Relativity is wrong...

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

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

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

So this must mean that the region of the earth with the greatest diversity of life should be at the earth's center?--Percy

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

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

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

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.

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

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. 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: 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Provide improved image, revise text.