Mind Blowing!! 1.5 Gigapixel Photo of the Andromeda Galaxy!

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: roadgravel

Why don't you do us a favor and explain the difference between both of the process rather than throw out that strawman?

Whether it's a film camera that captures an image by using chemicals that react with a sensitivity to light, or if it's a digital cameras that captures an image by using electronic sensors that react with a sensitivity to light, it is still an image built by capturing an image from light.

All pictures (film or digital) are just representations of that sensitivity to light, but that's the best look you're going to get of Andromeda for now, unless you can travel 2+ Million light years and look at it with your own eyes.

Don't fault NASA for only giving you telescopic pictures of Andromeda rather than sending you there to see it for yourself.

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?

a reply to: ArchangelOger

Where's the vid???

Thanks in advance.

peace

a reply to: OrionHunterX

We are not alone

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: carewemust

If you squint, there's a little alien bastard waving the bird at us.

What sector? Seriously, if you can see individual stars in another galaxy, finding ancient ruins, or crash sites in our solar system should be a snap.

That is not at all how it works man. It would be nice if it was, but it isn't. I can't explain the technical details because I don't know them but from what I understand it is calibrated to see things that are so far away that it isn't capable of turning back on us to use as some kind of space bound telescope for viewing earth or anything in our solar system even. If anyone is able to correct me or expound please do. I know I have seen this exact conversation before but it has been many years.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
Even if they could send us. It seems we are very limited to how far we would be able to travel in the observable universe.

a reply to: sputniksteve


Thank-you! Now I understand. The telescope is designed like a pair of high-powered binoculars. No matter how you adjust them, you can't see the bump on your wife's butt when she's in the same room with you. Just a big blur. Got it!

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: sputniksteve


Thank-you! Now I understand. The telescope is designed like a pair of high-powered binoculars. No matter how you adjust them, you can't see the bump on your wife's butt when she's in the same room with you. Just a big blur. Got it!

From what I understand, that is precisely correct! Your analogy is much better than my attempt at an explanation though. Simple and to the point.

a reply to: sputniksteve


Thanks. I'm not a scientist, so everyday analogies is the best I can do!

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!

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!

I am unfamiliar. Can you possibly link what you are reading for that? Not that I doubt, I just want to read for myself because I am very interested.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

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!

I am unfamiliar. Can you possibly link what you are reading for that? Not that I doubt, I just want to read for myself because I am very interested.

Ok, here goes.......

It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). The second order Friedmann equations from the QRE are derived, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.

The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe.

Take a look at this paper from the archives at Cornell University.....

www.sciencedirect.com...

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?

a reply to: OrionHunterX

Excellent thanks. I will check it out in the morning and reply.

Never mind, I don't understand any of that in the slightest.

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?

Each star can only create one image of itself on the film or sensor. The "boom boom boom" rate simply corresponds to how many photons strike that particular point on the sensor, and results in how much electrical charge each pixel produces. This is what makes stars appear bigger or smaller on the resulting image.

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.

"Fascinating" --Spock

Each of those suns has a solar system of millions-- billions of objects surrounding it too.

Are we alone... haha

Hate to burst your bubble but the pic is fake. NASA enhances these photos before release.

When Hubble beams down images, astronomers have to make many adjustments, such as adding color and patching multiple photos together, to that raw data before the space observatory's images are released to the public.

Hubble doesn't use color film (or any film at all) to create its images. Instead, it operates much like a digital camera, using what's called a CCD (charge-coupled device) to record incoming photons of light. [Spectacular Photos From The Revamped Hubble Space Telescope]

Hubble's CCD cameras don't measure the color of the incoming light directly. But the telescope does have various filters that can be applied to let in only a specific wavelength range, or color, of light.

Source: www.space.com...

I also saw a video of the team that analyzes the light spectrum information fed to them and they do their best to create fantastic images of what space "probably" looks like. I wish I could find the video but I can't. Maybe someone else knows of it. It's 2 NASA guys showing the the pics they've enhanced as they explain the process.

originally posted by: Lanisius
Hate to burst your bubble but the pic is fake. NASA enhances these photos before release.

By that metric every single photo ever taken is also 'fake' (especially true of digital photos). The choice of film stock affects the look of an image - over or under saturated, more or less grain, negative vs slide film etc. With digital it's about the interpretation of the CCD data - there is no right or wrong, it's just an artistic choice you can make.

originally posted by: Lanisius
Hate to burst your bubble but the pic is fake. NASA enhances these photos before release.

Virtually all digital cameras are color blind, but I don't call the images from those cameras fake.

When I say that all digital cameras are color blind, what I mean is that their CCD or light sensitive detectors can only detect grayscale intensities of light. To approximate color (because what color digital cameras do is approximate color), the incoming image goes through color filters. Different wavelength filters results in different intensities of grayscale, and the camera's computer reads these intensities and assigns a color by using an algorithm based on knowledge of color theory.

You mentioned this in your post in that excerpt you posted:

Hubble's CCD cameras don't measure the color of the incoming light directly. But the telescope does have various filters that can be applied to let in only a specific wavelength range, or color, of light.

That is not only true for Hubble, but true for digital cameras in general, as I explained above.

In the case of Hubble, the raw grayscale images (the images in grayscale as seen through the different filters) are sent back to Earth before any imaging computer algorithm assigns colors. That's because the individual grayscale images as seem through each of the various filters can have more valuable information than the finished "color" image.

The mission scientists use this grayscale information to do most of their science (the portion of the science based on images, that is).



Color film images also approximate color, because the chemicals used in the film (and the negatives) may not result in exact matches of the color of the light coming into the camera.

So in that respect, no pictures are "real" -- which is sort of an obvious statement if you think about it.