ICE ON PLUTO: Now frozen water and BLUE SKY found on dwarf planet giving more hope of life

a reply to: NONPOINT21

It all depends on what YOU mean by computer images

originally posted by: NONPOINT21
a reply to: neoholographic

It amazing to me that so many people actually believe everything NASA says. I don't know if it's ego, indoctrination, or the possibility of the urge to find life in the cosmos, but ever since I started investigating the claims of NASA and watching their station The NASA channel (which is in non HD lol) they will readily admit the images you see in space are not real, they are computer generated and composites. They will readily admit that all images go through vetting and image processing centers before they are ever released to the public. The fact is none of us get to see anything they are doing which leads me to believe 2 things.

1.) they don't go to space at all
2.) they are hiding things they are finding in space

Now there is plenty of evidence to contradict or make one question both of those views, but the amount of criticism I'll get for even mentioning NASA isn't what they claim to be is beyond Insane to me...I'll I ask for is real images. Not computer images. Seems easy enough right???

Let the I'm an idiot and crazy NASA is awesome ridicule begin.

NOWHERE do they "admit that the images are computer images." NOWHERE. Do they freely tell you that they are usually composites? OF COURSE. Because the camera takes a series of photos and they then put that series of photos together AS A COMPOSITE. Nothing sinister there. And of course you are going to catch flak for saying BOTH that they aren't giving you the real images and ALSO SAYING that they do not even go into space. My God, the energy required to fake the space program would be mind-boggling. You don't believe. That is your right. It's sad and laced with illogical denial, but it's certainly your right to do.

a reply to: Aazadan

CPU's have a number of registers that are x bits wide (the number of bits the cpu references). It takes twice as long to read or write a 64 bit number as it takes to read/write a 32 bit number.

A true 64 bit architecture uses a 64 bit address and data bus, as well as 64 bit registers. Included here are the Cray's, Itanium ,Core Ix Pentiums and or course the Alpha (with 64/128 bit motherboards). It does not take twice as long to clock data on or off the bus in a 64 bit machine. It is done in parallel. That is twice the performance, as you are moving 64 bits of data rather than 32 in the same machine cycle. In machines that use 32 bit registers, 2 registers are simultaneously loaded or read, as the pairs span the 64 bit bus. The instruction sets have both 32 and 64 bit operations for compatibility reasons. In my experience, most true 64 bit machines blow the pants of their 32 bit counterparts in nearly every primitive operation.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: neoholographic

My science teacher at my Catholic high school used to tell me that water only existed on Earth. It was a religious thing, to think that Earth was the center of the universe and the only planet with life on it, which requires water. And now we have water being found on Mars and Pluto. It certainly seems a lot more common than people used to think it was.

To be fair, my public school science teacher said the same thing.

Interesting, I wonder if a lot of people thought water existed only on Earth in the past.

a reply to: Indigo5

So he was correct about science, and was executed by the Catholic Church. It goes to show their character. Thanks for the story.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I have wanted to talk to my science teacher to see how finding water on other satellites in our solar system affects his faith.