Posted on 05/11/2009 6:15:05 PM PDT by TaraP
Lets not forget the Mars rovers which are still going years past their 90 day warranty dates. Cassini Huygens hasn’t been any slouch either.
LOL The Meatwad Nebula.
There is a nebula, the Hourglass Nebula, and it, too, looks like a giant eye in the center. The universe is utterly amazing and awe-inspiring.
What’s even “cooler” is that in the Hebrew, the Scripture translates “In the beginning, God said “Light Be.””
God never told light to stop “being” so the universe is still “being” created at the speed of sound.
Definitely we live in the coolest universe.
...depending on one’s outlook... Do you mean Obama’s ZERO symbol which many interpret as an...
BEAUTIFUL. AWESOME.
|
Thanks for the ping to the thread.
I do hope that you and others *do realize* that these pictures are *doctored pictures* and that the agency has “colorized” them to make them look that way. These pictures that are presented here — are not — the way they really look.
In fact, I do suspect that most people would be severely disappointed in seeing what they actually looked like. Ummm..., in fact, people would probably see *nothing* when “looking” at these things.
These pictures are “artificial constructs” of how certain people (in the agency) want to portray certain elements and their radiation signatures.
The “beauty” that is seen here is sort of “subjective” in that it’s been colored that way by someone who has determined that making it look “this way” will make things look “beautiful” to most of the people looking at the photos (with their normal vision). And what you’ve got represented is “instruments” measuring certain “values” and certain “radiation” that no one can see at all.
By that, I mean, I could “colorize” the photos and probably make them look real ugly, by how I chose to portray them (in my color choices) and what elements and their radiation signatures I wanted to portray.
So — do be careful how you attribute the “beauty” to these pictures — because you might just be attributing to the “beauty” — more or less — to the choices of the colorizer (i.e., the people who do this) of the photo and what elements they chose to represent here.
You said — Hubble was the best money Nasa has spent in the last 20 years. Outstanding photos.
—
Yes, they are outstanding “artificial constructs” of something that we can’t see in space.
That’s what these people who release these photos are doing — i.e., trying to “justify” from a P.R. standpoint, the costs for the project. The data they are gathering may very well be extremely useful from a scientific viewpoint, but what is “seen” is *not* what these photos are showing you.
These are colorized and certain elements are chosen to be “represented” in them. It’s a carefully “doctored” and “constructed” photo from instrumentation and their measurements, in which you would probably see *nothing at all* with your own eyes.
These people know that the public will be more enthused by “pretty colored pictures” than raw data and “instrumentation”. So...., they make up these pictures to give you the so-called “beauty” that you are seeing. They are “artificially” beautiful — according to someone’s “artwork” that they’ve done in doctoring the data and assigning colors to them.
Please do keep that in mind — because you’re not going to see what you see in these pictures — as actually “out there” in the universe.
—
HOWEVER, having said that, the “mathematics” of the “physics” that allow the certain elements to radiate at certain frequencies and which create a “pattern” for those particular elements (which you *cannot see* with your eyes) — may be “beautiful” (in the mathematical constructs). These “photos” however, are artificially and “man-made constructs” which bear absolutely no resemblance to the reality of what you’ll actually see.
They are beautiful and awesome, but these photos are man-made constructions and not the real thing. You’ll never see them with your own eyes. They don’t exist. They are merely instruments, measuring radiation signatures from certain elements and then someone “makes them pretty” by picking what elements to show and how to color them. They are simply *not real* at all...
See post #29 and #30...
The point there is that what is “constructed” is a human construction and not a so-called “natural picture”.
The best I could say is that someone (or several) who helped “make up the picture” — has a sense of beauty that we all appreciate — just like we appreciate a painter who paints a beautiful picture.
You might attribute the ability to create “beauty” (in that picture) to what God put in that person (in their abilities to do that) — but I wouldn’t necessarily attribute the beauty of what we see in those pictures presented as being something that God has made, directly (other than God made certain elements radiate at certain frequencies, if you want to put it that way).
People are really “ooohing and aaaahing” over some artist, more than anything else — which is fine, too — as long as you recognize that you’re praising an artist and not God.
We live in the Matrix. We don’t call it that, but it is a very good analogy for the “real” world in which we live.
If you listen to Chuck Missler, you would probably hear something related to that. He would say that we are basically living in an artificially constructed world (created by God) in which reality is a sort of an illusion.
You must have been listening to Missler... :-)
Every party has a pooper... ;-)
I understand.
I disagree that they are NOT real AT ALL, however.
The radiation frequencies, shapes and features are real.
The colorizing is arbitrary.
Oh yeah... :-)
There’s enough to praise God about in His creation, I think, without resorting to artificial and man-made constructs to “invent praise” for God.
So, I’m a party-pooper in that sense...
—
And actually, if you were to get into the mathematics and physics of the whole thing (and not just pretty pictures), you would have plenty to praise God about. So, “artificially constructed” pictures are really a false praise.
You said — The radiation frequencies, shapes and features are real.
—
Yeah, in a basic physics sort of way.
If I wanted to be crude though (I guess I’m gonna be...), I could say that I could construct a “beautiful picture” exhibiting the physics that God has made, by colorizing and showing certain frequencies of radiation for the explosion of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
It probably would produce a pretty picture, because the physics of it would probably form some very interesting patterns and colorizing it would be a beautiful painting — except for the fact that so many people died in the blast.
Anyway..., a person could do this sort of photographic construct for a lot of things in nature, in an “artifical way”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.