Research Discussion: The Hubble Telescope

The Hubble Telescope
Posts: 30

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Hagar
2009-12-06 13:41:53 EST

Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...

About 4 minutes long.

http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm



Pros Pere
2009-12-06 16:29:13 EST

"Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:Br6dnaczYaZCZ4bWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
> About 4 minutes long.
>
> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>
>

"Fascinating".
"Awesome".
"Nonetheless about 4 minutes long" of a 2D image with an hypothesised third
dimension added.

Humans.

--
**** the Proz



Sjouke Burry
2009-12-06 16:57:08 EST
Pros Pere wrote:
> "Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:Br6dnaczYaZCZ4bWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>>
>> About 4 minutes long.
>>
>> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>>
>>
>
> "Fascinating".
> "Awesome".
> "Nonetheless about 4 minutes long" of a 2D image with an hypothesised third
> dimension added.
>
> Humans.
>
Well it did zoom into the 3'rd dimension did it not?

BradGuth
2009-12-06 17:08:41 EST
On Dec 6, 10:41 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
> About 4 minutes long.
>
>  http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm

You do realize that nothing of our spendy Hubble is without having
been extensively digital stacked or that of multi-day exposures
(nearly same thing as layer upon layer stacking), as well as having
been resampled and even false colorized and/or false color/hue
saturation pushed, don't you.

Was there any given frame of that Hubble infomercial that was actually
that of any raw Hubble obtained image?

btw; what about all the blueshift stuff, especially as obtained from
within the Great Attractor, whereas the average GA of local galactic
radial blueshift from all directions is worth <-750 km/s?

Doesn't the Hubble team accounting of 100 billion galaxies in our
universe seem rather conservative? (especially when each and every
absolute black spot [the size of that grain of sand at arms length]
given sufficient exposure yields yet another ten thousand or more
galaxies)

A full survey of Hubble focusing those same 11 day exposures upon 10
million other grains worth of sand held at arm’s length, as such is
going to offer yet another 100 billion galaxies (that’s not even
including those supposedly zipping away from us at FTL, as though
we’re at the center of this universe)

~ BG

Pros Pere
2009-12-06 18:44:20 EST

"Sjouke Burry" <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote in message
news:4b1c28b4$0$14115$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl...
> Pros Pere wrote:
>> "Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote in message
>> news:Br6dnaczYaZCZ4bWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>>>
>>> About 4 minutes long.
>>>
>>> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Fascinating".
>> "Awesome".
>> "Nonetheless about 4 minutes long" of a 2D image with an hypothesised
>> third dimension added.
>>
>> Humans.
>>
> Well it did zoom into the 3'rd dimension did it not?

"The map is not the territory. The picture is not the thing."
Hayakawa

--
**** the Proz



Hagar
2009-12-06 19:27:55 EST

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9dd68b5-6560-4529-8843-666f4579704a@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 10:41 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
> About 4 minutes long.
>
> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm


< snip usual GuthBall drivel and brain fartz >

Perhaps you should apply to NASA for the position of technical advisor, that
way none of the details, which YOU deem so important, are missed.
Good luck with that ... don't know when their Loon-hiring season opens,
though ...



BradGuth
2009-12-06 19:53:38 EST
On Dec 6, 6:44 pm, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
> I don't know how true this is,
> but it's interesting reading...
>
> "Your people of planet Earth have yet to realize that intelligent life
> is teeming, virtually throughout the universe, in advanced
> civilizations and levels of development that would completely defy
> description. The countless billions of stars that appear in your
> astronomers' telescopes are only a fraction of the overall magnitude
> of Infinite Creation - a Creation that had no beginning nor will there
> ever be an ending, as all worlds, stars, and even galaxies function in
> the orderly pattern of cyclic regeneration."
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scary/ufos/wow.html
>
> =============================================
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:08:41 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 10:41 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> >> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
> >> About 4 minutes long.
>
> >>  http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>
> >You do realize that nothing of our spendy Hubble is without having
> >been extensively digital stacked or that of multi-day exposures
> >(nearly same thing as layer upon layer stacking), as well as having
> >been resampled and even false colorized and/or false color/hue
> >saturation pushed, don't you.
>
> >Was there any given frame of that Hubble infomercial that was actually
> >that of any raw Hubble obtained image?
>
> >btw;  what about all the blueshift stuff, especially as obtained from
> >within the Great Attractor, whereas the average GA of local galactic
> >radial blueshift from all directions is worth <-750 km/s?
>
> >Doesn't the Hubble team accounting of 100 billion galaxies in our
> >universe seem rather conservative? (especially when each and every
> >absolute black spot [the size of that grain of sand at arms length]
> >given sufficient exposure yields yet another ten thousand or more
> >galaxies)
>
> >A full survey of Hubble focusing those same 11 day exposures upon 10
> >million other grains worth of sand held at arm’s length, as such is
> >going to offer yet another 100 billion galaxies (that’s not even
> >including those supposedly zipping away from us at FTL, as though
> >we’re at the center of this universe)
>
> > ~ BG

That's a good one, especially since millions of galaxies are most
likely interacting with one another at any one time, and not always
favorably.

I'd have to agree that other forms of self-aware intelligence does
exist.

Some local species/caste of humans seem to have little if any remorse
or benevolence so spare.

What we have polished to near perfection is greed, hording and ethnic
disparity as well as caste systems and even satanic rituals within
ethnic faith-based groups that are still an accepted terrestrial
policy, that you’d think ETs couldn't possibly allow within their
higher realms of existence.

Our frequently conditional laws of physics and our conditional
policies of laws and regulations that only apply to some, as well as
selectively enforced by those in charge of recording history, is what
makes it unlikely ETs will ever accept the complex and daunting
responsibility for allowing us into their higher ways and better means
of life.

It would be like our discovering a technically survivable planet or
moon that currently has only evolved with mostly lethal kinds of
spores, microbes and other toxic forms of its unique or unusual
chemistry and whatever complex biodiversity it has to offer. Whereas
who in their right mind would allow our mostly human friendly
environment and its frail biodiversity to interact or merge with such
an obviously toxic and otherwise potentially lethal consequence of
this other new found world?

In other words, ETs (advanced or heathen) to us could become as risky
of biological encounter as you could possibly think of, whereas an ET
microbe, virus or even a diatom that’s nothing but good for a given
off-world species could just as easily wipe out most forms of Earthly
biodiversity that simply couldn’t genetically mutate fast enough in
order to safely incorporate such a new form of microbial life.

~ BG

Hagar
2009-12-06 20:30:11 EST

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6015887-e0df-4368-824b-49707b941823@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 6:44 pm, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
> I don't know how true this is,
> but it's interesting reading...
>
> "Your people of planet Earth have yet to realize that intelligent life
> is teeming, virtually throughout the universe, in advanced
> civilizations and levels of development that would completely defy
> description. The countless billions of stars that appear in your
> astronomers' telescopes are only a fraction of the overall magnitude
> of Infinite Creation - a Creation that had no beginning nor will there
> ever be an ending, as all worlds, stars, and even galaxies function in
> the orderly pattern of cyclic regeneration."
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/scary/ufos/wow.html
>
> =============================================
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:08:41 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 10:41 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
> >> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
> >> About 4 minutes long.
>
> >> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>
> >You do realize that nothing of our spendy Hubble is without having
> >been extensively digital stacked or that of multi-day exposures
> >(nearly same thing as layer upon layer stacking), as well as having
> >been resampled and even false colorized and/or false color/hue
> >saturation pushed, don't you.
>
> >Was there any given frame of that Hubble infomercial that was actually
> >that of any raw Hubble obtained image?
>
> >btw; what about all the blueshift stuff, especially as obtained from
> >within the Great Attractor, whereas the average GA of local galactic
> >radial blueshift from all directions is worth <-750 km/s?
>
> >Doesn't the Hubble team accounting of 100 billion galaxies in our
> >universe seem rather conservative? (especially when each and every
> >absolute black spot [the size of that grain of sand at arms length]
> >given sufficient exposure yields yet another ten thousand or more
> >galaxies)
>
> >A full survey of Hubble focusing those same 11 day exposures upon 10
> >million other grains worth of sand held at arm\ufffds length, as such is
> >going to offer yet another 100 billion galaxies (that\ufffds not even
> >including those supposedly zipping away from us at FTL, as though
> >we\ufffdre at the center of this universe)
>
> > ~ BG

That's a good one, especially since millions of galaxies are most
likely interacting with one another at any one time, and not always
favorably.

*** So, let's see, the galaxies are receding from each other, receding from
us, some of them close to the speed of light, and you say they are
"interacting" ??? You are fucking insane.

I'd have to agree that other forms of self-aware intelligence does
exist.

*** And you know this how ??? from your frequent trips to Venus, or the
insane asylum ?? I think I know which one ...

Some local species/caste of humans seem to have little if any remorse
or benevolence so spare.

*** We call them terrorists, but you limp-wristed Liberal fucktards want to
invite them over for a cuppa tea to embrace them into your fold.

What we have polished to near perfection is greed, hording and ethnic
disparity as well as caste systems and even satanic rituals within
ethnic faith-based groups that are still an accepted terrestrial
policy, that you\ufffdd think ETs couldn't possibly allow within their
higher realms of existence.

*** What we thought we had perfected was education, particularly gaining
financial advantages because of that concept, but along the way providing
employment oppotunities for Loser Loons like you, who then bitch about the
fact that, because of your chosen, albeit irrelevant position in life, are
left to suck hind tit and it just ain't fair that the smart ones make all
the money, while the losers can only afford a 42" flatpanel TV. You suck,
GuthBall, but not well. Just keep in mind: you kill the Golden Goose,
there won't be any more golden eggs.

Our frequently conditional laws of physics and our conditional
policies of laws and regulations that only apply to some, as well as
selectively enforced by those in charge of recording history, is what
makes it unlikely ETs will ever accept the complex and daunting
responsibility for allowing us into their higher ways and better means
of life.

*** Once again you're spewing utter bullshit. We will play by the rules,
whatever they may be, as long as everyone plays by the same rules ... no
exception, you Liberal cry-baby. If we send money to starving African
countries and they choose to by BMWs instead of feeding their own, we shut
cut off funding. If we catch the bad guys, we should be able to use any
method of interrogation available. My personal is not waterboarding, but
220VAC applied directly to their cojones ... they'll sing like Joe Cocker on
crack.

It would be like our discovering a technically survivable planet or
moon that currently has only evolved with mostly lethal kinds of
spores, microbes and other toxic forms of its unique or unusual
chemistry and whatever complex biodiversity it has to offer. Whereas
who in their right mind would allow our mostly human friendly
environment and its frail biodiversity to interact or merge with such
an obviously toxic and otherwise potentially lethal consequence of
this other new found world?

*** As usual, someone has to invent things there, just like here, and
someone has to clean the toilets ... guys like you. It's a pre-ordained
cycle and you cunts simply can't deal with your sorry lot in life.

In other words, ETs (advanced or heathen) to us could become as risky
of biological encounter as you could possibly think of, whereas an ET
microbe, virus or even a diatom that\ufffds nothing but good for a given
off-world species could just as easily wipe out most forms of Earthly
biodiversity that simply couldn\ufffdt genetically mutate fast enough in
order to safely incorporate such a new form of microbial life.

*** Since we have set such a stellar example of brotherhood among humans,
why would visiting Aleeuns behave differently ... we'd probably scamble some
Air Force jets and start shooting at them, at which point they would
dispense their versions of Mustard Gas and Agent Orange, only a hundrefold
more lethal than anything we've come up with to date. On their way out they
would muse: "What a bunch of primitive fucks ... we did them a favor".




Sir Gilligan Horry
2009-12-06 20:57:57 EST
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:41:53 -0800, "Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net> wrote:

>
>Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>
>About 4 minutes long.
>
> http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>


Awesome.

I've seen it before.
but never get tired of that stuff.

Thanks for sharing !



================
________________

HubbleSite -- Out of the ordinary...out of this world.

http://hubblesite.org




Sir Gilligan Horry
2009-12-06 21:44:37 EST


I don't know how true this is,
but it's interesting reading...

"Your people of planet Earth have yet to realize that intelligent life
is teeming, virtually throughout the universe, in advanced
civilizations and levels of development that would completely defy
description. The countless billions of stars that appear in your
astronomers' telescopes are only a fraction of the overall magnitude
of Infinite Creation - a Creation that had no beginning nor will there
ever be an ending, as all worlds, stars, and even galaxies function in
the orderly pattern of cyclic regeneration."

http://www.angelfire.com/scary/ufos/wow.html




=============================================


On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 14:08:41 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 6, 10:41 am, "Hagar" <hs...@surewest.net> wrote:
>> Fascinating ... not exactly new, but awesome, nonetheless ...
>>
>> About 4 minutes long.
>>
>>  http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm
>
>You do realize that nothing of our spendy Hubble is without having
>been extensively digital stacked or that of multi-day exposures
>(nearly same thing as layer upon layer stacking), as well as having
>been resampled and even false colorized and/or false color/hue
>saturation pushed, don't you.
>
>Was there any given frame of that Hubble infomercial that was actually
>that of any raw Hubble obtained image?
>
>btw; what about all the blueshift stuff, especially as obtained from
>within the Great Attractor, whereas the average GA of local galactic
>radial blueshift from all directions is worth <-750 km/s?
>
>Doesn't the Hubble team accounting of 100 billion galaxies in our
>universe seem rather conservative? (especially when each and every
>absolute black spot [the size of that grain of sand at arms length]
>given sufficient exposure yields yet another ten thousand or more
>galaxies)
>
>A full survey of Hubble focusing those same 11 day exposures upon 10
>million other grains worth of sand held at arm’s length, as such is
>going to offer yet another 100 billion galaxies (that’s not even
>including those supposedly zipping away from us at FTL, as though
>we’re at the center of this universe)
>
> ~ BG

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron