It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The colors in Hubble images are neither 'true' colors nor 'false' colors, but usually are representative of the physical processes underlying the subjects of the images. They are a way to represent in a single image as much information as possible that's available in the data."
So, yeah. Basically, all those awesome pictures space research has been throwing our way for years are nothing but black and white images colored in to show how much science each part of the picture features.
True or False (Color): The Art of Extraterrestrial Photography
“The colors in Hubble images are neither ‘true’ colors nor ‘false’ colors, but usually are representative of the physical processes underlying the subjects of the images,” he said. “They are a way to represent in a single image as much information as possible that’s available in the data.”
True color would be an attempt to reproduce visually accurate color. False color, on the other hand, is an arbitrary selection of colors to represent some characteristic in the image, such as chemical composition, velocity, or distance. Additionally, by definition, any infrared or ultraviolet image would need to be represented with “false color” since those wavelengths are invisible to humans.
The cameras on Hubble and MER do not take color pictures, however. Color images from both spacecraft are assembled from separate black & white images taken through color filters. For one image, the spacecraft have to take three pictures, usually through a red, a green, and a blue filter and then each of those photos gets downlinked to Earth. They are then combined with software into a color image. This happens automatically inside off-the-shelf color cameras that we use here on Earth. But the MER Pancams have 8 different color filters while Hubble has almost 40, ranging from ultraviolet (“bluer” than our eyes can see,) through the visible spectrum, to infrared (“redder” than what is visible to humans.) This gives the imaging teams infinitely more flexibility and sometimes, artistic license. Depending on which filters are used, the color can be closer or farther from “reality.”
The Redshift Light Theory
The Redshift Light Theory is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The Redshift Light Theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a redshift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler Effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Light Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.
The astronomer Halton Arp (25) has observe many pairs of galaxies that seem to be very close to each other, even physically connected, yet have greatly differing red shifts. This suggests that at least some of the red shifts have a cause other than motion. If some red shifts have a non-motion cause it is possible that most have such a cause, leaving us with a static universe. A static universe is one which is not expanding. (26)
Hubble's red-shift distance was based on an analysis of only a few dozen galaxies. Newer, much more complete, statistical analysis of thousands of galaxies, depart significantly from Hubble's linear law. Studies by I.E. Segal find that a quadratic relation, where the red shift varies as the square of the distance, gives a much better fit. This contradicts BB expansion and supports a static cosmology. (27)
Could the red shift have some other, non-velocity cause? Other theories involve what is called "tired light", or energy lost as light traveled through space, or a "gravitational red shift"; a condition resulting from gravity effects on energy coming from galaxies. John Byl in his book, God and Cosmos, lists twenty non-velocity red-shift mechanisms. (28)
According to Mitchell, "tired light" theories have been advanced by a number of theorists. They believe in the presence of what they call an "ether"; matter; forces, or fields which in some manner cause red shifting. Some tired light advocates have claimed that all red shifting is due to tired light phenomena. However, they would be hard pressed to provide a satisfactory explanation for some astronomical observations, such as blue shifts of radiation from some stars within our galaxy, indicating that they are moving towards us at high velocity. (29)
Another problem is raised by Lerner. Red shifts indicate how fast an object is moving away from us. Red shifts increase with distance, but also with an object's own speed, relative to the objects around it. It turns out that galaxies almost never move much faster than a thousand kilometers per second, about one-three-hundredth as fast as the speed of light. Thus, in the (at most) twenty billions years since the BB, a galaxy, or the matter that would make up a galaxy, could have moved only about sixty-five million light-years. But if you start out with matter spread smoothly through space, and if you can move it only sixty-five million light-years, you can't build up objects as vast and dense as Tully's complexes. (30) Tully's complexes are vast clusters of stars, each one made up of dozens of super-cluster filaments containing millions of trillions of stars. The density within the ribbon is about twenty-five times that outside them.
The Redshift Light Theory
The Redshift Light Theory is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory.
The Redshift Light Theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory.
The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory.
The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift.
The Redshift Light Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.
Originally posted by FortAnthem
Maybe things like the face on Mars or structure shapes on the Moon are just NASA's piss poor attempts at hiding
something that's out there they don't want us to know about.
Originally posted by mainidh
WHY?? Just WHY?
Do they lose a bet or something if there is a big fat rock face on mars? Do they lose a bazillion bucks?
WHY is it all a cover up? I mean "Hey guys, theres a face on mars.." "Big deal, so what.." yet you seem to think there is an invested interested in making sure it's secret. I mean WHY?