"Hubble image"

  • 57 Replies
  • 10665 Views
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2000
  • Show me the evidence
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2015, 02:29:57 AM »
Post your question here, not just links, or ask your question a the source.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2015, 02:53:37 AM »
Easy peasy, it would be the earths atmosphere being sucked into the vacuum of space.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2015, 04:46:26 AM »
Post your question here, not just links, or ask your question a the source.

 :)

I did it intentionally, to filter out the laziest... which often correlates with the most ignorant... Looks like it works!

Besides, the original post with the picture contains more juicy pieces like that:

"The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth."

 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2015, 04:50:55 AM »
Easy peasy, it would be the earths atmosphere being sucked into the vacuum of space.

I was suspecting something like that, too. The Judgement Day?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2000
  • Show me the evidence
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2015, 05:03:30 AM »
I did it intentionally, to filter out the laziest... which often correlates with the most ignorant... Looks like it works!

Instead all it does is leave a vague non question. I did go to both links, but instead decided not to answer because I felt if you really wanted a question answered, you would actually ask it. Also thought you did not know how to link a photo in. so here it is for you


Quote
It is extremely difficult to understand indeed.  For the image that "clearly shows the curvature of the earth" also clearly shows three or four bunches of who knows what flowing from "atmosphere" right into "the outer space", in RE terms. Or is that coming from the "outer space"? Could you please explain the nature of those phenomena?

That aside, I actually am not dead sure what those things are, although my suspicion is lens glare, and not actually atmosphere for 3 reasons.

1 - IF the atmosphere was being sucked out like that, we would most probably not see it.
2 - IF the atmosphere was being sucked out like that AND we could see it, we would be out of air by now and be dead.
3 - Although there is some loss of Helium and Hydrogen on earth, The heavier gasses can not get sucked out into space through vacuum. That said, solar winds and especially a large solar flare can.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2015, 05:39:11 AM »
I did it intentionally, to filter out the laziest... which often correlates with the most ignorant... Looks like it works!

Instead all it does is leave a vague non question. I did go to both links, but instead decided not to answer because I felt if you really wanted a question answered, you would actually ask it. Also thought you did not know how to link a photo in. so here it is for you


Quote
It is extremely difficult to understand indeed.  For the image that "clearly shows the curvature of the earth" also clearly shows three or four bunches of who knows what flowing from "atmosphere" right into "the outer space", in RE terms. Or is that coming from the "outer space"? Could you please explain the nature of those phenomena?

That aside, I actually am not dead sure what those things are, although my suspicion is lens glare, and not actually atmosphere for 3 reasons.

1 - IF the atmosphere was being sucked out like that, we would most probably not see it.
2 - IF the atmosphere was being sucked out like that AND we could see it, we would be out of air by now and be dead.
3 - Although there is some loss of Helium and Hydrogen on earth, The heavier gasses can not get sucked out into space through vacuum. That said, solar winds and especially a large solar flare can.

"I did go to both links, but instead decided not to answer"
Why did you change your mind? Just curious...

"if you really wanted a question answered, you would actually ask it"
That's exactly what I did, a long time ago...

Anyway, you have just given your opinion on what those structures might not be. I was asking what they are, from the RE point of view.

By the way, why nobody noticed them before? Yet another exciting mystery of RE Universe...

Also, any ideas how to produce an optical image of Earth using a radio telescope?

Talking to RE folks is such a pleasure...

 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2015, 06:52:29 AM »
It's obvious, after they painted the picture they sprayed clear varnish on it to preserve it for future generations to enjoy it. Who ever did it got a little carried away and went out side of the lines. It's no big deal, who has enough nerve to question NASA. If they say it is a photo, then it is a photo.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2015, 09:01:12 AM »
Well, helium and hydrogen do tend to escape from the atmosphere.
Lots of balloons, maybe?   ;D
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42253
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2015, 12:41:16 PM »
Ummm... No.  There's a difference between rising to the top of the atmosphere escaping the atmosphere.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2015, 06:34:03 PM »
Well, helium and hydrogen do tend to escape from the atmosphere.
Lots of balloons, maybe?   ;D
That makes sense.
If helium escapes the atmosphere then obviously balloons can go to space.
But what happens to the balloon when it crosses the atmosphere line and hits the vacuum?

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2015, 07:23:10 PM »
Balloons can only go so high before they burst. The idea of there being light gases right next to an almost total vacuum I think is a bit much to believe, so likely not a real world occurrence. I don't think I have ever seen proof of the ball Earth theory. There must be brainwashing techniques involved for the ball folks to be so adamant without proof. The proof of the flat Earth is as easy as going out in nature and just looking. Very bazaar indeed and the outright hate exhibited the ball people is a clue on their state of indoctrination. I think that the folks that have finally made it to the realization that the darn world really is flat are locked in for life. After seeing it no amount of argument can erase that moment.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

Salviati

  • 147
  • What is my Personal Text?
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2015, 02:56:18 AM »

Also, any ideas how to produce an optical image of Earth using a radio telescope?

Talking to RE folks is such a pleasure...

 ;D

Hubble Space Telescope is not a radio telescope, it's an optical telescope. It has a mirror of about two meters diameter. No wonder its images are in the optical range.

Anyway, HST is not aimed at the Earth, your image presumably was taken by a satellite.

Talking to FE folks is not such a pleasure...
The usual boring compilation of random bullshit.
Q: Why do you think the Earth is round?
A: Look out the window!

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 03:13:23 AM »
Also, any ideas how to produce an optical image of Earth using a radio telescope?

Talking to RE folks is such a pleasure...
The answer is simple. This image was not taken by Hubble Telescope. It comes from one of maintenance/repair missions to Hubble, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1183808/Pass-monkey-wrench--Hubble-telescope-repair-halted-warped-bolt.html for the details. Aslo... you could easily find this link using the source of the image.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2015, 05:37:04 PM »
Regarding the last two messages, perhaps, from REers Salviati and Brouwer. Referring to that:

Also, any ideas how to produce an optical image of Earth using a radio telescope?

I was replying to another REer's original post. Now you may discuss with that RE author

"The usual boring compilation of random bullshit" (Salviati) etc.

For your convenience, below is the original post. As you might see, its author informs us that

This is one of the images from the Hubble space telescope

and

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.

 ;D

Enjoy!



[...] how many of those astronomers have looked at the Earth through their telescopes?  Probably none.  Why would they be considered any kind of expert on the shape of the Earth?


Uh... I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.  Guys hunched over telescopes with their eye glued to the eyepiece have gone the way of Charles Dickens.


This is one of the images from the Hubble space telescope; Florida is in the middle running roughly left-right:
 
 

 
This image also clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

The Problem I have with so called Horizons is the Clouds continue past the Curvature. It really just doesn't make any sense if the Earth was curved and light wasn't bending to produce the optical illusion of it curving.


"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2015, 10:13:25 PM »
Regarding the last two messages, perhaps, from REers Salviati and Brouwer.
Where did you read that I am REer?

This is one of the images from the Hubble space telescope

and

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.
1. As explained before, the image was not made by the Hubble telescope.
2. Based on my knowledge, radio telescope cannot make optical image.
3. Whoever claimed that, was wrong (see point 2). You are making a pointless thread about someone's mistake and it seems that you enjoy this.
4. You should increase the size of the font so noone would miss your point.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2015, 05:34:36 PM »
Regarding the last two messages, perhaps, from REers Salviati and Brouwer.
Where did you read that I am REer?

This is one of the images from the Hubble space telescope

and

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.
1. As explained before, the image was not made by the Hubble telescope.
2. Based on my knowledge, radio telescope cannot make optical image.
3. Whoever claimed that, was wrong (see point 2). You are making a pointless thread about someone's mistake and it seems that you enjoy this.
4. You should increase the size of the font so noone would miss your point.

"Where did you read that I am REer?"

Well, who are you, then? REer or FEer?

"the image was not made by the Hubble telescope."

With all my due respect, I can but humbly remark that the article you cited, this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1183808/Pass-monkey-wrench--Hubble-telescope-repair-halted-warped-bolt.html - does not say that.

By the way, it provides more and more yummy juicy details. Just a few examples. The article says:

Spacewalkers Michael Massimino and Michael Good ventured out as space shuttle Atlantis sailed 350 miles above Australia.

Then the picture. The picture legend says:

Astronaut Andrew Feustel selects his next tool to use during the hands-on servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope


However, Andrew Feustel was not mentioned at all among those who "ventured out as space shuttle Atlantis sailed 350 miles above Australia". Where did he come from?

Please note, the article does not say a word who was taking the picture.

Then, the next picture. The legend says:

Astronaut Michael Good peers through a window toward Atlantis' crew cabin interior. Astronaut Mike Massimino can be seen in the background at work on the port side of the shuttle's cargo bay

All right, two guys mentioned as "ventured out", both in the picture. Wait a minute... WHO WAS TAKING THE PICTURE?

We also see strange structures in this picture, especially in the lower left corner:


What are they?

etc.etc.

"2. Based on my knowledge, radio telescope cannot make optical image."
Well, that RE guy says not only it can, but

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.

And none of REers said a single word denying that in almost 2 years! Isn't that amazing?

"You are making a pointless thread about someone's mistake and it seems that you enjoy this.
4. You should increase the size of the font so noone would miss your point."


You surely seem to miss it. For I was asking the REers about the first image:

the image that "clearly shows the curvature of the earth" also clearly shows three or four bunches of who knows what flowing from "atmosphere" right into "the outer space", in RE terms. Or is that coming from the "outer space"? Could you please explain the nature of those phenomena?

And now we have the second image with some mysterious formations. Interestingly, the both are marked: (c) NASA. Dear REers, what is going on? Just look at the second image, right above, at its lower left corner. What is that rectangular structure, apparently beyond the Earth? (or, at least beyond a bunch of mysterious... traces? vapours? who know what? - from the Earth's atmosphere?
 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2015, 10:17:33 PM »
Well, who are you, then? REer or FEer?
It does not matter who I am.

With all my due respect, I can but humbly remark that the article you cited, this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1183808/Pass-monkey-wrench--Hubble-telescope-repair-halted-warped-bolt.html - does not say that.
Does it say the image was taken by the Hubble? Most pictures show Hubble and astronauts, so the logical choice for the source is one of astronauts making them with camera/other device.

By the way, it provides more and more yummy juicy details. Just a few examples. The article says:

Spacewalkers Michael Massimino and Michael Good ventured out as space shuttle Atlantis sailed 350 miles above Australia.

Then the picture. The picture legend says:

Astronaut Andrew Feustel selects his next tool to use during the hands-on servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope


However, Andrew Feustel was not mentioned at all among those who "ventured out as space shuttle Atlantis sailed 350 miles above Australia". Where did he come from?

Please note, the article does not say a word who was taking the picture.

Then, the next picture. The legend says:

Astronaut Michael Good peers through a window toward Atlantis' crew cabin interior. Astronaut Mike Massimino can be seen in the background at work on the port side of the shuttle's cargo bay

All right, two guys mentioned as "ventured out", both in the picture. Wait a minute... WHO WAS TAKING THE PICTURE?

We also see strange structures in this picture, especially in the lower left corner:


What are they?

etc.etc.
There were total of 7 astronauts participatin in this mission. They made 5 EVAs. Massimo and Good did 2nd EVA, Feustel was in 1st, 3rd and 5th. You should check sources more before posting unsupported claims.

The weird blurry effect on the image - I do not know.



"2. Based on my knowledge, radio telescope cannot make optical image."
Well, that RE guy says not only it can, but

The radio telescopes on the Hubble platform clearly show optical images of the earth.

And none of REers said a single word denying that in almost 2 years! Isn't that amazing?
The REer guy can say anything. Does it mean everything he said is true?

None of REers said denying words because the thread was lost in time as more came to live.


"You are making a pointless thread about someone's mistake and it seems that you enjoy this.
4. You should increase the size of the font so noone would miss your point."


You surely seem to miss it. For I was asking the REers about the first image:

the image that "clearly shows the curvature of the earth" also clearly shows three or four bunches of who knows what flowing from "atmosphere" right into "the outer space", in RE terms. Or is that coming from the "outer space"? Could you please explain the nature of those phenomena?

And now we have the second image with some mysterious formations. Interestingly, the both are marked: (c) NASA. Dear REers, what is going on? Just look at the second image, right above, at its lower left corner. What is that rectangular structure, apparently beyond the Earth? (or, at least beyond a bunch of mysterious... traces? vapours? who know what? - from the Earth's atmosphere?
 ;D
As stated earlier, I do not know, what these weird things are. Do you? Does any FEer or REer know?

If I was going to give a guess, I would say camera imperfection versus the light.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2015, 04:20:53 PM »
Well, who are you, then? REer or FEer?
It does not matter who I am.

If it does not matter who you are, then it does not matter what you say. Thanks for the conversation, anyway. Now I have two interesting pictures, instead of one.

From the FE point of view, I especially like Yendor's comment. It is insightful indeed and may also shed some light on the origin of the 2nd image:
It's obvious, after they painted the picture they sprayed clear varnish on it to preserve it for future generations to enjoy it. Who ever did it got a little carried away and went out side of the lines. It's no big deal, who has enough nerve to question NASA. If they say it is a photo, then it is a photo.

Any comments from REers? As a very preliminary guess... could it be, say, a square black hole, yet another wonder of RE universe?
 ;D
« Last Edit: November 19, 2015, 04:37:23 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2015, 09:08:55 PM »
From the FE point of view, I especially like Yendor's comment. It is insightful indeed and may also shed some light on the origin of the 2nd image:
It's obvious, after they painted the picture they sprayed clear varnish on it to preserve it for future generations to enjoy it. Who ever did it got a little carried away and went out side of the lines. It's no big deal, who has enough nerve to question NASA. If they say it is a photo, then it is a photo.
Does Yendor have any proof the picture was painted and then sprayed? It is just a guess, nothing more. If it is so obvious, it should be easy to prove it. Or, you can present other pictures with the same effect on them, that were preserved in the same way. Just for comparision. I only found varnished wood and varnished oil paintings. The oil painting should be varnished 6-12 months after completion.  The "varnishing" effect on them looks different than on images presented in this thread - it does not produce "mysterious cloud effect", but adds some glossy-like effect.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2015, 05:32:18 PM »
From the FE point of view, I especially like Yendor's comment. It is insightful indeed and may also shed some light on the origin of the 2nd image:
It's obvious, after they painted the picture they sprayed clear varnish on it to preserve it for future generations to enjoy it. Who ever did it got a little carried away and went out side of the lines. It's no big deal, who has enough nerve to question NASA. If they say it is a photo, then it is a photo.
Does Yendor have any proof the picture was painted and then sprayed? It is just a guess, nothing more. If it is so obvious, it should be easy to prove it. Or, you can present other pictures with the same effect on them, that were preserved in the same way. Just for comparision. I only found varnished wood and varnished oil paintings. The oil painting should be varnished 6-12 months after completion.  The "varnishing" effect on them looks different than on images presented in this thread - it does not produce "mysterious cloud effect", but adds some glossy-like effect.

Coincidentally, I was thinking on something close, namely how kind and friendly FEers are. They are so generously providing guesses and suggestions for their brethren REers regarding these mysterious pictures. My own impression is that NASA could not wait for 12 or even 6 months. So it might be that the painting had not dried enough yet when the varnish was sprayed...

I also like very much the idea about the balloons. It can be explored later.
 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2015, 06:05:47 PM »
Yet another guess:
Look at the "astronaut"'s feet. They are attached to a component much like the top of a LEGO (tm) toy kit building block: 


I have just noticed that the "astronaut"'s pants are not even attached to his boots, they are just put on. Look at the right leg. Wow, (c) NASA picture is becoming more and more interesting.

Also, do not underestimate LEGO (tm) figures. For example:


« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 06:47:38 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42253
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2015, 07:19:10 PM »
Yet another guess:
Look at the "astronaut"'s feet. They are attached to a component much like the top of a LEGO (tm) toy kit building block: 
Can you think of a better way of attaching the astronaut's feet to the platform?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731078#msg1731078
I have just noticed that the "astronaut"'s pants are not even attached to his boots, they are just put on. Look at the right leg. Wow, (c) NASA picture is becoming more and more interesting.
Wow, you must have some magical x-ray vision to see through all of the layers of the space suit to see just how the boots are attached to the rest of the suit.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2015, 08:12:21 PM »
Yet another guess:
Look at the "astronaut"'s feet. They are attached to a component much like the top of a LEGO (tm) toy kit building block: 
Can you think of a better way of attaching the astronaut's feet to the platform?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731078#msg1731078
I have just noticed that the "astronaut"'s pants are not even attached to his boots, they are just put on. Look at the right leg. Wow, (c) NASA picture is becoming more and more interesting.
Wow, you must have some magical x-ray vision to see through all of the layers of the space suit to see just how the boots are attached to the rest of the suit.

"Can you think of a better way of attaching the astronaut's feet to the platform?"
There seem to be no need for a better way. LEGO connections work just fine for LEGO toys.

Wow, you must have some magical x-ray vision to see through all of the layers of the space suit to see just how the boots are attached to the rest of the suit.
Magical X-ray vision does not seem to be necessary, either - for that gap between the pants and the boots is perfectly visible.

Any ideas about other peculiarities of the (c) NASA picture?
 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42253
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2015, 08:26:20 PM »
"Can you think of a better way of attaching the astronaut's feet to the platform?"
There seem to be no need for a better way.
Good to know.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731096#msg1731096 [color=green
Wow, you must have some magical x-ray vision to see through all of the layers of the space suit to see just how the boots are attached to the rest of the suit.[/color]
Magical X-ray vision does not seem to be necessary, either - for that gap between the pants and the boots is perfectly visible.
Are you positive that it's a gap, or could it just be a shadow?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731096#msg1731096

Any ideas about other peculiarities of the (c) NASA picture?
 ;D
I don't see anything particularly peculiar about that picture.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2015, 01:02:30 AM »
For me the deal breaker is the air bubbles in the water tank. The guy with no space suit and scuba gear on is laughable. The inside ISS flics where they get jerked around like a rough ride. Some of those are rough and sudden enough to shake the ISS apart. The girls with their hair sprayed stiff, what the heck is that for. The dark limb of the Earth shadow is made to look 180 degrees. Real world sunsets are local and only a small part is lit before sunset. Sorry space brothers it is fake. If they fake any of it all is suspect, period.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2015, 04:50:52 PM »
"Can you think of a better way of attaching the astronaut's feet to the platform?"
There seem to be no need for a better way.
Good to know.

My pleasure. You see, LEGO (tm) connections work surprisingly well, for the components are made of good plastic. So, a toy astronaut figure can be used for many years.


Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731096#msg1731096 [color=green
Wow, you must have some magical x-ray vision to see through all of the layers of the space suit to see just how the boots are attached to the rest of the suit.[/color]
Magical X-ray vision does not seem to be necessary, either - for that gap between the pants and the boots is perfectly visible.
Are you positive that it's a gap, or could it just be a shadow?

A good point. Observations on the shadow indicate that it is likely a gap. It seems denser that other shadows at the folds of the "space suit", especially at the top, where other shadows look less dense. Such a gap could be perfectly explained on a high-quality LEGO-like "astronaut" figure. Say, if a kid wanted to change the "astronaut" boots, they could be easily pulled out and replaced with boots of other shape or colour.


Quote from: Humble_Scientist link=topic=64851.msg1731096#msg1731096

Any ideas about other peculiarities of the (c) NASA picture?
 ;D
I don't see anything particularly peculiar about that picture.

Me too. A few plastic details, an "astronaut" figure, some foil etc. Nothing particularly peculiar.
 ::)
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2015, 12:17:33 AM »
It looks nothing like a gap. It is quite clearly an outer layer of suit in the legs pulled over the top of the boots.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2015, 06:28:15 AM »
It looks nothing like a gap. It is quite clearly an outer layer of suit in the legs pulled over the top of the boots.

Could it be an extra pair of woollen pants, 'cause its cold in space? Plastic could not model them perfectly, that's why the gap.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: "Hubble image"
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2015, 09:56:09 AM »
It is extremely difficult to understand indeed.  For the image that "clearly shows the curvature of the earth" also clearly shows three or four bunches of who knows what flowing from "atmosphere" right into "the outer space", in RE terms. Or is that coming from the "outer space"? Could you please explain the nature of those phenomena?
Reflections of inside objects in addition to other typical distortion or interference due to looking through a view-port from inside.

All right, two guys mentioned as "ventured out", both in the picture. Wait a minute... WHO WAS TAKING THE PICTURE?
One of the crew still inside.

Quote
We also see strange structures in this picture, especially in the lower left corner:


What are they?
See first answer above.