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.
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: testingtesting
What should blow your mind is that this is a CGI image of what NASA thinks it looks like based on the data not an actual image as is almost all of NASA sorcery.
originally posted by: ColdWisdom
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: testingtesting
What should blow your mind is that this is a CGI image of what NASA thinks it looks like based on the data not an actual image as is almost all of NASA sorcery.
NASA commissioned two Zeiss 0.7mm lenses in the 1960s (Zeiss actually ended up making 10) for Hubble's deep-space-long-exposure photography. They have the widest aperture of any lens ever made, making it the best, most efficient lens in the world for low lighting photography. In this case, deep space photography.
That they would use an algorithm to stitch together real/CG composites isn't really shocking. The bulk of it is probably, in fact, real photographs.
After making 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick had made some friends at NASA and while filming A Clockwork Orange he managed to get his hands on one of the Zeiss lenses.
He actually took apart (destroyed) and reassembled a $250,000 film camera from the 1950s, just to be able to mount this Zeiss lens onto a camera to be used for motion picture filming.
The end result?
The first time in the history of cinema that someone actually managed to film a scene lit by candlelight and only candlelight, as true to the late 18th century period of which Barry Lyndon (1975) was based:
Zeiss actually managed to recover some of them, and now they are available for rent. However, with cinema leaning more toward digital vs film, the necessity of a lens specific to dim light is becoming more and more useless.
The reason I am posting all of this is to point out that NASA itself no longer shoots its deep space photography with film. Hence, the reason for the CGI algorithm composite.
It would be interesting to know more about how they produced the image in the OP. But, they rarely comment publicly on such matters.
originally posted by: elgaz
It hurts my head to think about the size of the universe.
It's mind-boggling.
Also, I note that some scientists think that it may be infinite. I thought this was the generally accepted theory. If it's not infinite, that means it has to have a beginning and/or end, so it's essentially contained.
So what is at the end? A wall lol? If the universe is contained (colossal in size, but still contained) then what lies outside it?
It's simultaneously exciting and depressing to think that we live in such an amazing universe, but one which is so large that even if we could all live to be 100,000 years old and create means to travel at light speed, we'd still only see a miniscule fraction of it.
Part of me speculates if perhaps the theory that we live in a simulated universe is true. It may never end because some massive supercomputer somewhere just keeps on generating more virtual space, planets and stars as we look further into them. Like one of those old RPG video games where your character keeps moving forward and the computer just keeps generating random new terrain, with no end.
originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: OrionHunterX
I was just looking around the image and began to zoom in on various parts. I then began to notice what "appears" to be trails, much like the animal trails you will find in a forest. These could be just caused by any number of things or they could be nothing at all. I just thought I would point this out to see if I were the only one to notice it.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: testingtesting
What should blow your mind is that this is a CGI image of what NASA thinks it looks like based on the data not an actual image as is almost all of NASA sorcery.
All digital photos are CGI. CGI is Computer Generated Imagery.
The same as a photo on a digital camera or mobile phone.
@OP: Nice find. S&F!
God said: let there be light.
originally posted by: OrionHunterX
originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: OrionHunterX
And we get told that it was all caused by a big bang of nothing by nothing from nothing into this?
Quantum equations suggest the Big Bang never happened!! We're probably getting back to the old Steady State theory!
Lol comedy central.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
every 'smallest unit of time' each star in the galaxy is emitting a shockingly large burst of energy, a constant stream, and light travels fast and this case relatively continuously, so light from t1 light from t2 light from t3 light from t4 light from t5 of the same star, continuously , so when they have a detector aimed at this galaxy, from each star the light hits the detector at that splittest second boomboomboomboomboom: my question is, how is it not known that some 'orbs' in that image are not the same star 5 or less or more times imprinted, making it seem potentially like there are 5x or less or more amount of visible star orbs visible?
originally posted by: Hyperboles
God said: let there be light.
originally posted by: OrionHunterX
originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: OrionHunterX
And we get told that it was all caused by a big bang of nothing by nothing from nothing into this?
Quantum equations suggest the Big Bang never happened!! We're probably getting back to the old Steady State theory!
So i think big bang did happen
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: wmd_2008
Ah, but in a non-local, holographic universe - local matters and a principal is a principal, doesn't matter how one might try to slice or dice it.