|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Only a brief comment since I'm moderating.
When you think about it, it's incredible that we can model the universe with any arbitrary object as its stationary center. What to me is incredible about SO's position is his selection of the Earth as the center on the one hand while disclaiming any religious motivation on the other. Why the Earth if it hasn't the special significance of creation by God as the home of his most beloved creation, us? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Straggler writes: You have provided no force that will keep the Earth at the centre of the universe regardless of other competing forces without also resulting in other masses clumping together at the centre of the shell. Why is the Earth the only body that is forced to the centre? For me, something very close to this is the key question. Someone living on some other planet such as Mars or Jupiter would make the precisely equivalent observations of the heavens as we do here on Earth. What is it about the Earth that places it at the center of the universe, and not Mars or Jupiter or a planet orbiting some other star, perhaps in another galaxy? In other words, it is one thing to argue the possibility that the universe has a fixed and stationary center about which the rest of the universe rotates. It is quite another to argue that the Earth occupies the privileged location at that center. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Article in today's NYT: 7.3 Billion Light-Years Later, Einstein’s Theory Prevails.
Or as the journal Nature apparently put it, "Einstein found right again. Heavens not askew! Savants not agog!" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Smooth Operator writes: Earth is special! Look at it! Where do you see such diversity of life anywhere else? So this must mean that the region of the earth with the greatest diversity of life should be at the earth's center? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Smooth Operator writes: No, the Earth's center, is teh Earth's center. Pure logic... No, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Pure logic... Or at least the kind of logic required to arrive at your kind of conclusions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Smooth Operator writes: It's not real. Those images are not real. They are all computer generated images. Read this post for clarification. EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong... These are the four original pictures, each taken at a different wavelength:
Each black and white picture represents the intensity of light at a specific wavelengths, i.e., different colors. Computers then combine the images pixel by pixel into a full color photograph:
The bottom right portion of the bottom photograph corresponds to the region in the black and white photos. There are no added or subtracted objects. All the objects in the bottom color photo were present in all the black and white photos. They are now simply rendered in color. The wavelengths used were 3000, 4500, 6060 and 8140. Because the first and the last wavelengths are outside the range of human visibility, a visible color was chosen for each wavelength before the black and white photos were combined. While the colors are not real, likely chosen to correspond to some common parameter like temperature, the objects are real. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Smooth Operator writes: The two images look nothing alike. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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:
Smooth Operator writes: They are precisely alike, because a 2D model has been added to take the place of the WHITE CIRCLE. 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):
This is a simulated image of how the universe will look through the eyes of a brand new camera for NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) will offer deeper, wider and faster views of the heavens than the current generation of cameras on Hubble. For comparison, these simulated images show a distant, massive cluster of galaxies as seen by Hubble's current imaging camera, the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), and by the ACS's Wide Field Camera. 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. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Provide improved version of simulated ACS image.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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:
Smooth Operator writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
This post has been revised in light of newly uncovered information.
I've uncovered additional information about how the simulated images were created at New Instrument Package to Expand Space Telescope's Vision found at the HubbleSite and have revised this post to incorporate this information.
Smooth Operator writes: No. There is only one type of WFPC2 camera, and it is the WFPC2 camera. The new one will be called ACS. That's correct. There's the old WFPC2 camera, and there's the new ACS camera. And before the ACS camera was installed NASA produced some simulated photographs of how the two would compare. They are illustrations, artists conceptions. The WFPC2 picture is on the left and the picture from the yet to be installed ACS camera is on the right:
See the picture with the irregular outline on the left? That's the WFPC2 simulated picture. Possibly it is based upon a real photograph, but if you go to this list of release images you'll see that it and others are all labeled "Artist's Concept." See the large square picture on the right? That's the artists concept of what a photograph of the same region of space from the ACE camera was expected to look like. This was all described in the caption at Advanced Camera Will Give Hubble a New View of the Universe:
Article from redOrbit writes: This is a simulated image of how the universe will look through the eyes of a brand new camera for NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) will offer deeper, wider and faster views of the heavens than the current generation of cameras on Hubble. For comparison, these simulated images show a distant, massive cluster of galaxies as seen by Hubble's current imaging camera, the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), and by the ACS's Wide Field Camera. The caption's language is a bit ambiguous in one way. Where it says "This is a simulated image" they actually mean both images are simulated. And by "simulation" they mean "artist's concept." Probably the artist used a computer to create the images, but neither article says. While nothing I could find was specific, it is possible that the technician began with an actual photograph from the WFPC2 camera, or at least based his illustration on an actual photograph. It should now be clear to you that you have misinterpreted what you read. That image was an artist's illustration of how much better the ACS camera would be than than its WFPC2 predecessor. The image was not the product of the process by which actual images from Hubble are produced. About the rest, I acknowledged your unusual views earlier, and you're welcome to them. There are people out there who can't be convinced that they're not Napoleon Bonaparte, but that doesn't mean they're really Napolean Bonaparte. Apparently you can't be convinced that combining images made at different wavelengths is perfectly valid, but that doesn't mean it isn't actually valid. By the way, making color pictures by combining intensities at different wavelengths is how color TV's work. Each pixel is actually three dots of color, one red, one green, one blue. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Provide improved image, revise text.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024