We have another development.

[url=http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlNo Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning[/url.

It does seem more logical to believe the universe has been around forever and will continue to be doesn't it rather than a bang. The latter has never sat happy with me.

We have another development.

[url=http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlNo Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning[/url.

It does seem more logical to believe the universe has been around forever and will continue to be doesn't it rather than a bang. The latter has never sat happy with me.

Breathtaking that mate. I would love to be able to comprehend that or even see it with my own eyes. Thanks.

Breathtaking that mate. I would love to be able to comprehend that or even see it with my own eyes. Thanks.

Yes and no. Hubble doesn't have a "colour camera", all images are taken in grayscale.

Many images are published showing either false, or partly false colours (compared to what you might see with your own peepers if you could) but never without explaining what has been done, and usually to illustrate specific things.

However, Hubble can and does produce amazing "natural colour" images. The basic way to do this is to take images through red, green and blue filters. Then combine the results. So the shot through the red filter only lets through the red part of the visible light spectrum; so you know that that image is actually just the shades of red; same for green, same for blue. Combine them and hey presto, full colour!
hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_th ... /index.php

As for "interpretation", it's all a question of degree. For example, a picture of the Crab nebula may look lovely and colourful, and the light and colours recorded are genuine and "real". Yet you would never experience it like that, as the image is compressed light that actually may have taken a powerful telescope hours to gather. If you were in space looking at it, it would be extremely faint and not very colourful at all.

To qualify the basic answer, Hubble has various cameras including the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) which sees near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared; the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), a spectrograph that sees exclusively in ultraviolet light; the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), a spectrograph that sees ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light; and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) which essentially sees heat not light, if I can put it that way (it's all just different parts of the spectrum). As you can see, an infrared image HAS to be given "false colours" since we can't see infrared, or much UV, and so they have to interpret these images into visible light images so we have an impression of what Hubble sees. Same for images from X-ray telescopes, or Radio telescopes.

Yes and no. Hubble doesn't have a "colour camera", all images are taken in grayscale.

Many images are published showing either false, or partly false colours (compared to what you might see with your own peepers if you could) but never without explaining what has been done, and usually to illustrate specific things.

However, Hubble can and does produce amazing "natural colour" images. The basic way to do this is to take images through red, green and blue filters. Then combine the results. So the shot through the red filter only lets through the red part of the visible light spectrum; so you know that that image is actually just the shades of red; same for green, same for blue. Combine them and hey presto, full colour!
hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_th ... /index.php

As for "interpretation", it's all a question of degree. For example, a picture of the Crab nebula may look lovely and colourful, and the light and colours recorded are genuine and "real". Yet you would never experience it like that, as the image is compressed light that actually may have taken a powerful telescope hours to gather. If you were in space looking at it, it would be extremely faint and not very colourful at all.

To qualify the basic answer, Hubble has various cameras including the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) which sees near-ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared; the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), a spectrograph that sees exclusively in ultraviolet light; the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), a spectrograph that sees ultraviolet, visible and near-infrared light; and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) which essentially sees heat not light, if I can put it that way (it's all just different parts of the spectrum). As you can see, an infrared image HAS to be given "false colours" since we can't see infrared, or much UV, and so they have to interpret these images into visible light images so we have an impression of what Hubble sees. Same for images from X-ray telescopes, or Radio telescopes.

186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh.

www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/

186,000 miles per second. The speed limit of the Universe. Fast, unimaginably so, right? Meh.

www.universetoday.com/119042/whe ... st-enough/

Pfft. My niece goes faster than that when she hears the ice cream van.

Pfft. My niece goes faster than that when she hears the ice cream van.

The Galaxy May Be Way Bigger Than We Thought

New data analysis suggests that the Milky Way may be 50-percent larger than previously believed

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... loyrkvb.99

The Galaxy May Be Way Bigger Than We Thought

New data analysis suggests that the Milky Way may be 50-percent larger than previously believed

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... loyrkvb.99

More pics of Ceres

"Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of the mysterious spots on ‪#‎ceres‬ is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice," Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission, said recently.

dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... ew&start=0

More pics of Ceres

"Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of the mysterious spots on ‪#‎ceres‬ is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice," Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission, said recently.

dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... ew&start=0

It's as I thought. There is no such thing as reality. If you have a bit of spare time to digest a thought-provoking proof, then get your thinking gear around this analysis of what happens to you if you fall into a massive black hole

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525 ... -clone-you

It's as I thought. There is no such thing as reality. If you have a bit of spare time to digest a thought-provoking proof, then get your thinking gear around this analysis of what happens to you if you fall into a massive black hole

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525 ... -clone-you

Guy finds Russian space shuttles in abandoned Khazak facility.

www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2015/0 ... prise.html

Guy finds Russian space shuttles in abandoned Khazak facility.

www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2015/0 ... prise.html

What does the surface of a comet look like from a height of 9 metres?



Astonishing images from the Philae lander riding along on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as it closes in on the Sun.

And here is an animation of the Philae lander's view as it closed in to land on the comet:
www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images ... to_a_comet

What does the surface of a comet look like from a height of 9 metres?



Astonishing images from the Philae lander riding along on Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as it closes in on the Sun.

And here is an animation of the Philae lander's view as it closed in to land on the comet:
www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images ... to_a_comet

I got a reasonable telescope. Any time the planets are in position I can look myself, and very easily see surface details and, especially, their spherical shape, often as a crescent depending where they are in relation to the sun. So far as the moon is concerned, if I crank up the mag, I can even see tiney features in the sharpest detail. I suggest you wake up, and spend a night with your local amateur astronomy society then you wouldn't come up with any more of this bullcrap.


You do feel a damned thing. Unless you are dead, you feel what you feel. No need for "belief" here, it's all 100% fact.


Which moon hoax? We landed on the moon half a dozen times. They hoaxed it each time, right?

Flat earth my arrse! There are hundreds of astronauts from countries all over the world who have spent a combined total of many years orbiting our round planet and they're up there even now. You can watch the rockets take off, I have done so myself more than once.

If the earth is flat, maybe you could explain to me how the GPS satellite system works? You know - the one that operates your SatNav? You can watch many hundreds of satellites sailing along in their extremely predictable orbits all night long by using any one of several free apps and programs that tell you what's coming and where and when. If we ain't on a ball, what the fsck are they orbiting, then?
Many millionsof people receive their TV signals via a satellite dish pointed at a geostationary satellite. How do you get a geostationary satellite unless it is in a synchronous orbit?

You are rather quaint in thinking that literally milions of videos and images produuced over many decades by all the spacefaring nations of the world are all fake, but then we have mavericks like Felix Baumgartner, who went pretty high up in a balloon and jumped out. High enough so you could plainly see the curve of the earth. All on glorious live video. You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvDA0W34I



Or was old Felix just a weird random CGI stunt staged for no discernable purpose whatsoever?

You know what the funniest thing is? You provide a link to a video you say PROVES the moon hoax -yet it is full of Russian etc space footage which (of course) plainly shows the round globe below! Did you miss those bits? I see your video is just a rehash of some of the most stupid and ridiculous shoite that has been so thoroughly debunked as to be deader than the Norwegian parrot, yet somehow people like you still seemingly lap it up! FFS it even contains the banal crassly stupid thing about not being able to see stars! Can you see stars in daylight on Earth? No, you can't. Howthe fsck would a camera taking daylight shots be set to also pick up the incredibly faint light of stars? I mean, really? And having spent god knows what fabricating the "wolrd's biggest lie" - you suggest (or your video does) that they FORGOT the bit about faking stars in the sky?



You have a brain. I suggest you use it.

I got a reasonable telescope. Any time the planets are in position I can look myself, and very easily see surface details and, especially, their spherical shape, often as a crescent depending where they are in relation to the sun. So far as the moon is concerned, if I crank up the mag, I can even see tiney features in the sharpest detail. I suggest you wake up, and spend a night with your local amateur astronomy society then you wouldn't come up with any more of this bullcrap.


You do feel a damned thing. Unless you are dead, you feel what you feel. No need for "belief" here, it's all 100% fact.


Which moon hoax? We landed on the moon half a dozen times. They hoaxed it each time, right?

Flat earth my arrse! There are hundreds of astronauts from countries all over the world who have spent a combined total of many years orbiting our round planet and they're up there even now. You can watch the rockets take off, I have done so myself more than once.

If the earth is flat, maybe you could explain to me how the GPS satellite system works? You know - the one that operates your SatNav? You can watch many hundreds of satellites sailing along in their extremely predictable orbits all night long by using any one of several free apps and programs that tell you what's coming and where and when. If we ain't on a ball, what the fsck are they orbiting, then?
Many millionsof people receive their TV signals via a satellite dish pointed at a geostationary satellite. How do you get a geostationary satellite unless it is in a synchronous orbit?

You are rather quaint in thinking that literally milions of videos and images produuced over many decades by all the spacefaring nations of the world are all fake, but then we have mavericks like Felix Baumgartner, who went pretty high up in a balloon and jumped out. High enough so you could plainly see the curve of the earth. All on glorious live video. You can watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHtvDA0W34I



Or was old Felix just a weird random CGI stunt staged for no discernable purpose whatsoever?

You know what the funniest thing is? You provide a link to a video you say PROVES the moon hoax -yet it is full of Russian etc space footage which (of course) plainly shows the round globe below! Did you miss those bits? I see your video is just a rehash of some of the most stupid and ridiculous shoite that has been so thoroughly debunked as to be deader than the Norwegian parrot, yet somehow people like you still seemingly lap it up! FFS it even contains the banal crassly stupid thing about not being able to see stars! Can you see stars in daylight on Earth? No, you can't. Howthe fsck would a camera taking daylight shots be set to also pick up the incredibly faint light of stars? I mean, really? And having spent god knows what fabricating the "wolrd's biggest lie" - you suggest (or your video does) that they FORGOT the bit about faking stars in the sky?



You have a brain. I suggest you use it.