Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 611 of 633 (535300)
11-14-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 610 by JonF
11-14-2009 1:12 PM


quote:
I just can't stand not to mention that on another forum SO is claiming that all — that's all, each and every one, from the invention of photography onward — astronomical images are not images of the real world but instead are "either drawn by hand, or by a computer".
And I just can't stand when people lie. I never said every single picutre is computer generated. But MOST of them are.
And no, they are not simply ENHANCED yb a computer. They are totally CREATED by a computer.
http://stsdas.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/gethelp.cgi?mkobjects
quote:
mkobjects - Make/add artificial stars and galaxies to 2D images
As anyone can clearly see. It doesn't say ENHANCE EXISTING STARS. It says MAKE/ADD ARTIFICIAL STARS.
They are adding NON-EXISTING stars to images we see. Those stars do not exist. They are simply not there. They are added by a computer while making the image. The pictures are not real. End of story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 610 by JonF, posted 11-14-2009 1:12 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by JonF, posted 11-14-2009 4:39 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 614 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 6:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 615 of 633 (535367)
11-15-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 612 by Percy
11-14-2009 2:20 PM


quote:
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.
The two images look nothing alike. There are hardly any objects on the first image. Not only that but you can't tell apart what the dots on the first picture are. Are they planets, stars or galaxies, gas, or something else? You simply can't tell. Yet the second picture shows clearly different objects. The computer determins what the dots are going to be in the final image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Percy, posted 11-14-2009 2:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by Percy, posted 11-15-2009 2:58 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 616 of 633 (535368)
11-15-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by JonF
11-14-2009 4:39 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by JonF, posted 11-14-2009 4:39 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 620 by onifre, posted 11-15-2009 10:44 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 617 of 633 (535369)
11-15-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by Iblis
11-14-2009 6:53 PM


Re: not English
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 6:53 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Iblis, posted 11-15-2009 8:29 AM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 622 of 633 (535817)
11-18-2009 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 618 by Iblis
11-15-2009 8:29 AM


Re: not English
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Iblis, posted 11-15-2009 8:29 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 626 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-18-2009 5:09 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 623 of 633 (535818)
11-18-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 619 by JonF
11-15-2009 8:47 AM


Re: not English
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by JonF, posted 11-15-2009 8:47 AM JonF has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 624 of 633 (535819)
11-18-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 621 by Percy
11-15-2009 2:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by Percy, posted 11-15-2009 2:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 625 by Percy, posted 11-18-2009 7:59 AM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 627 of 633 (536361)
11-22-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by Percy
11-18-2009 7:59 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Percy, posted 11-18-2009 7:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by Percy, posted 11-22-2009 8:59 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 629 by Briterican, posted 11-23-2009 12:59 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 630 of 633 (536704)
11-24-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Percy
11-22-2009 8:59 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Percy, posted 11-22-2009 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by Percy, posted 11-24-2009 8:12 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 631 of 633 (536706)
11-24-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 629 by Briterican
11-23-2009 12:59 PM


Re: How do you know?
quote:
As Percy has adequately pointed out, this image of some "unknown white circles and dots" is not "computer generated"
I never said it was!
quote:
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?
Yes I did. But that is now going into philosophy. Please stick to astronomy. Tell me, do you know what the function mkobjects does?
quote:
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?
I have no idea what they are. I never claimed I knew in the first place. I'm just saying that nobody knows what they are. And that those final images we see are actually an assumption of what "should" be there is the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by Briterican, posted 11-23-2009 12:59 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 633 of 633 (537425)
11-28-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by Percy
11-24-2009 8:12 PM


quote:
It should now be clear to you that you have misinterpreted what you read.
LOOOL! I misinterpreted it!?
No, you, are the one who misinterpreted it.
quote:
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.
AND IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY FIRST POST THAT DISCUSSES THAT...
Yeah, if you only read it, you would have known that. You would have know it, because I quoted the part where it says that it's a simulation.
And you still didn't answer my question. What does MKOBJECTS stand for!? What does it do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 632 by Percy, posted 11-24-2009 8:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024