Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The Space Discussion Topic

138 replies to this topic
X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#61

Posted 18 July 2016 - 08:28 PM

Semi-related, specifically quantum mechanics.  These sort of experiments really challenge our perception of reality and the laws of physics.  Total mind f*ck.

 

  • El Diablo, Dr.Rum and Aqua like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#62

Posted 18 July 2016 - 09:23 PM

yeah there's some interesting debate in the science community regarding the implications of the Double Slit.

 

there's a camp of people who go with the conclusion that "of course" this would happen. that it's fairly straightforward.

because we're talking about measurements that are so small - distances of scale that are so tiny - that you have to apply some kind of instrument to in order to make the measurement. and so the instrument itself (often being many times larger and carrying much greater energy properties, such as lasers) causes natural distortions in the particles they're interacting with. this is the subatomic level and smaller that we're dealing with, so you gotta' think it must be really tough to investigate this environment with our current level of technology. even as good as it is, we're still crudely poking around like children in the sandbox.

 

there's another camp of people who are sort of taking the experiment into 'woo-woo' metaphysical territory.

they draw the conclusion that reality is affected by the physical act of observation by another living being. whereby we are constantly the creators of our own reality simply by looking at it. that the reality actually ceases to exist when our [collective] backs are turned. in a way, this might help explain certain inexplicable properties of Einstein's theory of relativity that we're still grappling with. namely the fact that time itself is a tangible and relative force operating individually for each person.

 

you know like the Twin Paradox, which is proven, albeit utterly inexplicable.

take a pair of twins, two people of the exact same age, and let one of them travel into space at the speed of light while the other waits here on Earth. the twin in space travels at lightspeed for X-number of years in one direction then turns around traveling at lightspeed for the exact same number of years back home. when the twin on the spaceship arrives home, his time will completely different from his identical twin brother and everyone on Earth.

 

everyone here will have aged significantly longer. many more years will have physically passed at home.

when the twin from the spaceship goes to stand next to his twin who stayed on Earth, the twin from the spaceship will be much younger while the one who stayed at home will be much older. we know this, there are multiple proofs.

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Twin_paradox

http://www.fourmilab...in/specrel/www/

 

does time just slow down in space? that can't be right.

it's becoming much more apparent that time itself might actually be relative to each individual's perception of it. if that makes sense.

 

ok so the Double Slit.

it's not necessarily that things disappear when you stop looking at them. obviously a blind person can still bust their kneecap on a dining room table while alone in their kitchen. the doorhandle is still there when they reach for it. but our collective perceptions are operating at all times. right? even the ones you don't have direct control over. so objects have permanence. people and things take up space. if you're deaf dumb and blind you can still smell a fart. but reality is only made when something with the necessary sensors is able to witness, process, and perceive it.

 

without dying, how would you (temporarily) shut off all your senses? what if you could?

think about the old adage; if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I'm not so sure anymore. I suppose that if no processing instrument exists within the vicinity of the falling tree to intercept and decode the soundwaves, then I guess not. there must be dead silence. and if no one is around to hear, then no one will be around to see it, or feel it. how does anyone know that a tree has even fallen? the tree may as well not exist.

 

when twin A turns his back on twin B and flies through the stars, obviously twin B doesn't just disappear. he has to live his life a day at a time. and twin A is still living his life; eating, sleeping, sh/tting aboard the spaceship. but twin A experiences time on a different scale given his mass and energy relative to his velocity and inertia. twin A is literally outrunning the physical affects of time. by comparison twin B is sedentary and stationary and afflicted by the constant bombardment of time and gravity. for twin B time is moving more steadily along.

 

it's not 'woo-woo' magic because the testing and the math evidently bears it out.

but our conclusions are still in the realm of pseudo-science. what does this all mean for us?? at some point, how do we utilize this for things like time travel or suspending the process of aging? what does it mean for our sense of reality, our sense of our own self, our very nature? are we real? is any of it real? am I just the manifestation of my sensory perceptive organs working in unison until my blood valves cease to pump oxygen and the input fades to black? is there really an individual? is the ego merely an evolutionary construct?

 

are we all just one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively?

maybe there's no such thing as death. maybe life is just a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves...

 

tCA3iW4.jpg

 

F58zSxE.jpg

  • Mikeol2014, Mister Pink, X S and 2 others like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#63

Posted 26 July 2016 - 10:42 PM

Jupiter oriented from the South pole

145524main_image_feature_538_ys_full.jpg

 

Saturn with Titan, taken by Cassini

O8aZvBO.jpg

 

the eye of Saturn's hurricane

7gdhWca.jpg

 

the Crab Nebula

hs-2016-26-a-large_web.jpg

 

the Orion Nebula

ASYaFkh.jpg

  • Shaundi., Zoobz, JON22 and 2 others like this

Zoobz
  • Zoobz

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2013
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Snapmatic Competition]
    Helpfulness Award [GTA V]
    Best Llama 2016
    GTAF Snap Battle Season 2 Winner

#64

Posted 26 July 2016 - 10:52 PM

The Saturn with Titan and the Saturn's hurricane photos are epic. 

  • El Diablo likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#65

Posted 29 July 2016 - 10:07 PM

these pictures are massive but they're incredible.
all taken by the Curiosity rover.
 
sand dunes on Mars

Spoiler

rock crawling over Mars surface
Spoiler

dried up Martian lake bed
Spoiler

the first ever Mars selfie
Spoiler

  • RedDagger, Shaundi., krashr and 4 others like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#66

Posted 05 August 2016 - 10:50 PM

road trip on the Moon.

 

Apollo landing site

Spoiler

 

the Hillpan crater

Spoiler

 

the Shorty crater

Spoiler

 

Buzz Aldrin standing next to seismometer, used for detecting Moonquakes and seismic activity.

Spoiler


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#67

Posted 06 August 2016 - 04:01 AM

yeah there's some interesting debate in the science community regarding the implications of the Double Slit.

No, there really isn't. There's debate among some lay-persons about their misinterpretation of information badly explained by popularized science articles. It's really not the same thing.

In the scientific community, Quantum Mechanics has been a fact of life for nearly a century. The underlying principles are fully understood and we now have common machinery between Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. So when I say that we understand it as well as we do gravity, that's a precise statement. The fact that it still bothers people who've never studied any serious physics is entirely tangential. Lay-persons don't understand space-time curvature, either. Doesn't stop them from accepting black holes as a fact of life. Hopefully as QCs get broader use, they'll stop complaining about Quantum Mechanics as well.
  • Dealux and PicardsBong like this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#68

Posted 06 August 2016 - 06:02 AM

ok Mr High and Mighty. slow down, take a breath.

did you even read the rest of my post? if you had, you might've realized how ridiculous you sound right now.

 

I was not debating the validity of quantum mechanics.

relax dude :sigh:


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#69

Posted 06 August 2016 - 09:36 AM

No, I've skimmed through it. Your comparisons and assertions are still silly. These are mundane things in academia. I can appreciate that this is still amazing and confounding to a lot of people, but claim that there is still some sort of debate among people who study it is without foundation. There is still plenty of unknown, more than ever as one might expect, but it's way, way deeper. There are many decades of hard work by some of the smartest people who ever lived between what you present as great puzzles of existence and actual puzzles of existence. That's what I'm trying to convey here.
  • Dealux likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#70

Posted 07 August 2016 - 05:41 PM

yeah. clearly you didn't read it.

you saw a couple of words and it immediately ruffled your panties. you missed the context. you didn't follow the train of thought at all.

 

I wasn't personally subscribing to those ideas.

I wasn't trying to describe them as fact.

 

I was highlighting the fanciful debate that people are having regarding the implications of the Double Slit; while acknowledging that it's fanciful. explaining the discussion doesn't mean I'm endorsing those points as gospel. I'm just discussing them for people who are likely not following along with the pop culture aspect of quantum mechanics. it's a way to get people interested in subjects they might not otherwise consider.

 

relax kiddo....


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#71

Posted 08 August 2016 - 07:34 AM

yeah there's some interesting debate in the science community regarding the implications of the Double Slit.[

Emphasis mine. Quote yours. What you said in that sentence is false. Unambiguously, objectively false. And they are your words and not opinion of someone else that you've been referencing. This isn't Republican National Convention. You can either stand by your claim or retract it, which is it going to be?

The only debate people are having, fanciful or otherwise, is happening among armchair scientists. Yes, they qualify as people, as you've tried to substitute, but certainly not for scientific community. Don't back-pedal. Retract or defend. Back-pedaling is counterproductive.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#72

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:14 PM Edited by El Diablo, 26 August 2016 - 11:14 PM.

wow you must be fun at parties  :sigh:

 

I was not subscribing to those ideas or presenting them as hard fact.

I was describing the popular conversations that occur surrounding these concepts; on science podcasts, blogs, in magazines, etc. it's all part of the community. and yes those people have kind of got the wrong idea technically, but I wasn't make a technical point. you took everything I said out of context. I even acknowledged that those popular ideas are not exactly correct. but you've glossed over all of it in a vain attempt to appear superior.

 

you wander into a conversation after missing the beginning and try to butt in by taking everything extremely seriously... when it was just supposed to be an imaginative, colloquial discussion, not a college lecture.

 

I say again; relax.

you're harshing my vibe.

 

heic1007a.jpg

 

J5ZOWwS.jpg

 

nh-charon-neutral-bright-release_0.jpg

 

fFBjU5n.jpg

  • Payne Killer likes this

Kirsty
  • Kirsty

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Administrator 2016
    Best Administrator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Most Respected 2014
    Most Helpful 2014
    Best Moderator 2013
    Most Helpful 2013

#73

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:22 PM

Pot kettle black...

I already hid one post and gave you a reminder for being a dick, why are you continuing?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#74

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:24 PM

whatever this was not supposed to be a debate.

he's off topic at best, irrationally arguing at worst.


X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#75

Posted 09 August 2016 - 04:24 PM

There's debate among some lay-persons about their misinterpretation of information badly explained by popularized science articles.

 

I think the problem with the double-slit experiment is that there's a lot of pseudo-science surrounding it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, K^2, because I know you have a background in physics, but the double-slit experiment is nothing more than an attempt to measure to the probability that a photon can be detected at a certain point, and that the real issues lies in being able to directly observe the particles from the point of release to detection, and more specifically, that our tools of measurement are not accurate enough to do so, right?

 

The Many-worlds theory is what seems to be the buzz of popular science, suggesting that all possibilities are in fact real.  I still struggle to fully understand it, so I was hoping you could provide some insight.

 

I am alive.

 

Are you?

 


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#76

Posted 11 August 2016 - 11:07 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, K^2, because I know you have a background in physics, but the double-slit experiment is nothing more than an attempt to measure to the probability that a photon can be detected at a certain point, and that the real issues lies in being able to directly observe the particles from the point of release to detection, and more specifically, that our tools of measurement are not accurate enough to do so, right?
 
The Many-worlds theory is what seems to be the buzz of popular science, suggesting that all possibilities are in fact real.  I still struggle to fully understand it, so I was hoping you could provide some insight.

Double-slit is a little more interesting than that, but because of things you need better experiments to really appreciate. Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is one of the more interesting modifications of double-slit. In that experiment, you can determine whether the interference pattern is visible after the data is already collected but before you can observe it. And it really highlights the fact that it's the entire world that's quantum, not just individual particles.

Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not a theory. Like it says on the tin, it's an interpretation. Of course, in science the word "interpretation", just like the word "theory", has slightly different meaning than in day-to-day language, which, unfortunately, adds to the confusion and misinformation on this topic.

While the theory itself is essentially a mathematical model, an interpretation of a theory is how you connect that model to what you call the real world. As a very simple example, imagine that you are standing on a spinning surface. Interpretation one, world is still, surface is spinning with you, inertia is pushing you outside. Interpretation two, world is spinning around you, generating a centrifugal force. The math is exactly the same. What you predict will happen if you throw a ball is going to be exactly the same, but interpretations are different. The important thing to understand here is that neither interpretation is "Wrong". However, one of the interpretations is simpler. It's easier to understand movement of objects in this example if you assume that the world is stationary and the surface you are on is spinning.

Quantum Mechanics is a bit more complicated than that, and so defining what is the "simpler" interpretation becomes difficult. Many Worlds is rather strange, but it has a very nice property. It inherently treats entire world as a quantum system. Which means that if you understand basic QM and Many Worlds, you will have good intuition on the weird experiments, like Quantum Eraser and Quantum Teleportation. Whereas the "simpler" interpretation of QM, such as Copenhagen Interpretation, involving a wave function collapse, can lead you astray and make wrong assumptions. This is why we have things like Einstein Podolski Rosin "paradox", whereas in Many Worlds it's a pretty obvious phenomenon.

As with most scientific theories, it is most useful to understand a good number of the valid interpretations and simply apply the one that makes sense for the particular scenario. MWI is definitely a very useful interpretation. But where people make a mistake is when they try to derive some "truth" about the world from a particular interpretation. No two interpretations of the same theory can be distinguished with an experiment. Copenhagen Interpretation is no more or less valid than Many Worlds Interpretation. And neither of these have to have anything to do with how the world "really works".

And, of course, as with pretty much everything in Quantum Mechanics, MWI is hugely misinterpreted outside of scientific community, and any time I hear the words "Many Worlds" in science fiction I preemptively cringe.
  • X S likes this

Dee.
  • Dee.

    GTAV= Style over substance

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#77

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:37 AM

Why is every planet perfectly spherical? And why does NASAs photos look like CG renders?


road trip on the Moon.

 

Apollo landing site

Spoiler

 

the Hillpan crater

Spoiler

 

the Shorty crater

Spoiler

 

Buzz Aldrin standing next to seismometer, used for detecting Moonquakes and seismic activity.

Spoiler

 

 

Why is his shadow facing that direction? it should be facing the direction that the sun is shining...


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#78

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:50 AM

Planets aren't perfectly spherical. But they are close because of gravity. Sphere has lowest gravitational energy.

Almost every question you have about NASA photos can be answered with, "They are digitally-processed composites." Taking pictures in space isn't a trivial matter. There are all sorts of limitations, from lighting conditions, to filters that have to be used, to film/sensor limitations due to radiation. Very frequently, to get a color photo, several black-and-white cameras with a colored filter are used. A computer is later used to put them together. This leads to an artificial look to final pictures.

NASA does provide source imagery, however. It is in form of unprocessed raw data. Usually looks like a bunch of boring black-and-white photos for newer stuff. You can also find some unprocessed versions of the Apollo imagery, and they look pretty much the way you expect pictures taken with crappy cameras in space to look. Naturally, these aren't images that NASA and press use for publicity.
  • Platypus Chairlines likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#79

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:23 AM

Why is his shadow facing that direction? it should be facing the direction that the sun is shining...


What makes you think it isn't? You can't see the sun itself, which given the angle of the shadows in the photographs I wouldn't expect you to be able to.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#80

Posted 17 August 2016 - 09:04 AM

What makes you think it isn't? You can't see the sun itself, which given the angle of the shadows in the photographs I wouldn't expect you to be able to.

At the risk of triggering someone to start spewing nonsense, I think he might be confused by the same phenomenon that Mythbusters have addressed in their Moon landing special. (Regretting bringing it up in 3... 2... 1...)

Dee.
  • Dee.

    GTAV= Style over substance

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#81

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:11 PM

I guess ill always be skeptical. I can never trust NASA and this whole thing just seems so..surreal. Maybe its too much for my tiny mind to process


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#82

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:42 PM

You can literally see the Lunar Rover Vehicle from other satellites.
  • K^2 likes this

Dealux
  • Dealux

    Goddess Of Light

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#83

Posted 17 August 2016 - 05:20 PM

does time just slow down in space? that can't be right.
it's becoming much more apparent that time itself might actually be relative to each individual's perception of it. if that makes sense. [...]
 
without dying, how would you (temporarily) shut off all your senses? what if you could?
think about the old adage; if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? I'm not so sure anymore. I suppose that if no processing instrument exists within the vicinity of the falling tree to intercept and decode the soundwaves, then I guess not. there must be dead silence. and if no one is around to hear, then no one will be around to see it, or feel it. how does anyone know that a tree has even fallen? the tree may as well not exist. [...]
 
are we all just one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively?
maybe there's no such thing as death. maybe life is just a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves...

I think the gist of relativity is that the faster you travel through space the slower you travel through time. Individual perception of time has nothing to do with relativity (it's a failure on the brain's part to keep track of time).

Pointless experiment. If we all (collectively) shut off our bodies and brains and turned them on again there's no reason to think that anything (significant) would change. If there's no one or nothing to observe what's happening at that moment then this experiment makes no sense. I think the more logical explanation could be this: we all have very similar conscious experiences because we are mostly built the same way. We observe a certain level of consciousness and other animals and beings are on a different level by dint of the fact that they have different brains. If every living being died tomorrow reality would probably still exist in some form (assuming we don't live in a simulated universe). We don't experience reality. We experience an interpretation of it.

Nope. Probably not and I don't think there would be a way to prove that even if it were true.

As long as we're hoping for something like that, I would put my money on transhumanism or something. Life after death could be boring.


Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award
    Draw Contest Winner 2016

#84

Posted 17 August 2016 - 05:32 PM Edited by Andreaz1, 17 August 2016 - 05:32 PM.

you can determine whether the interference pattern is visible after the data is already collected but before you can observe it

the faster you travel through space the slower you travel through time

Sentences like this are why I find physics equal parts fascinating and gross.

I have a headache.

Richard Power Colt
  • Richard Power Colt

    What doth LIFE Life life?

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2013
  • None

#85

Posted 24 August 2016 - 05:46 PM Edited by Nutsack McQueen, 24 August 2016 - 05:50 PM.

"Earth-like planet found orbiting the nearest star:"

http://www.popularme...anet-proxima-b/

 

Dope


Aqua
  • Aqua

    ~~~~

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2016
  • United-Nations

#86

Posted 24 August 2016 - 06:07 PM

Now all they need to do is send a space probe!  :colgate:


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#87

Posted 24 August 2016 - 11:31 PM Edited by El Diablo, 25 August 2016 - 01:12 AM.

even though I'm pretty sure this is Abraham Lincoln, they chose to call it something else.
but it's totally a perfect profile of our 16th President. you can't unsee it...
284895main_witchhead_nebula_full.jpg
 
killer fireball, bro
Fireball_sheridan.jpg
 
this is the Horse Head nebula in infrared.
72nez2X.jpg

and this epic badass is known as Cometary Globule CG4
AOs5pcU.jpg

...

 

I can never trust NASA

but why?

this statement doesn't make any sense.
 

what did NASA ever do to earn distrust in the first place?

  • uNi, Shaundi. and Michael like this

Michael
  • Michael

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2016
  • None

#88

Posted 26 August 2016 - 08:31 PM

Sometimes, I sit in the garden when it's night time, with my earphones and I just look at the stars in the sky. It's absolutely relaxing. I have not always been interested in space, but I started getting more interest lately. Also, those pictures you posted in the topic are amazing, El Diablo!

X S
  • X S

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • None
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#89

Posted 26 August 2016 - 08:45 PM

IIRC, the Hubble telescope doesn't actually take pictures in color.  I think it takes them in black and white, and then they add the color after based on the different gasses.

 

Still, if the intention is to get people interested in space, well then it definitely works.

  • El Diablo and Michael like this

uNi
  • uNi

    Feroci

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • United-Kingdom
  • Best Official Gang 2014 [Feroci]

#90

Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:49 PM

On the way to Bennu:

 

  • El Diablo likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users