M
mchale
Guest
Yeah, but that is hardly an explination. I mean how can it be possible? Shouldn’t everything outside of the Earth rotate around the Earth either directly or indirectly in the geo-stationary model?
–
Bill
- Status
–
Bill
B
buffalo
Guest
Manipulation can lead to distortion and yes outright lies, anyone can see that for themselves.
M
mchale
Guest
Manipulation can lead to that yes… but in the case of Nasa images, do you have proof that it does?
Remember, there are thousands of Astronomers and other scientists (and for that matter others) who have access to that data. They spend large amounts of their time checking each other’s results (for the simple reason that finding a mistake can lead to an article which is how they get and keep jobs…).
–
Bill
B
buffalo
Guest
How many specific equations have you actually proofed? We pretty much believe what we are taught.
So you are saying that every astronomer independently checks to see if this is all OK? Hardly. Any peer reviewed papers you want to share with us?
Since the images are received black and white someone has to make a decision as to what color to make the image and where.
Do I know of any intentional falsifications? No.
Can mistakes be made? Yes
Are these color applications subject to change? Yes
Can these applications be subject to a priori conclusions? Yes
Are the enahnced images trustworthy? I dunno
P
pickguard1
Guest
Not that I can explain anything - but I would suppose that if the earth is stationary, then anything that is in geostationary orbit (which really isn’t an orbit at all) would have to be subject to the same forces that don’t make me orbit the planet the moment I jump and separate my feet from the ground. Gravity I suppose - this assumes that there would have to be a point (in distance away from the earth) at which earth’s gravity no longer has the same force to hold something in a geostationary position.
M
mchale
Guest
You might be surprised. While I am not a professional astronomer or physicist, I am a computer scientist, and we do have to get quite comfortable with proofs.
Not every astronomer checks every paper, but enough reported results in science have been overturned that I am confident that there are a number of Astronomers checking any significant results to make sure they jive.
The whole point of the article that you posted was that there generally is method to the maddness. Most of the colors actually represent specific wavelengths of light. Other times it might be to enhance contrast, but most of the time, one base color will be assigned to each “black and white” raw image before they are combined.
It depends on the specific use of color. In most cases its simply coloring different wavelengths different colors. A little hard to mess up when you are assigning green to a particular emmission line of Hydrogen.
And mind you, this all seems a little like grasping at straws to me. We have no proof that images have been intentionally or unintentionally falsified but you are claiming they might be because they allow you to maintain your position.
–
Bill
M
mchale
Guest
Ok, so let me get this straight, you are claiming that the very same force that the proponents of a heliocentric solar system use to explain how orbits work is the reason why an object in a geostationary position does not actually move?
I should point out that there is a rather large amount applied to a rocket, more than enough to simply lift it to the 22,500 miles or so required for a geostationary orbit… the extra is enough allow it to move around the Earth about once every 24 hours…
–
Bill
P
pickguard1
Guest
Maybe I am - I don’t know
I’m not trying to claim anything, though. I’m saying (in a very non-authoritative and obviously non-scientific manner) is that if one is a proponent of geocentricism, one could posit a cut-off point for earth’s gravity (as is done with heliocentricism) outside of which everything else orbits the earth. So, in this manner, geosychronous orbits fall outside this point. Not that I’m a proponent of either geocentricism or heliocentricism (as this thread has gotten me quite confused) but I don’t see how geostationary vs. geosynchronous orbits around the earth would prove or disprove either concept.
B
buffalo
Guest
What position is that? They may be “curve fitted” if you will to the current belief of science. Colors especially can be filtered through the color of the glasses one is wearing.
As with most things trust is necessary. As St Paul tells us to test everything. Atheists can maintain a position of radical doubt about religion, but woe to those who even question the trustworthiness of science which by its own definition has a limited say about the universe and can say nothing about the supernatural.
I made my point so lets move on.
One other point - your program won’t run unless the prior proved code you build on is.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, not being an apologist for them, I don’t know for sure, but I assume that they will invoke the gravitomagnetic effect off the rotating universe to create a centrifugal like force which is exactly balanced by the gravitational attraction between the satellite and earth.
There two problems with this; one is scientific and the other logical.
The scientific one is that although centrifugal and Coriolis like forces can be shown to act on a test particle in a massive shell rotating with respect to the rest of the universe (Lense-Thirring solution to the field equations), no-one has ever shown that the rotation of the universe would give rise to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth in the same sense and in the same magnitude that we observe.
The logical one is that all of this is utterly dependent on GR, and geocentrists like Sungenis completely reject GR, so…
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Did Sungenis pay the $1000 he must surely owe you regarding the geocentricity vs heliocentrism challenge?
H
hecd2
Guest
This is pretty poor, even for you. I thought Catholics cared about truth and integrity. What you are doing here is choosing a completely routine process which is colourisation to help visualise data (as I said it is done from everything from visualising the intensity of winds in a hurricane to visualising the anisotropy in the CMB - I am looking at an image now from the UK Met office radar showing showers across the UK where the intensity of the rain shades from blue (light) to red (downpour) via green and yellow), and implying that it is used by astronomers to distort and tell outright lies (your words) about scientific conclusions. But you are unable to give a single example of a case in which colourisation of Hubble images has led to false scientific conclusions or the fraudulent promotion of false conclusions. Not one example. In other words, your clearly implied accusation is entirely without factual foundation and you are merely poisoning the well in a thoroughly dishonest manner. That’s disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.hecd2:
Manipulation can lead to distortion and yes outright lies, anyone can see that for themselves.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
B
buffalo
Guest
Even for me?
Well let us see - we can stand under the green area and we all can agree that it is raining. This case you present is empirically testable.
Hello - did you read the post where I said I have no evidence for intentional falsification?
You are not going to claim though that it doesn’t happen at all are you? Well we can start here if you would like:
Abstract
There are numerous documented cases of attacks on dissident scientists, yet there is no established body of literature or standard theoretical frameworks for dealing with this phenomenon. Cases in three contentious areas - pesticides, fluoridation, and nuclear power - are used to illustrate processes and patterns of suppression. The evidence in these areas shows the possibilities and difficulties in drawing links between suppression and corporate, professional, and state power, respectively. Studies of suppression can provide a convenient probe into the exercise of power in science and more generally into the dynamics of expertise and legitimacy in a technological society.
We can then move on to whether or not you yourself or scientists who insist on methodological naturalism are trustworthy in their conclusions. But we have been there done that haven’t we?
You are one who excludes much truth.
L
Luke65
Guest
Oh, I’m sure if Alec knew that there was a (in)famous picture from the Hubble Telescope that was “falsified” in order to try and falsify the claims of one Dr. Halton Arp, he would gladly acknowledge it, even if it is an isolated crime. (I’ll be back!)
haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals
NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 - Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?
In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was invariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.
Flash forward to October 2002. The Space Science Telescope Institute issued a press release with a picture of NGC 4319/Mrk 205 showing no bridge and with the imputation that it never existed. After all these years we suddenly learn there was serious evidence which has now been finally refuted. But wait a minute! The picture actually does show the bridge. If you just down load the web image and increase the contrast at faint levels, there it is! Actually the NASA “proof” picture was not even printed deeply enough to show the outer spiral arms of the galaxy! There is a narrower core to the bridge, a kind of umbilical cord which the higher resolution HST can now pick out. Many non professionals immediately produced very good pictures of the bridge from the same NASA picture. Here is shown a comparison of the press release picture and a deep print of the same picture by Jack Sulentic of the University of Alabama.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Nobody noticed that galaxy’s arm has been amputated!](Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
H
hecd2
Guest
Well there’s nothing I can see in the Sulentic print that I can’t see in the SSTI picture. In any case it’s the Sulentic print that has been artificially enhanced and false-coloured, so according to buffalo’s claims, it’s Sulentic who should be vehemently suspected of distortion and outright lies. It’s such a pity when one’s unfair accusations backfire against one’s heroes.
Me - I’m Ok with either print as they both show the same thing with regard to the feature ‘between’ the galaxies as far as I can see - with Sulentic’s enhancements making faint features easier to see (but wiping out other detail in the brighter parts of the positive image). As for the comment about the arms, that makes no sense to me at all - I can see them clearly in both prints.
Also see here:
heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
Luke65
Guest
And what do you see?
Wow, that’s some heavy spin! The point wasn’t that there is something wrong with trying to reveal the truth to people, but trying to conceal it! Which is exactly what NASA and SSTI were trying to do - conceal the truth, unashamedly and embarrassingly. Sulentic was trying to reveal the truth.
The galaxy’s arm looks like it’s artificially cut off. But the point of the “deep print” picture is to highlight the luminous bridge between the galaxy and the quasar in the upper right corner. And it does make it very easy to see that they are obviously physically connected - only a big banger would say otherwise! In fact, if you turn the picture upside-down it looks like an eye with a teardrop dripping from it - how fitting! This is what mainstream science has come to: releasing a deceptive picture with press release to match, all to try and save the foundation of the Big Bang theory - their red-shift interpretation. If anyone is interested in this, you will find that Arp has a huge collection of images demonstrating that there are multitudes of these galaxy/quasar pairings as well as some galaxy/galaxy pairings, where the first one has a low redshift and the second a high redshift. But this contradicts the standard interpretation of redshift which says that these objects at the same distance from us should have the same redshift value. But in this case, the quasar’s high redshift supposedly means it is almost 15 times further away than the galaxy! So, you can have your Big Bang theory, but only if you deny what your eyes see. Which is why big bangers won’t say that that galaxy and quasar are physically connected.
T
tjm190
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
false premise on your part, no such assumption exists
L
Luke65
Guest
Umm, those are the words of Dr. Halton Arp. But you’re more than welcome to debate the issue with him, his email address is on his website (and he emailed me back). Good luck!
M
mchale
Guest
The view that the Earth is the center of the Universe?
The colors aren’t filtered here, as you yourself pointed out, they are added after the fact to represent specific things.
LOL… St. Paul is talking about testing what people say about the faith. Certainly Paul does not intend us to question the very existence of God, nor that Christ is his Son… these are essentially untestable outside of scripture or the Tradition of the Church.
On the flip side, all results in science are tentative… what annoys scientists and for that matter many others, is when people try to argue that their positions are as scientifically viable as the current mainstream theories without any significant evidence for their position
Science actually generally requires very little trust. Here is the thing about Astronomy which you may or may not know… it is actually a field where amateurs to this day are making significant contributions. Modern amateur equipment is fine enough that a dedicated amateur can measure parallex of the nearer stars, derive the size of the solar system (with some travel), and indeed find the supernovas that are the standard candles for measuring the distance to many galaxies and calibrating the Hubble Constant. In other words, many of the ideas in modern Astronomy require very little in the way of faith if one is willing to go to the effort.
–
Bill
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually I like the fact amateurs can contribute. That’s a good thing.
Here is the passage:
Test everything; retain what is good.
It certainly applies to faith as well as other things. But why argue about it. I myself demand a high standard and testing.
- Status