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

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.

CGI why dont you find out how this type of picture is created, it MANY images stiched to together thats REAL images .

This may be of interest to people on this thread

How Our Sky Would Look If Andromeda was Brighter

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.

The Zeiss lenses are NOT used on Hubble !

Or how about this one

The Milky Way In Detail

One BIllion Stars & 150 Billion Pixels

a reply to: elgaz

The human brain simply isn't designed to process that sort of information. We're very micro, the Universe ain't.

There's a whole lot more of nothing then there is of something... Though if there's a lot of nothing, does that mean it's something?

Now, see what you've done? Now I've got a headache, and I'm confused.

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.

It can be contained but appear infinite. If it is in a Torus shape it could feed back in on itself. There is even some evidence of this. I am doing this from memory so please forgive the details, but essentially if you look at the orientation of our galaxy in the universe, the northern half is speeding up faster than the southern half. This is evidence that the Northern half is over the precipice of a fold to some degree which is resulting in the differences of change.

This isn't original thought from me or anything, it is from a CIA report. Start at around page 17 of 29.
www.cia.gov...

I wanted to add that overall that is a fantastic post from you. Really insightful and thought provoking questions, and they are on one of my favorite topics of late. I highly suggest you check out Biocentrism and Beyond Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. The fact is that space doesn't actually exist, and neither does time. So your suggestion of being in a simulation where more space is always generated may be closer to the truth than you know, only the simulation isn't digital. It is just "reality".

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.

Those trails, that you see, is caused when CHUCK NORRIS takes a walk through his backyard aka the Universe.

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!

There are various distinctions:

CGI is based on procedural rendering. You can specify just about anything from terrain, planets, oceans, flame, explosions, stars, galaxies using various parameters based on physics, statistical analysis, Monte-Carlo sampling.

Image processing deals with the processing of images, which may not be digital if they are acquired using analog circuits and radio communication to a satellite or remote camera.

Digital photography is based on image processing, and is based on CCD sensors, software processing like burring, sharpening, edge detection, contour detection, neural networks and all sorts of predictive algorithms. Intelligent edge detection for composition is important for the film industry.

Stitching together image without artifacts is important for many industries. Astronomy, aerial photography, film production, consumer entertainment with 360 degree cameras.

a reply to: OrionHunterX

Great post OH. Reminds me of the picture of the Hubble Deep Field. NASA said within the frame of the Hubble Deep Field photo there are more than 100,000 galaxies within 1 square inch.

Amazing to realize how infinitesimal the Universe is.

Thank you for creating this thread!

The amount of stars is mind blowing...that we can't detect signs of intelligent life bothers me a lot.

It is very sad to know whats out there but can't know the purpose of all this.

a reply to: heineken

Oh but you can Heine. In fact I could tell you right now, but you wouldn't believe me. You will be expecting something much more profound and mysterious I am sure.

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!

God said: let there be light.
So i think big bang did happen

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?

Lol comedy central.
its the same as i take a photo of you simultaneously from 10 cameras, do i get 10 of you in every image?

originally posted by: Hyperboles

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!

God said: let there be light.
So i think big bang did happen

Lol! That was a good one!

Keeping the vast size of the actual universe in mind as brought out in the opening post, one scientist ( I forget his name) has gone a step further. This is how he describes it....

Suppose you have an ultra fast spaceship so fast that it can travel from one end of the OBSERVABLE universe to the other a quintillion times in one second, it would take 3.7 billion years to reach the end of the real universe!!!

Damn! That blew by brains and scattered it all over my keyboard!! Sheeesh!

Big Bang from a single point? - a singularity? Sounds silly, doesn't it?

a reply to: OrionHunterX
Not as silly as a magic being that created everything yet he could only spread his message to the middle east region of the globe. Meanwhile over 3000+ other gods were created before him spread all over it

As the Hulk would say puny god.

a reply to: OrionHunterX

no words

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.

a reply to: OrionHunterX

Just read your OP right through. Woah!

"Go big or go home."
~ God

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.

What's that supposed to mean if god existed which he DOESN'T why did he FAIL so badly at getting his message across all over the globe. Look at the simple FACT that all over the globe thousands of gods were created all confined to small geographical areas that the people who believed in them lived. They all have creation stories and they are all different they can't all be right BUT they can all be WRONG !

Man created god(s) to explain things they didn't understand then religious leaders all through time have used that to have power over others it really is that simple.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I don't blame Jesus or the first father of all creation for that, but the ignorance and pride and lack of imagination of mankind, and the Gospel has been preached through the whole world and Jesus didn't even bother to write anything down himself. That's quite the feat!

You don't get the context that I'm referring to, which is that the qualia and uniqueness of individual personal experience is intrinsic to the heart of it, as are universal principals. These things are imbedded straight into the very order of things including life on Earth, as part and parcel of some sort of interdependent, interpenetrating, cosmological unity for which it would appear (to the Christian) that an indomitable Love both rules the roost from on high (within and above the firmament), yet one that is not unwilling to dive down into the creation to retrieve and to protect and preserve everything that makes life worth living, and even dying for to uphold. Grace upon grace, strength upon strength. Few see it when looking at the cross, but it's there and it's significance cannot be denied or negated or evaded.

The only dilemma that you might point to here is the apparent solipsistic nature of such a proposition in the face of an unfathomably large and complex universe.

What I'm saying is that personal experience as the domain of knowledge and of psychological and spiritual experience, is relevant, even causative or co-creative within the context of what could only be described as Civility and Love as a model of authentic leadership in alignment with the will of God or how it's done probably everywhere else, but here.

It's even possible that the latest in cosmic evolutionary history, however recent, might represent something of the apex, to stand as it were right next to the Godhead and therein resides our predicament, how fearfully and wonderfully we are made and made to contain at our very heart and soul something of the very Godhead in a comingling of the Spirit of God who is also Truth, and the Spirit of man who is your true self.

Further there is no such thing really as isolate consciousness or the particularization of things, there is only the occurrence of life of which we are included, and even meant to experience and to enjoy. The magnitude of the larger frame doesn't alter any of it. It doesn't make us insignificant and if you think it does, you haven't thought this through all the way.

Therefore, fear not, nor let your heart be troubled, because it pleased the first father of all creation and our father who art in heaven, to share his eternal kingdom of light, life and love with all his children and with all who have the capacity to really love and with those who did not where it may be said that he who's been forgiven more, loves more.

I'm talking about a foundation stone of reason and logic and truth.

We are not mere things or particulate. Just because it's all but infinitely big doesn't reduce the meaning or significance of having been included and presented with the opportunity to go into partnership with God in the context of a parental familiar "abba" father-son/daughter relationship, because that's our true position and condition.

It takes wisdom, courage and imagination, but that doesn't mean that the most important things are not real just because they happen to be invisible, or that principals change at a rate that is inversely proportionate to the square of the distance. lol

That's pretty much what I meant, along with the idea that at the most fundamental level the universe is holographic and non-local.

I hope that helps, or helps someone somewhere, let all with ears (or their equivalent) let them hear it!

This scripture always comes to mind when trying to comprehend the universe.. 1 Corinthians 2:9

"…8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 Rather, as it is written: “- No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 10 But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

We can scarcely comprehend infinity beyond a cursory exclamation, "the universe is infinite or vast or unlimited".

THEN, throw in Infinitely large and infinitely small and it becomes incomprehensible altogether.