Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

Follow the link and see what he said and what he said it about.

---

Why don't you go and visit a zoo, find some apes, and have a family reunion?

quote:

---

The terms "make" and "objects" are very specific, very limited, jargon-like "reserved words" in this usage. Items are being created in the computer's memory which contain both data and operative code. These items are being used to encapsulate information about individual stars and galaxies which are derived from more than one source and to render them into a shared bitmap which can be displayed as a color picture.

---

It clearly say make/add ARTIFICIAL stars, not already existing, real stars. This is a function to make an artificial image.

quote:

---

In other words, it isn't really English. While derived from English in hope of being descriptive and reminding the programmer which part does what, they are really arbitrary function and type conventions in a high-level (abstracted) computer language.

---

You don't have to spell it out for me thank you, I'm a programmer myself. That's why I precisely know keywords and whet they are supposed to be when I see them.

You can't make real stars with your computer, they are extremely damn big and hot and would reduce you to plasma.You can create classes to hold the information about them and keep it from interfering with the information about the background that you want to render them on top of, even though that is an artificial distinction in terms of the pictures you begin with, which are undifferentiated bitmaps. I'm not really doing it for you, I'm doing it for any esentially honest people who might be misled by your attempt to exploit jargon to imply things that aren't true.I'm just using you as a dead horse to key the information into the side of for easy reference.

The mkobjects routine to which he refers does indeed add apparently physical objects which do not exist, and is used to calibrate analysis routines. The Calibration of the Hubble Space Telescope Kuiper Belt Object Search: Setting the Record Straight.SO seems to "think", if such a word can be applied to what goes on inside his head, that:1. A routine to add objects to images exists.
2. That routine was used to add some objects to some images to calibrate the analysis routines.
3. Therefore, all objects in all astronomical images, electronically processed or not, are faked.

Heyooo - A regular Johnny Carson!Thanks to JonF, we now know how much more ignorant you are.- Oni

They're precisely alike. I think you must be looking at the wrong areas of the photographs. The black and white photographs are at a different scale than the color photograph at the bottom, and they only cover a small portion of the total region. Here's the black and white photos with a box around the relevant area: And here's the combined color photo with a box around the exact same area. Notice that they're exactly the same: There are no added or subtracted objects. All the objects in the bottom color photo were present in all the black and white photos.--Percy

quote:

---

You can't make real stars with your computer, they are extremely damn big and hot and would reduce you to plasma.

---

Not real as in real real, real as in the ones that have been taken picture of and added to a digital image.

quote:

---

You can create classes to hold the information about them and keep it from interfering with the information about the background that you want to render them on top of, even though that is an artificial distinction in terms of the pictures you begin with, which are undifferentiated bitmaps.

---

LOL. You are not even talking about what's important. I'm not talking about how the program itself works. That's besides the point.The point is that the stars we see in the images, are 100% computer generated. They are not images of real stars later added on to a digital image.

quote:

---

The mkobjects routine to which he refers does indeed add apparently physical objects which do not exist, and is used to calibrate analysis routines. The Calibration of the Hubble Space Telescope Kuiper Belt Object Search: Setting the Record Straight.

​

SO seems to "think", if such a word can be applied to what goes on inside his head, that:

​

1. A routine to add objects to images exists.
2. That routine was used to add some objects to some images to calibrate the analysis routines.
3. Therefore, all objects in all astronomical images, electronically processed or not, are faked.

---

I never claimed it's FAKE. It's a simulation. NASA also never claimed it was real. It's all your people's fault for misunderstanding me from the beginning.

quote:

---

They're precisely alike. I think you must be looking at the wrong areas of the photographs. The black and white photographs are at a different scale than the color photograph at the bottom, and they only cover a small portion of the total region. Here's the black and white photos with a box around the relevant area:

---

ARGH! They are precisely alike, because a 2D model has been added to take the place of the WHITE CIRCLE. You have no idea what those white circles are, now do you? Nobody does.

quote:

---

There are no added or subtracted objects. All the objects in the bottom color photo were present in all the black and white photos.

---

Again, the final image's objects are the ones added in the place of the original image's objects. They are computer generated and made to look like what the camera got from observing the sky.The point I'm trying to make is that those signals, the white circles, are unknown to anyone in the wrold. We have no idea what they are. Yet the computer adds them based on what should be there if universe is isotropic and homogenoeus.

Hi Smooth Operator,Well now you're changing your story. First you said, "The two images look nothing alike," then when I showed how they were identical you admit that they're precisely alike, but that this is due to some kind of "2D modelling." You seem to be making it up as you go along.Anyway, let's examine your claim about how the final photograph was created: What is your evidence that the color photograph is not just a pixel-by-pixel combining of the black and white photographs made at different wavelengths, that it is instead a "2D model" whose pixels have completely replaced the original pixels of the black and white photographs?You appear to have confused two different things. Here's the image and text from the website you mentioned back in Message 294 (but failed to link to so here's the link: Advanced Camera Will Give Hubble a New View of the Universe): But the pictures you linked to aren't associated with that simulated picture or that text. They aren't simulated at all. They're actual Hubble deep field photographs. Here again are the black and white photos made at four different wavelengths: And here is the color composite: They are not simulated. There is no 2D modelling.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Provide improved version of simulated ACS image.

You do realize that all modern telescopes use computers to help enhance astronomical photographs. In essense the computers help discern the background electromagnetic noise from the photons coming from the astronomical bodies themselves. So in essense all digital images are "computer-generated" to one degree or another. Does mean they are fake or not-real? Absolutely not. They are filtered and enhanced by computers and other electronics."Fake" requires a human knowingly to go in and fabricate stars and other celestial bodies where there aren't any. This is not happening.If you think it is than the question becomes why should we trust any science at all. You would have no guage to trust anything you see or read including the so-called evidence you are using to back up your ridiculous claims. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

quote:

---

Well now you're changing your story. First you said, "The two images look nothing alike," then when I showed how they were identical you admit that they're precisely alike, but that this is due to some kind of "2D modelling." You seem to be making it up as you go along.

---

You misunderstood me. When I said they are nothing alike, I meant that what they represent is nothing alike. One represents unknown white circles and dots. The otehr ones represents galaxies, stars and planets. The latter ones are pure computer generated objects based on those unknown white circles and dots in the first picture. Hwo do you know the transformation from one to the other is justified?

quote:

---

What is your evidence that the color photograph is not just a pixel-by-pixel combining of the black and white photographs made at different wavelengths, that it is instead a "2D model" whose pixels have completely replaced the original pixels of the black and white photographs?

---

Again, you are missing the point. I'm not saying that the objects have been moved or anything. They are in teh same position. The question I'm asking is how do you know that those white dots are actually galaxies?

quote:

---

But the pictures you linked to aren't associated with that simulated picture or that text. They aren't simulated at all. They're actual Hubble deep field photographs. Here again are the black and white photos made at four different wavelengths:

---

Again, you fail to grasp my point. The images that Hubble thakes are all done witht he WFPC2 camera. Either for simulation or not. The same process and technology is used. Look at the picture that is claimed to be a simulation. It's made with WFPC2 camera. And look at the ones you are posting. It clearly says they are also done with WFPC2 camera.
And since we know how WFPC2 works, we know that both pictures are transformaed.

Hi Smooth Operator.I was only interested in correcting your misstatements about those photographs. About the other stuff, you have your own way of looking at things that doesn't seem likely to change, or maybe you just like the attention that iconoclastic views draw, but in any case, I'll just wish you good luck with that.There is one thing you said worth correcting, though: The simulated photographs were of a yet-to-be-installed WFPC2 camera.The other photographs were actual photographs from the currently installed WFPC2 camera. They were not simulations, and the color photograph was not a transformation but a combining of pixels of the black and white photographs at different wavelength. Color photographs are just a way of observing information from multiple wavelengths at the same time. That's why the black and white photographs are identical to the color photograph.--Percy

As Percy has adequately pointed out, this image of some "unknown white circles and dots" is not "computer generated" any more than every image you'll ever see is - i.e. they all have a degree of that. You say that all WFPC2 images are "transformed" - have you considered the fact that the light and its resultant image which is forming on your retina right now is being "transformed" by your brain into an understandable format?Your skepticism seems to stem from an inherent disbelief in what is seen in these images, i.e. you ask "...how do you know that those white dots are actually galaxies?".Is there some way each dot is absolutely, demonstrably shown to be a galaxy? Maybe... I don't know. But if you are putting forward the proposition that they are not galaxies, then what would you suggest they are?

quote:

---

The simulated photographs were of a yet-to-be-installed WFPC2 camera.

---

No. There is only one type of WFPC2 camera, and it is the WFPC2 camera. The new one will be called ACS.

quote:

---

The other photographs were actual photographs from the currently installed WFPC2 camera. They were not simulations, and the color photograph was not a transformation but a combining of pixels of the black and white photographs at different wavelength. Color photographs are just a way of observing information from multiple wavelengths at the same time. That's why the black and white photographs are identical to the color photograph.

---

You again fail to understand what the actual "real" photographs are.They are information from real signals transformed by computers to look like stars ang galaxies. The signals we get are real. The objects that transmit those signals are real. They are there.But the final image is not because the real signals in the end get transformed into galaxies. Those white dots get transforemd into those colorful object. We do not really know that those objects that transmit those signals are really what we get in the final image.What else do you think mkobjects does?