Space

It's an interesting theory, but one that makes a lot of assumptions and interpretations of things that favor this certain theory, while ignoring others. That's nothing against this theory, though, since all theories on the origin of life on this planet do just that. What a lot of people don't understand, unfortunately, is that most of these types of things are riddled with assumptions and interpretations that are crafted to intentionally favor the researcher's pet theory.

 
ZRod said:
MLB 51 said:
ZRod said:
MLB 51 said:
Earth Life Likely Came from Mars, Study Suggests
Click to expand...
I didn't come from no rusty martian.
Click to expand...
Yes you did!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
No! I'm a child of the stars. All that I am and all that I ever will be cometh from the great fire in the sky!
Click to expand...
Martian.
default_biggrin.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jupiter and one of its moons, Io, with an erupting volcano.

Io is the only body in the solar system other than the earth known to have active volcanoes.

l018aYN.jpg


 
Anybody know if these images are still colored in or are we are seeing the real colors these days? I'm too lazy/busy to look it up right now. I know the Nebula's and such are, but I didn't know if images from newer satellites were or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
Anybody know if these images are still colored in or are we are seeing the real colors these days? I'm too lazy/busy to look it up right now. I know the Nebula's and such are, but I didn't know if images from newer satellites were or not.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Hubble, for instance, doesn't actually take color pictures, but has filters that only allow certain wavelengths of light through. By analyzing and combining data from different wavelengths, and assigning colors to wavelengths, color images are produced. Cassini's cameras work in a similar fashion. That said, this method does allow them to produce "accurate" colors as they believe you'd see if you were actually there viewing it.

 
EbylHusker said:
ZRod said:
Anybody know if these images are still colored in or are we are seeing the real colors these days? I'm too lazy/busy to look it up right now. I know the Nebula's and such are, but I didn't know if images from newer satellites were or not.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. Hubble, for instance, doesn't actually take color pictures, but has filters that only allow certain wavelengths of light through. By analyzing and combining data from different wavelengths, and assigning colors to wavelengths, color images are produced. Cassini's cameras work in a similar fashion. That said, this method does allow them to produce "accurate" colors as they believe you'd see if you were actually there viewing it.
Click to expand...
Right I knew the gist of how it was done. I've always wonder if the images were totally accurate though, and not over saturated or what have you. I wish they were able to take a "true" picture instead of putting composites together from the different spectrum.

 
Well, what you get out of a DSLR isn't really a "true" picture in terms of what the human eye sees (and more to the point, what the brain perceives). So whether you've got a conventional RGB sensor that records the data in that way, or are using filters and then compositing wavelength band pictures, the end result is still pretty much the same.

As for bumping in saturation, contrast, etc, I'm sure many are. But you'd probably have to find comments about each specific image to know for sure.

 
Of white blood cells and stars

"If you brought the Sun down to the size of a white blood cell (7 micrometres), and then brought everything else down to scale, our galaxy, the Milky Way, would be the size of the continental U.S.A."

o1p6PGK.jpg


 
Back
Top