of life. To take with us.

BUILD THEE AN ARK FOR SPACE!!! Sound familiar?

The Bible translation is WRONG. Gopher-wood; is actually a corrupted translation from CYPRUS; which originally meant UNDERWORLD. Not the tree.

UNDERWORLD IS SPACE!!!

Built the .. an ark for space ...

The moon is an ark (life-raft type spacecraft).

Anyways .. Sorry to go off topic a bit.

I just wanted to give you sufficient understanding to know that what we are shown and told about space; is mostly faked lies!!!

Don't buy into the abstract scientific "plausibility" for why things don't make sense.

They don't make sense because they are lying to us.

NASA: NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER
NASA: NOT ACTUALLY SPACE ABOVE

They just keep dribbling us enough information to keep us distracted from the truth. That they know very well.

This keeps them in power; while we struggle guessing.

Lastly; here is something you might all find interesting:


APOLLO 11 - MISSING 89 SECONDS OF COMMUNICATION

HOUSTON ASK IF THEY CAN ADVISE WHETHER THE ILLUMINATION IS COMING FROM A SOURCE ABOVE, SHINING DOWN INTO ARISTARCHUS. OR WHETHER THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM INSIDE SHINING OUTWARDS.


THEY ADVISE THAT IT APPEARS THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM WITHIN SHINING UPWARDS.

AFTER BEING ASKED TO HOLD; HOUSTON ASKS IF THEY CAN TELL THEM ANYTHING MORE IN RELATION TO THE COLOUR.

THE ASTRONAUTS ARE CONFUSED FOR A SECOND BUT THEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED IF IT IS 'WHITE LIGHT'; OR IF THERE IS SOME COLOUR TO IT.


THEY ADVISE IT APPEARS WHITE.

AFTER A PAUSE HOUSTON ADVISES THEY WILL "CONTINUE WITH "DOCKING"'.

*(??? Docking with 'what' ???)*

BUT THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RONDO (RENDEVOUS POINT) 6.

*(??? Rendevous with who, or what ???)*

BUT THAT THEY ARE TO PROCEED AS IF WE WERE CONTINUING TO THE ORIGINAL SITE.

*PUBLIC FEED RESUMES*




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
Firstly; there are over 3,000 satellites in orbit; yet you very rarely see ANY in NASA footage. Some say this is orbital heights; which is true to a certain extent; but not when you are looking outwards at the curvature of the Earth; where you should easily see these METALLIC REFLECTIVE OBJECTS in circular orbits. The space shuttle 'orbits' are relative to the orbits of the satellites; yet you don't see them.

I can see, and have seen, satellites passing overhead.

Here is a website you can use to track them for yourself and see them for yourself:
heavens-above.com...

Orbital space is a big place with lots room for satellites (although it is starting to get junky with small bits of man-made stuff floating around). There could be many satellites up there and still not be easily seen on videos from the space station.





originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
How does the same part of the moon always stay facing Earth, if the moon is spherical?

The Moon is "tidally locked" to the earth, which is a very common and well-understood aspect of orbital mechanics.

More than 30 other moons in the solar system are tidally locked to their parent planet (always keeping the same face toward that planet). Both Moons of Mars and the four major moons of Jupiter are included in this list, as well as Saturn's Moons Titan and Enceladus and five of Uranus' moons -- plus many more moons in the Solar system. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked with each other -- each always showing the same face to the other.

There are planets around other stars that are believed to be tidally locked to their star, with one side in perpetual daylight and the other side in perpetual night.

More information:
Tidal Locking





originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
Next thing which doesn't make sense?

The Apollo 11 landing was received and broadcast; through a TELESCOPIC SATELLITE DISH located in Australia. The problem with this? Australia was on the EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD TO THE MOON at the time when they supposedly broadcast the signal. WTF right???

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but both Australia and California were facing the Moon at the beginning of the first moonwalk. As the Moonwalk went on, Australia rotated more toward facing the moon.

Caption: This shows the side of the Earth facing the Moon as Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface at 0256UTC (12:56pm Monday 21 July in Eastern Australia). The arrow shows the direction of the Earth’s rotation. Goldstone and Honeysuckle were in mutual view.

Source:
TV From the Moon

When the Apollo 11 landed, it was 6:00 AM in Eastern Australia, but the Moon walk did not occur until 6 hours later. The landing was covered by antenna at Goldstone, California.





originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
And the most interesting thing which doesn't make sense???

One side of the moon always faces us. There are craters on the moon that are said to have originated from 'impacts' of meteorites, etc.

The problem with this? Is that most of them WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE LAUNCHED FROM EARTH FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE

That is of course unless they were able to pass THROUGH the Earth to hit the moon!!

There is plenty of room for asteroids to get past the Earth to hit the near side of the Moon. The Earth may block some, but it certainly won't block them all, or even most:





edit on 7/2/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Wolfenz

Adaptive optics are NOT a filter it compensates for the turbulance in the atmosphere.

The mirrors can be flexed and adjusted to smooth out the effects of the atmosphere..



Sorry MY BAd ...

Orignal

and that filter is Called (AO) Adaptive Optics


Should of been this

and WITH that filter is Called (AO) Adaptive Optics

but in a way it acts like a enhanced Filter.. but its NOT..

yeah.. Mirrors would be in constant Change though ... I would assume... seeing turbulence...


I Posted a WIKI LOL on Adaptive Optics


for those you you want to know of a better understanding about Adaptive Optics

suggest this PDF ! to Read ... as we have been discussing about Over and Under Exposure on Certain Stars and such in Our Milky Way Galaxy and not seeing Stars Correct Scale Size ... as its, One of the Big Debates here on this Thread and the ( AO ) Helping to ease the problem .. just within a Decade..

(PDF)
INTRODUCTION TO ADAPTIVE OPTICS AND ITS HISTORY
Claire Max
NSF Center for Adaptive Optics
University of California at Santa Cruz and
DOE Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
American Astronomical Society 197
th
Meeting
www.cfao.ucolick.org...

( Introduction )


1. Why is adaptive optics needed? Turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere limits the performance of ground-based astronomical telescopes. In addition to making a star twinkle, turbulence spreads out the light from a star so that it appears as a fuzzy blob when viewed through a telescope. This blurring effect is so strong that even the largest ground-based telescopes, the two 10-m Keck Telescopes in Hawaii, have no better spatial resolution than a modest 8-inch backyard telescope! One of the major motivations for launching telescopes into space is to overcome this blurring due to the Earth's atmosphere, so that images will have higher spatial resolution than has been possible to date from the ground. The Figure below illustrates the blurring effect of the atmosphere in a long-exposure image (left) and a short "snapshot" image (center). When the effects of turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere are corrected, this distant star would look like the image on the right. Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and NSF Center for Adaptive Optics. Graphic can be obtained at the Center for Adaptive Optics, University of California at Santa Cruz, (831) 459-5592 or cfao@ucolick.org.






Like







and the Help with this would be nice




I would be nice to see something like this in 20 to 30 years
if its even remotly possible ! seeing Planets like this 10 to 100+ Light Years Away

Artist Concept












edit on 42015ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago7182 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 42015ThursdayfAmerica/Chicago7182 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Wolfenz

Of course the Keck telescopes can do what you're saying.

Why?

Because you are talking about two telescopes that each have an aperture of 10 meters big. They are both 4.16 times bigger than Hubble. Which means their resolving power is better than Hubble's.

As wmd pointed out: each telescope's primary mirror is actually made up of 36 individual hexagonal shaped mirrors which are flexable and adjusted to counter the atmosphere.

No where in my OP did I say that Hubble is the most powerful telescope.




Right it can.

a Ground telescope a More powerful Telescope ..

but Distortion a Turbulence was in the way because of the atmosphere ... Until Now within the Decade it can NOW exceed the Hubble for Sharper distance Images because of Adaptive Optics ..

The Major Problem for Ground telescopes is a Slight CASE of DAYLIGHT .. being in the way ...

which the Hubble doesn't have that particular problem

We need a New Visual Space Scope with the newest Technology TOYS & Gadgets...

Its a pain in the Ass to Upgrade Update Hubble .. and i think you would agree on that one ...



new topics

top topics
 
93
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join