Hubble Photographs Giant Eye in Space......

Yahoo ^ | May 11th, 2009

[TaraP]

The Hubble Space Telescope's legendary Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 has produced one of its last images, a gorgeous shot of a planetary nebula. The nebula, a colorful cloud of gas and dust named Kohoutek 4-55 (or K 4-55), has an eye that appears to be looking right back at Hubble. The image was taken May 4 and released today. Monday, NASA aims to send the space shuttle Atlantis to Hubble, where astronauts will replace the camera with the Wide Field Camera 3, among other upgrades and fix-it projects.

[Star Traveler]

You said — So,would it be fair to say that different energies give off different frequencies, based on what they generate, or what energy they reflect?

—

Sure, there is a lot of “information” out there that we’re not seeing from the frequencies that we’re enabled to see. It’s simply “information” for the things that we don’t see with what God gave us in our senses, but that doesn’t mean that this information is not there.

However, having said that — let’s say that we were able to actually “see” all of the information from all the frequencies available, and it all came in at once — I think we would see nothing but “chaos of vision” and actually see “nothing useful at all” in our lives. Our vision (I think) would be totally useless and we probably wouldn’t depend on it, since everything would come in and our “vision” would be “mass noise” instead of “vision” (that God created for us).

So, in God making it so that we “selectively” can see only a very limited range of information (hence that “vision”) He made it so that our vision is then useful to us.

But, in these pictures, for example, a lot of frequencies and information had to be eliminated in order to produce the pictures as they are, otherwise, some frequencies would step all over others and cloud the picture and make it less useful. So, in terms of presenting an “image” for us to see, someone had to carefully restrict what frequencies were going to be reproduced, and then colorize it with certain colors that would be complimentary and also indicate “levels” of output of those frequencies, and thus *carefully craft* the picture that we see, for purposes of getting an image that they wanted to create for us — and that the “artists” wanted us to see, and not actually what is “out there” (in reality, even in the full range of frequencies that truly exist).

[Quix]

That helps. I’m sure you can get a provisional reinstatement with that.

[Quix]

I think I understand those points.

No real argument about them.

[Quix]

Agreed.

However, the ‘beating-a-dead-horse society’ might consider you for a special award if we keep this up a bit longer.

[Star Traveler]

Ummmm..., if that happens, I’m going to blame “going hot” for it... LOL...

[jpsb]

Ok here is how the pictures are created. Several imagines are captured by different instruments each capable of “seeing” different wave lengths of EM spectrum. (x-ray, infrared, visible, ultra violet, etc. Then these wave lengths are assigned a visible color. Infrared->red, ultra violet>violet, etc. Then all the images are over layed on top of one another to create a composite in the visible spectrum that we can see. That is how it’s done and it’s done mostly on computers, not with artists.

[jpsb]

One one other thing, most of these images require exposures of days and some times weeks to gather enough data to create an image.

[going hot]

no blame intended.

Where I am going with this?

The ears do not hear. Molecules hit the tympanum, which sets up different amplitudes and frequencies of vibration, which are then transmitted to the brain, which then, as "hearing" develops, discerns the different vibrations into what we then "hear".

The fingers do not feel. The transmit different shapes, angles, textures temperatures and the like. It is the brain that discerns and translates into what we then "feel"

The eyes do not see. Electromagentic radiation, either generated from an energy source, or reflected from a surface, based on the ability of that surface to absorb certain wavelengths and reflect others, then impinges on the rods and cones of the retina. Of this electromagnetic radiation that impinges on the retina, a very narrow spectrum causes chemical shifts and reactions in the cones, which then results in the generation and propagation of neuronal impulse to the "vision" centers of the brain,. It is the brain that then translates the impulses into what we perceive as sight and color.

If certain surfaces or energy sources give off or reflect certain wavelengths, could one not predict what the wavelength would be based on the composition of the material in question. And if so, could one not ask a computer to "enhance" a previously non enhanced photo, based on the material in question, it's temperature, and therefore the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to approximate the color one would "see" with the actual retina?

Can the pictures observed by the Hubble, then "enhanced" not be a fairly good approximation of the actuality?

Is it in fact a figment of the artist's imagination? or is the Hubble our collective retina to look into the deep?

Just saying.

My posts may take a while, as I am surfing between clients today. :-)

[ZX12R]

That helps. I’m sure you can get a provisional reinstatement with that.

You crack me up, Quix. I don't care what the other naysayers say about you. You're okay in my book.

[Quix]

I have a lot of affection for you, too.

However, don’t let THAT out.

All manner of crazy stuff could be made by my rabid detractors hereon. And I wouldn’t like you to get tarred with the same brush! LOL.

[newguy357]

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.

When I learned (in 7th grade?) how small the optical portion of the em spectrum is, I was disappointed that many of these astronomy pictures were of objects that aren't visible to the eye. But it didn't take long (which it shouldn't for you, if you actually think) before I realized that all of the structure is there. The fact that we can't see it is meaningless. These pictures are of entirely real objects. The fact that they are colorized so that we can have some understanding of what they are merely serves to make the universe more awe-inspiring, not less. I'm not sure what your deal is, unless you're one of the perpetually unhappy.

[dragnet2]

So, in terms of presenting an “image” for us to see, someone had to carefully restrict what frequencies were going to be reproduced, and then colorize it with certain colors that would be complimentary and also indicate “levels” of output of those frequencies, and thus *carefully craft* the picture that we see, for purposes of getting an image that they wanted to create for us — and that the “artists” wanted us to see, and not actually what is “out there” (in reality, even in the full range of frequencies that truly exist).

Hmmm.

I took this image from my humble backyard observatory, using a 10" SCT and a Canon 40D, shooting raw images, that were merely combined and stacked, and post processed in PSCS3 using only curves to bring the existing data.

Located at about 1,300 light years away, the M42 nebula glows or emits red from the light of hydrogen gas excited by newly formed stars in the core of the nebula.

I can assure you I am no artist or some clever photo manipulator.

Color can be seen in some bright astronomical objects, such as stars, and bright planetary nebulae. However, very few gaseous emission nebulae or reflection nebulae will show any color at all visually because the are so faint. One of the few that does is M42, the Orion Nebula. Because it is so bright, greens and some pink/red/magenta can be seen in large telescopes by experienced observers. If any color is seen at all, it is usually the brightest green from the Oxygen III emissions that is seen first.

For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

[Quix]

Thanks.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

Beautiful pic.

Have you seen any UFO’s with your scope?

[WVKayaker]

...For the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft another fate lies in store. Hurtling along at immense speeds, these spacecraft are heading out of the solar system. It’s taken a long time, but Voyager 1, the fastest of all these probes, is now over 100 times as far from the Sun as the Earth is. It takes about 14 hours for the signals to get back to the Earth from this far off probe. Already it has passed some of the boundaries of the solar system – it is further away then the recently discovered Sedna for instance. It has passed the termination shock and is coasting through the heliosheath and will at some point head into interstellar space. Because of this more dignified way of finishing their missions, the Voyager spacecraft were fitted with golden discs containing sound and visual information about Earth. The discs were intended as part message, and part time capsule. Although the possibility is extremely remote an alien civilisation could find these probes, but perhaps it will be humans of the future who finally manage to catch up with these distant emissaries of Earth.

inside Star Trek Vger

[Star Traveler]

You said — But it didn’t take long (which it shouldn’t for you, if you actually think) before I realized that all of the structure is there. The fact that we can’t see it is meaningless.

—

Well, right here is where the problem is. You see..., God actually made your sight to see in a specific range and not outside of it. So, when you go outside of that range, to see radiation that you can’t see (which is a huge range that you can’t see), you’re doing something artificial and it’s a “construct” of human endeavor and not something that you see naturally.

And since it’s a “construct” of human endeavor, it’s also subject to being changed and made to be something different. It’s like I said in an earlier post. I can take the *very same data* and produce a different picture, by how I color it, what radiation band I keep in the picture, what radiation I kick out of the picture and actually I could probably make it look so ugly, you would wonder why anyone would want to look at it.

Since I can make one kind of “picture” and another person can make another kind of picture — it means that what you’re observing is “my work” and the “other person’s work”.

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

And then you said — These pictures are of entirely real objects. The fact that they are colorized so that we can have some understanding of what they are merely serves to make the universe more awe-inspiring, not less. I’m not sure what your deal is, unless you’re one of the perpetually unhappy.

—

They’re of real objects that have real radiation ranges coming from them, but they are *not* “real pictures” — because one person can take all the same radiation, choose which to portray, choose which colors to use and come up with something completely different than you.

If we were to take a scene in some picturesque landscape and then measure all the radiation coming from it, then eliminate all the radiation in the “visible range”, and pick and choose certain radiation bands from higher and lower ranges, then pick colors for those bands — you would never recognize the landscape and you would come up with something *so foreign* you might think it was actually very, very ugly.

That’s because all those parameters *are chosen* by the person who makes the pictures (or if it’s a computer program, by the programmer who has designed the parameters for how the program operates). One way or another — the “picture” is a *totally human construct* and not something that is truly of nature.

If it was truly of nature, then the “picture” I would make would always look like the picture you would make. If the picture I make looks different than the picture you make (because I have picked and chosen my parameters), then it’s *a given* that we’re looking at a “totally human construct” in that picture.

That’s the point.

The picture is a “human construct” and as such, we’re really praising the “artist” (i.e., the programmer or the people who chose the parameters for the “construct” of the picture).

[Star Traveler]

You said — Color can be seen in some bright astronomical objects, such as stars, and bright planetary nebulae.

—

Yes, that’s obvious and clear, too, because just looking with our own eyes, we can see color in the skies (with objects), night or day (of course, seeing more in the night... LOL...).

I’ve never said that there are no “natural” colors out there in the universe. There obviously are. I can stand out there at night and see the different colors of the stars, as I look up. Those colors are there.

I was only saying that the pictures that we get from some of these deep space shots are pictures that are artificial and are “human constructs” made by carefully picking and choosing what radiation to keep and what to eliminate (also per the parameters of how the picture was “taken” too...). Then the picture was also constructed carefully per the colors and intensity and so on. It’s all crafted. We would never “see” these pictures, even if we were to go there and stand by a spaceship window and look outside. The object in the photo that we are presented with — simply does not exist, as in going there in a spaceship and looking out the window. There’s no such thing.

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

And then you reference a link at another site — For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

I looked that over and he was talking about two things, it seems, primarily. He was talking about the existing colors that are there, in some of these deep space pictures (and with them being so faint that they are not picked up by the eye) and also, he’s talking about how we “perceive colors”, too.

Well, as far as the “perceiving colors”, that (for me) is not relevant to the particular discussion that I was raising, because I was talking about how people who make the photos can change and manipulate parameters and assign colors to make photos appear the way that they do. So, how we “perceive colors” is something that the person who constructed the photograph would be keeping in mind (in “constructing it” in the first place). In other words, that person is manipulating the photo, keeping in mind how we, as humans, “perceive colors” — again, a “human construct” applied to the “photo”.

And as far as his other primary point, it was how to handle the colors that are actually there, but very faint and manipulating them in such a way that it overcomes our inability to actually see it.

Well..., that, again..., is outside the discussion point that I was making. I was pointing out that there are radiation ranges that are *outside* of our visible range of seeing (hence, no colors or no “seeing” at all) — which are used (and those radiation ranges are “picked”, too...), and then they are assigned colors and intensities and combinations that are all intended to produce “pleasing and beautiful pictures”. It’s all a “human construct”.

So, once again, I give the “high praise” to the “human artists” (i.e., the personnel tasked with producing the pictures) or to the “computer programmers” who make the programs who do all that artificial “constructing” of things which we cannot see and radiation bands that are outside of our range of seeing, and decide which items to keep in the picture and which items to “kick out” of the picture.

*They* are the ones who have made a “beautiful picture out of something which isn’t there for us to see in the first place.

[Star Traveler]

Oh, and as a follow up note on this...

---

For those interested, this man at the link explains it well in regards to color astronomical images.

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/COLOR.HTM

---

Thanks for the link, as I would like to get involved in some of the photos of astronomical objects and how to manipulate and alter the colors so to bring out a different picture than what we can see with our normal eyes. It sounds there is some material there for me to look into.

There’s nothing wrong with people manipulating and altering the reality of the photographs, as long as someone knows that it’s what you’re doing and that’s what they’re seeing.

I remember one time I took a tripod and my digital SLR and exposed a night shot of the yard, with a large amount of snow all around, Christmas lights on the house, and some shots of the backyard where there was no light at all.

You gotta know that I must have really wanted to do that, because it was at around 3 A.M., plus it was about 5 degrees outside... I had to keep bringing the camera, equipment and myself back inside to warm up for a bit, before going back out again.

By altering the exposure time I could create a lot of different effects of the snow and yard and Christmas lights. It was amazing how much light was there, that I could not see with my eyes, but the camera was able to pick up with a long exposure.

And in the backyard, I couldn’t see a darned thing, but with a 30-second exposure, it was as bright as the daytime, in the photo and I could pick up a lot of detail.

That’s just with the visible range of light (not the invisible that we don’t see with our eyes). I’m sure I could create all sorts of “beautiful pictures” of that snow and yard and so on (such that I would never see in real life) but would be visible in the radiation ranges that are outside my abilities. Who knows what kinds of “photo” I could create...

[dragnet2]

Thanks. Beautiful pic.

Have you seen any UFO’s with your scope?

Even when taking the camera out of the optical train, the nebula is quit spectacular.

In regards to unidentified objects...Yes I have. I am not suggesting the objects I've seen were flying saucers, but I could certainly not identify them, or explain what they were.

I could tell you what they were not, but that's about it.

[Quix]

THX THX.

Could you describe the seeming shape?

And guess about the size?

And how clearly was it visible?

[dragnet2]

You said — Color can be seen in some bright astronomical objects, such as stars, and bright planetary nebulae.

Yes, I said that!

I was only saying that the pictures that we get from some of these deep space shots are pictures that are artificial and are “human constructs” made by carefully picking and choosing what radiation to keep and what to eliminate (also per the parameters of how the picture was “taken” too...).

From *some*, yes, not all. Color is alive in space!

The human eye is only capable of seeing a small fraction of what is *actually* there in regards to extreme low light objects and colors in many cases. Most of the time, yes adjustments are made so your human eye can see what is actually there by adjusting the data.

My problem with your comments is that you implied or suggested many times on this thread that all the images we see from astronomers are 100 percent fabricated, and manipulated by clever artist, when in realiity many times they are being processed so people can see what the eye is not quite capable of seeing.

M42 is a perfect example a nebula emitting or reflecting *real* color.

I would guess there are tens of billions of other nebula and objects, like M42, the emit or reflect spectacular colors. Unfortunately, we are not able to see all of them due to the distances involved.

There are other nebula where their gases are lit up by adjacent stars, (light years away) and are quite impressive.

I obtained an image of NGC 1977 recently, it's a blue reflection nebula.

I'll post it when I get time.