| Users Online Now: 1,165 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 330,665 | |
| Pageviews Today: 535,378 | Threads Today: 152 | Posts Today: 2,689 |
| 05:49 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,165 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 330,665 | |
| Pageviews Today: 535,378 | Threads Today: 152 | Posts Today: 2,689 |
| 05:49 AM | ||
44 amazing Pictures of Galaxies from NASA, ESA and ESO. Make you wonder! | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274491  Argentina07/23/2017 08:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 75274491 Argentina07/23/2017 09:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 13023739  United States07/23/2017 09:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70243600 United States07/23/2017 10:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 73612004 United States07/23/2017 10:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71154454  Australia07/23/2017 10:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274785 Argentina07/23/2017 10:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Don't forget that they are post-processed or photoshopped to make them beautiful. NASA openly admits this and also justify it. I accept their explanations because many of them are from radiotelescopes or X-Ray telescopes, wich have non visible radiation. Many times, they say, MIX optical and non-optical data to make the view more ample. Then, an artist takes control of the final rendering. A little fake, but this is usually done with other things, like satellite pics of hurricanes. |
Big Irish Bastard  User ID: 68351526 United States07/23/2017 10:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And the sciencetards think that all of this in a Universe so large our brains cannot fully comprehend, all came from something the size of the softball that came out of nowhere and exploded. smh Liberalism is like a Zombie virus. Suppressing reason & logic while enhancing the desire to devour others. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274785 Argentina07/23/2017 10:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74589490  Brazil07/23/2017 11:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yes. But nobody says we know everything. 2. Is cosmology the new religion, from where the rest of Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75274491 science derivates? No. 3. Most important: Do you see those bright spots? They are Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75274491 stars from our galaxy, thousands of times more bright. How do they filter their effect, if they don't know what is beside them? It's like to make a picture of a person who light a match and is precisely behind (hidden) from a person that points a powerful lantern at your camera. How do you filter the lantern light (and the person) and reduce them to a spot? Just saying. Well clearly they aren't filtered, you can see them in the image. And clearly they are not directly behind. Anything directly behind anything else cannot be seen. The stars in the image are not intrinsically bright. Their apparent brightness is large because of their closeness. The stars in the distant galaxies have a much larger intrinsic brightness but are very much more distant so the apparent brightness is lower. No matter what the size of the telescope all stars look like point except for a couple of dozen, the Sun and Betelgeuse are the best known examples. Altair, Proxima Centauri, R Dorados, Mira, are a few more examples. The image is M51, the Whirlpool galaxy. The largest star, besides the Sun is R Dorados at 57 milliarcseconds. For comparison, M51 is 11 minutes of arc by 7 minutes of arc. About 10 times the size of the largest star and the stars in the image are no where near that size. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74589490 Brazil07/23/2017 11:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most of those are artist renderings based upon radio telescope interpretations and would hardly fall under Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13023739 the classification of "science". They are not artist renditions. They are multiwavelength images formed into a composite color image close to what the eye would see. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74589490 Brazil07/23/2017 11:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Don't forget that they are post-processed or photoshopped to make them beautiful. NASA openly admits this and also justify it. I accept their explanations because many of them are from radiotelescopes or X-Ray telescopes, wich have non visible radiation. Many times, they say, MIX optical and non-optical data to make the view more ample. Then, an artist takes control of the final rendering. A little fake, but this is usually done with other things, like satellite pics of hurricanes. It is no different the the processing used in MRI, CT, or x-rays images. Just because you do not understand the process doesn't make it fake. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274785 Argentina07/23/2017 11:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Don't forget that they are post-processed or photoshopped to make them beautiful. NASA openly admits this and also justify it. I accept their explanations because many of them are from radiotelescopes or X-Ray telescopes, wich have non visible radiation. Many times, they say, MIX optical and non-optical data to make the view more ample. Then, an artist takes control of the final rendering. A little fake, but this is usually done with other things, like satellite pics of hurricanes. It is no different the the processing used in MRI, CT, or x-rays images. Just because you do not understand the process doesn't make it fake. OK. Now you overdid. You know nothing from me, know-it-all! And I forgive the mistakes you make while posting, because I assume you are a child-like "full of yourself". Live and let live. Stop lecturing around, and LEARN MORE! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74070273 United States07/23/2017 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | These images are from three spatial agencies (USA, Europe) and are COMPOSITE (and photoshoped for clarity) shots in the visible and/or non-visible portions of light spectrum. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75274491 Below the video, there is a list of every one and the time at wich they appear on the video, with additional info. They are between 2 mm years light far away (Andromeda) up to 1000 mm years light apart from us. Most of the shots, besides photoshoping for presentation, were obtained with 100 of hours of exposure, in order to capture more photons to make them visible. Make me wonder: 1. Do we know anything? 2. Is cosmology the new religion, from where the rest of science derivates? 3. Most important: Do you see those bright spots? They are stars from our galaxy, thousands of times more bright. How do they filter their effect, if they don't know what is beside them? It's like to make a picture of a person who light a match and is precisely behind (hidden) from a person that points a powerful lantern at your camera. How do you filter the lantern light (and the person) and reduce them to a spot? Just saying. Otherwise, it's nice to watch in awe. 44 pictures in lo-res video? FUCK YOU. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274785 Argentina07/23/2017 11:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75274785 Argentina07/24/2017 12:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | These images are from three spatial agencies (USA, Europe) and are COMPOSITE (and photoshoped for clarity) shots in the visible and/or non-visible portions of light spectrum. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 75274491 Below the video, there is a list of every one and the time at wich they appear on the video, with additional info. They are between 2 mm years light far away (Andromeda) up to 1000 mm years light apart from us. Most of the shots, besides photoshoping for presentation, were obtained with 100 of hours of exposure, in order to capture more photons to make them visible. Make me wonder: Otherwise, it's nice to watch in awe. 44 pictures in lo-res video? FUCK YOU. Has the Andromeda pic enough resolution? Highest res. pic up to date. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74589490 Brazil07/24/2017 12:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Don't forget that they are post-processed or photoshopped to make them beautiful. NASA openly admits this and also justify it. I accept their explanations because many of them are from radiotelescopes or X-Ray telescopes, wich have non visible radiation. Many times, they say, MIX optical and non-optical data to make the view more ample. Then, an artist takes control of the final rendering. A little fake, but this is usually done with other things, like satellite pics of hurricanes. It is no different the the processing used in MRI, CT, or x-rays images. Just because you do not understand the process doesn't make it fake. OK. Now you overdid. You know nothing from me, know-it-all! And I forgive the mistakes you make while posting, because I assume you are a child-like "full of yourself". Live and let live. Stop lecturing around, and LEARN MORE! That wasn't your post. It was another poster unless you are saying you post from Argentina and the Netherlands in the same thread. If it is you, then why are you doing that? |
| catfish salad User ID: 73614330 United States07/24/2017 01:53 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 67044041 United States07/24/2017 02:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75160623 United States07/24/2017 03:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75160623 United States07/24/2017 04:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most of those are artist renderings based upon radio telescope interpretations and would hardly fall under Quoting: Anonymous Coward 13023739 the classification of "science". NONE of them are "artist renderings". Why are you spewing this nonsense? Do some research, before you blather. Correction - only the last one is. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 34281658 United States07/24/2017 04:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 2226485 United States07/24/2017 03:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70940335  United Kingdom07/24/2017 03:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75277977 Australia07/24/2017 03:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 75277910 Argentina07/24/2017 06:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
