Relativity is wrong...

They aren't. They are painted on the inside of a large sphere which rotates around the earth./Middle Ages superstition

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Go to the url I listed in my previous post EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong... and gave a small portion of this. The url gives a better explanation than I can give.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

quote:

---

Go to the url I listed in my previous post EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong... and gave a small portion of this. The url gives a better explanation than I can give.

---

It says nothing about techniques used to measure the distances. But nevertheless, I found something interesting. Something that I have been saying all along. The article presents us with 2 great links. Both of which are from the Milky Way galaxy. And it explains that both of them are not real. The first one is the composition of computer generated images.Right here: Page not found – SEDS USAAnd the second one, is actually a drawing. Right here: Page not found – SEDS USAPonder on this for a while if you will. The only way we can see what is out there, is if we draw it first. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

There is this new piece of equipment. It's called the Hubble. Maybe you've heard of it? Of course the universe makes one wonder. It makes you wonder what could be out there.

quote:

---

There is this new piece of equipment. It's called the Hubble. Maybe you've heard of it?

---

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...

'round and 'round we go, where we stop, no one knows!Computer optimised, yes. Computer generated, no. Gte your head out of your ass and take a look around you and appreciate this wonderful universe we live in./end pipe dream rantEdited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

For you it ends right here. Please leave the topic.

For you, it ended at post number 1. Please bring some logic and facts.

Hi Smooth Operator,Please allow moderators to handle problems that arise in discussion. You can report such problems by posting to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.But this issue about the admissibility of computer enhanced imagery is simple and straightforward and I'll address it now. Computer enhanced imagery is valid and admissible evidence in this thread. More generally, all evidence gathered from the natural world is not only permitted but encouraged, not just in this thread but in all threads of the science forums.Further, curt dismissal of offered evidence is discouraged. It has been your primary approach throughout this thread and it would be appreciated if you would abandon it.Please, no replies to this message. Take problems with discussion threads to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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". 404 Not Found Talk about needing a clue!

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.

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

Follow the link and see what he said and what he said it about.
404 Not Found

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.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.

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.