It is not even what they think we would see were we closer, as what they are showing us is allSo what is it we are really looking at when detailed pictures are posted of distant stars and nebula from Hubble? Are they just artificial reconstructions of the spectral data into what it would look like were we close enough to view it?
No, magnification is the amount of times the image is larger than what would be seen by the naked eye. I have looked through telescopes at close to that magnification, but those telescopes could not see anywhere near as far as the Hubble. Even if you used 100X magnification on the Hubble, it would still see much further than a 12 inch telescope at 400X. There are three powers to a telescope:Nick, this webpage http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 6060224122 says, "If you consider [the Hubble telescope] as a camera, its main camera is 16 megapixels at about 540 times normal magnification."
* Do you have reason to doubt that its magnification is not 540x?
* If it its magnification is 540x, it can see 540 times as far as the naked eye. Right?
That's not what I meant. I understand that numerous observatories scan the sky in wavelengths across the EM spectrum. My question revolves around pictures that are labeled "Visible". Like in this recent TPOD.GaryN wrote:It is not even what they think we would see were we closer, as what they are showing us is allSo what is it we are really looking at when detailed pictures are posted of distant stars and nebula from Hubble? Are they just artificial reconstructions of the spectral data into what it would look like were we close enough to view it?
in wavelengths we could not see with our eyes at any distance.
fosborn » Why do Blue stars not show up in the mid-infrared?
Then Bahram Katirai's speculation of blue planets, has no way to verify it.GaryN wrote:Because you are not seeing reflected light, you are seeing Hydrogen glowing in the
far UV from a charged region above the surface of the planet. The light travels as
a quasi-planewave, and is only visible on Earth as the UV reaching us is converted in
the atmosphere and gives off light in the visible wavelengths. That is why 'stars' can not be
seen from the moon, or in space, by eye or normal camera, but only through H emissions.
There was great hope for balloon astronomy, show me photos of the stars even from
balloon elevations.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1wkAAAA ... rs&f=false
Caption from one site showing the image:Is this not the visible spectrum as in 390nm to 750nm wavelengths? Isn't this what we would see with our eyes? I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just don't understand what you were originally saying.
Visible light from a ground based telescope,OK. Put that same telescope in space, and I bet it willThis image composite shows two views of a puffy, dying star, or planetary nebula, known as NGC 1514. The view on the left is from a ground-based, visible-light telescope; the view on the right shows the object in infrared light, as seen by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE.
Hubble Takes First Visible Light Image of Extrasolar PlanetThere are many exciting images of different kinds of circumstellar disks. Recently, Hubble reported the "first visible-light snapshot" of an exoplanet around Fomalhaut. The 2m Hubble telescope does not suffer from atmospheric distortion but there is still very significant scattered light obstructing the view of the exoplanet. The image in the press-release used several images at different epoch's to remove some of the scattered light. Even with the most sophisticated scattered light removal techniques, a very large radial scattered light pattern obstructs the view of the circumstellar disk in a single image. Building better telescopes to minimize scattered light will greatly enhance the utility of these telescopes.
Ground based image of Formalhaut“The gravity of Formalhaut b is the key reason that the vast dust belt surrounding Fomalhaut is cleanly sculpted into a ring and offset from the star,” Kalas said. “We predicted this in 2005, and now we have the direct proof.”
- A method to distinguish a star from a planet is spectrum analysis.
- In the mid 1800s Harvard Professor and leading astronomer, Edward Pickering, lettered the stars according to the strength of their hydrogen spectral lines.
- He found that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.
- The whitish or bluish objects such as Sirius that have much hydrogen in their spectra are more numerous in the Milky Way.
- It appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets.
- Galaxies are planetary systems not over a few thousand light-years distant.
- The center of a galaxy is only one star, not millions of them.
- Each galaxy has no more than a few hundred planets, rather than billions of stars.
- The clouds in a galaxy are just dust and gas, not stars.
- The center of the Milky Way galaxy is a single, massive star: our sun.
- The diameter of the Milky Way is less than 30 light-days [480 billion miles].
- The greatest distance that the Hubble can detect a great star, such as the sun, is 18,110 light years.
- In 1907 the Andromeda galaxy was determined to be only 19 light-years away.
- Later, Van Maanen measured the parallax of the Andromeda galaxy at 0.004’ ± 0.005" which placed it at 815 light-years away.
- This means the Andromeda galaxy is not only nearby, but small.
- By mistaking planets for novas and Cepheid stars, astronomy went off course.
- In 1924, Edwin Hubble, resolved the spiral arms of the Andromeda Galaxy into many stars and found Cepheid variables and blue supergiants.
- But he could not resolve its center into stars, nor has anyone else done so since, though many tried.
- Astronomers claim that the small, bluish objects circling galactic centers are stars.
- The centers are only a few times larger than the bluish objects, but they should be billions of times larger if they contain millions of stars.
- The enlarged image of the nucleus of the galaxy M100 is a yellowish star similar to the sun.
- The smaller objects that have blue colors are circling that center.
- If we study the true color photographs of all galaxies, we see that each center has a yellow color similar to that of the sun.
- Jay Pasachoff writes “Color photographs of galaxies show that the central regions are relatively yellow …, while the arms are relatively blue“.
- Many astronomers were puzzled to find that the light of the center of a galaxy was much brighter than the rest of the galaxy.
- In 1997 Dr. Philippe Crane at ESO said, “Something is lighting up the center of galaxy NGC 6251 and illuminating a surrounding material disk.”
- Some galaxies harbor in their nucleus objects that emit more energy than all the stars in the rest of the galaxy together.
- It has been found that the nuclei of galaxies emit large amounts of infrared energy.
- If we examine recent images with excellent resolution, it is easy to count the number of spherical and luminous objects within the galaxies.
- In most galaxies there are less than a few thousand such objects.
- In the large majority of galaxies, there are less than several dozen.
- If the objects circling just beyond the center of the galaxies are hot stars, then they should illuminate the clouds surrounding them, but they don‘t.
- The centers of galaxies are strong sources of infrared and x-rays, while the objects circling the centers are not.
- The light of the objects circling the centers of galaxies, like Andromeda, undergoes phases, similar to those of our moon.
- In 1899, astronomer Isaac Roberts discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating within a short period of time, proving it is relatively small.
- If the galaxy were as huge as claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to detect it.
- In 1909, astronomer William Huggins announced that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system, similar to our solar system.
I thought that the center of the milky way galaxy was the so called black hole?The center of the Milky Way galaxy is a single, massive star: our sun.
So I gave him a read and was surprised by his findings in the essay. His findings on the numbers, and I've done this too, was that using Mercury distance as AU revealed a Holographic sequence. Fractals. The line up also put the center of the planetary system at the Asteroid Belt instead of out past Saturn. 
If you can find that article I would like to read it. The way you've explained it doesn't make any sense. A fractal pattern would exist, regardless of the unit of measure. The unit of measure is extrinsic and has no relation to the object being measured.kalensar wrote:I once read an article from earthmatrix.com about how Mercury should be used as the standard measurement of AU since it is the first planet in our lineup. The guy who runs earthmatrix.com is a mathematician and apparently openminded on top of it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests
