Just coming back here to encourage you guys to check out the new thread that's up on the new backyard telescopes and how clearly they show the moon.
Originally posted by wetwarez
originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a
piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is,
if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they
produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim.
resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the
moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon. In fact NASA has even explained why
Dear Wet: I clicked on your "here" and it said this:
"No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
"An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument
currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just
appear as a dot. "
I am getting really frustrated with people who seem to be deaf, dumb and blind. Do any of you even stop to consider for one split second that you
might be wrong about the Hubble? As the explanation above says, the one YOU SENT ME TO, (and these were the only words printed on the page BTW,) the
Hubble does not have ENOUGH RESOLUTION TO SEE THE MOON VERY CLEARLY.
Do you read me, Scotty?
Anybody reading this needs to take a deep breath and consider one simple fact:
NOT ENOUGH RESOLUTION
[size=12] does not equal
TOO MUCH RESOLUTION
Do you read me Scotty?
Read the thread that's up now about the new backyard telescopes that produce clear, crisp and close images of the moon. I said you could see the
moon better from your backyard telescope than you could with the Hubble. I was right. And not because the Hubble has TOO MUCH RESOLUTION.
The Hubble is an oversized, overpriced piece of junk that can't focus and has weak resolution. Why do we keep it up there and continue to worship
it like some kind of a God? Because we want to believe that somehow it's able to see way, way, way far into space and we like all those pretty
pictures NASA tells us are from gazillions of light years away.
Truth is not determined by polls. Truth is truth. Whether one person believes and says it, no people believe or say it, or everyone believes and
Maybe someday I'll have enough points to buy myself a signature line. I think my signature line will be, "Truth is not determined by polls."
If I hear one more time that "You've been told over and over again...blah, blah."
Yeah, I sure have been told over and over again. I've been told over and over again something that's[size=10] WRONG.
[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]