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 resistance
This explains why Hubble can't see the moon very well or as well as the backyard telescopes being discussed on another thread. But it does NOT explain why it can see far, far out into space, that it's somehow built to see far and not close (as though the moon were close, when what you've posted clearly states that the Hubble is not overmagnifying. It just can't magnify enough. How does that translate into bein "far-sighted." That just means it's a wimpy telescope.
We are discussing two questions here and I wish the thread title reflected this (is it too late to change it?) One question is: Is the Hubble designed to see things far past the moon? Is it designed to be "far-sighted" meaning far PAST the moon? (i.e. isn't it true the Hubble was originally put up to view the moon as one of its main tasks?) Isn't it true that the Hubble can't see far out any better than it can see close in? That is, without "help" from the computer engineers inputting data into the Hubble computer telling it what it would see if it could see but it can't see.
I want to resolve this question about this far-sighted thing because I'm tired of people telling me to go back and reread threads, that I'm a troll, that I just don't get it, that it's been explained to me, blah, blah. I am the one who keeps explaining and nobody seems to be grasping what I am saying and what the information is saying that's been pulled up on this subject.
Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?
Thanks.
[edit on 9-11-2005 by resistance]
Originally posted by resistance
Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by resistance
Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?
Both Frosty and BomSquad explained it to you. They even gave you examples of how to test that, ironically it was basically the same example and posted at the same time. Good job to you two!
You said yourself that it was explained why Hubble cannot see the Moon. If it was explained so well, then you should realize that it is far-sighted... You just need to make the two ideas connect.
Originally posted by resistance
P.S. BTW, the Hubble can't "see" far out into the stars, to magnify either visible or invisible points of light into these pictures they tell us they're getting. These pictures are based on computer input telling it what it would see if it could see but it CAN'T see. If it can't magnify the surface of the moon anymore than it does, it certainly can't magnify points of light in space (sometimes not even points of light at all but just computerized guesses based on what the NASA people are feeding into it of what they think is hiding behind the space dust).
It's called virtual reality.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
As far as a "cover-up" with some of the images that come from the Hubble? I do believe that there exists images that the Hubble has taken that mankind isn't ready for.
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by Intelearthling
As far as a "cover-up" with some of the images that come from the Hubble? I do believe that there exists images that the Hubble has taken that mankind isn't ready for.
Erm... What do you mean by that?
I understand the analogy that's being told me. I just think it's rubbish. Pure rubbish.
Originally posted by Intelearthling
I don't believe that they're being falsified in the sense to decieve, but I do know that false colors are added to enhance visual appreciation.
The virtual aspect of the infrared and UV images is somewhat accurate; humans cannot see wavelengths of those sizes. So because we cannot see it, we need to have a computer translate those wavelengths into visible light for display. Does that make the image fake? No, it is simply multiplying or dividing the size of the waves the telescope is detecting so we can view them, too.