Nereid wrote:what looks like a picture, or image, or photograph, isn't. What it is is a representation of rather a lot of data, and nearly always involves considerable processing of the outputs from whatever instruments or detectors were used
Goldminer wrote:Of course one should Never ever question the "considerable processing of the outputs," should they??
Output produced from theoretical models closely related to the MAST data and not generally available through another permanent archive.
Thoroughly tested and well-documented specialized analysis software relevant to the HLSP, Java applets, and other image display software. (MAST will archive such software but will not accept responsibility for maintaining it).
Nereid wrote:"We are all probably used to 'false colour images', but you'd be surprised at how differently the very same data can be made to appear ... yet its status as an astronomical observation is exactly the same."
Nereid wrote:"(done by computers, of course)"
Goldminer wrote:Just like I said, or implied; Any "analysis" is a higher level abstraction and depends upon the viewpoint and biases of the writer/implementer. Raw data can be skewed too. One has to be ever vigilant. So, now I am a Vigilante.
As the original poster of many threads on Thunderbolts Forum, you manage to dodge the really detrimental points to your theme, made by several members of the forum
Implying what; that computers are some how unbiased? Halton Arp, for example, has analyzed the data from his catalogs, and revealed all sorts of relationships, contrary to consensus astronomers, who use similar analysis without criticism for their own pet theories.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests