Posted on 05/11/2009 6:15:05 PM PDT by TaraP
Certain elements are singled out for their particular radiation frequencies and keyed into. Then colors are picked and attached, in combination with other colors that will be complimentary and produce a “beautiful picture”.
Now, one can pick what elements they want to look for what they they want to discard. The elements that are not desired or won’t make a good picture, won’t be used. Not everything that is there is “picked” and “used” — so it’s totally artificial and a fully man-made construction.
It’s simply something arbitrary and man-made...
Your argument is dumb.
To me . . .
it’s accurate and legitimate to assert that the colors used are not what would be seen with our eyes and in that sense are inaccurate and phony.
However, the colors are merely tools to help distinguish features of the structures involved. In that sense, the colors are a legitimate way of highlighting and illuminating features, dynamics, aspects which would be obscured or undetectable otherwise.
In that sense, the colorizing helps make the image MORE REAL in terms of understanding the structure better.
imho . . . as a pontificating layman, of course! LOL.
I have high praise for the artists who made the picture... :-)
Thanks for your kind words.
However,
WARNING WILL ROBINSON WARNING
your naysayer’s reputation is at risk for ever asserting that Quix could be right about anything to any degree.
You might be able to find a cheap indulgence somewhere, though.
Do you have statistics about what percentage of an image is discarded?
If I’m composing a pic of the Grand Canyon or Butchart Gardens or some such . . . I might use Photoshop to edit out inconsequential elements that detracted from the image.
If they are discarding extraneous features that are not illustrative nor central to the issues they are examining, then I wouldn’t think of it as significant.
And, even if they are somewhat mangling images to produce SHOW IMAGES to increase interest in astronomy etc. that’s a legitimate goal as long as they don’t then pretend that the image is showing everything.
You make it sound like the images are bogus from the git-go. I’m very skeptical that’s true.
Are you a professional in the field? Or are you merely a pontificating layman, like me?
NO, I don’t think it is
TOTALLY ARTIFICIAL.
If it were that, then they would start with a blank sheet, so to speak and DRAW whatever they wanted.
They do not start with a blank sheet.
Yeah, I know that the colors are used to help us distinguish certain features that we would not be able to “make out” in a “normal environment”...
We see that when the weather people produce those nicely colorized pictures (by computer, of course) of the rain and snow and and clouds and so on.
We get to “see” what is going on. And I’m sure those pictures make some pretty patterns, too — in those weather graphs. But, mainly they are used for “seeing” patterns easier.
And so, I do know that’s what they are doing with these space “photographs”.
I just don’t want people to think that this is actually how God made them and that’s the way He intended for it to looked. It was mainly the way the artist intended to give you a “perception” (from “his viewpoint”) of how it should look.
I do know how they are doing this..., and so it doesn’t escape me. And I also know that God made all the physics and mathematics involved, and God also made the “creativity” of the artist who “painted” the pictures for us, too and enabled the artist to pick the “patterns” that the artist thought would be the “most interesting” for us to look at.
For these pictures, I have to praise the artists and the people who reconstructed the data to make them into “pretty pictures”... since they did a marvelous job.
Good. I think that’s my perspective, too.
Agreed that it’s not a blank sheet. It’s based on the real “data” that the instruments gather, but I did say that in previous posts.
What we “see” in the “picture” though, is what is “totally created” by an artist, using “scientific data” from instruments.
Another way to say it — would be, I could use the *exact same data* — and come up with something so ugly that people might be repelled by it — all based on my own choices, which would be the same “kinds” of choices made by these people who produced these pictures.
So, we’re really dependent upon their artistic abilities.
On the other hand, if this was something “real” (as in the pictures presented) — no matter who produced the “pictures” it would be the same picture all the time. [think of an automatic digital camera taking a scenery shot of the surrounding country-side. I hand the camera to another person right after taking one picture. He takes a picture and he gets the exact same picture from that camera, at the same time, standing in the same spot. In that instance, I cannot “effect” any change in the picture from me taking it to him taking it...]
Hey there, just to not beat this thing to death, I think all of us does really understand what the other is saying and it’s all agreeable (I think.... LOL...).
So, I won’t be beating this dead horse any longer... :-)
Do the eyes see?, If so, what exactly do they see? What are they sensitive to? What role does the CNS have to do with the phenomena described by "us" as sight?
Well, I put it fairly simply in that I say that we have the physical vision that God allowed us to have by the range of frequencies that our eyes have the ability to pick up.
That’s “our vision” as created by God.
—
We do know that other creatures have a different range of physical vision and some a different “type” of vision too. God gave us what we have in His infinite wisdom.
So,would it be fair to say that different energies give off different frequencies, based on what they generate, or what energy they reflect?
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.