Man know a lot but then we know so little. There is so much to explore and learn. Hubble looked at a black empty in space and found billions of galaxies.

Who is man to be to be the ultimate answer to all things Every decade or so an great discovery comes along and rewrites conventional science thinking.

It takes more faith to believe in creationism that to believe that there is a GOD.

You can not look around at life and simply stake a claim towards to evolution as the ultimate answer.

How does Particle and String theory? Or for that matter what about a Quantum Mechanics ? Really What would the evolutionist have to say about QM? These theories point more to a higher power.

I love the story of this picture. This shows the beauty of scientific exploration. The astronomers picked a apparently empty spot in space and used 10 days of Hubble observation time to amass the information used to produce this picture. They didn't know if they would find anything at all--and vastly expanded our knowledge of the earliest universe.

M83 and Hubble images? I'm looking for the 6 votes required to get @Quboid bronze so he can *dead, and this vid was one I thought you would like:

http://videosift.com/video/Hubble-Imagery-M83-Moonchild

http://videosift.com/video/Hubble-Imagery-M83-Moonchild

Hubble images and the band M83? http://videosift.com/video/Hubble-Imagery-M83-Moonchild

Fact 1: An estimated (the number may be higher) 1.6 planets per star in our galaxy
http://www.space.com/14200-160-billion-alien-planets-milky-galaxy.html

Fact 2: 100 billion galaxies:
We know there are that many, because we've seen them. The hubble space telescope was pointed at a tiny , random black spot in the sky (where no stars from our own galaxy was blocking the field of view) and found 10000 galaxies in that tiny spot about 1/12millionth of the sky. Extrapolating that out, we get that there are atleast 100 billion galaxies, and each of them contains hundreds of millions of stars.

Fact 3:The moon has its own gravity.
Well duh...

Fact 4: 8 Planets in our solar system.
This is of course very well documented. You can see several of them on any given night. One of them , Venus will infact pass directly in front of the sun in a few days, on the 6th of June! That also happened in 2004, but the next one wont be for another 105 years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus

Fact 5: There were galaxies in the early universe. These have been seen by the Hubble telescope and other observatories:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

Fact 6:The earths tilted axis causes seasons: http://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/v/how-earth-s-tilt-causes-seasons

More later..

It was discovered Dec 16, 2009, but apparently new data from Hubble confirms it's a water world. More details here - http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1204/

Agreed.

And thanks for overlooking any snarkiness in my original comment (it was submitted pre-coffee).
>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^bamdrew:
(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.
New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.
Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.
I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is a great video.
RIP US space program.


You're absolutely correct. NASA's alive I'm just mad at the politicians.
I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival at Pluto of the Horizon. Last I heard that will be in 2015-16.
I've always said that in order to have a better manned space program--build more robots. Build a bunch of little ones and spread them all over Mars.

>> ^bamdrew:

(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.
New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.
Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.
I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:
This is a great video.
RIP US space program.



You're absolutely correct. NASA's alive I'm just mad at the politicians.

I'm anxiously awaiting the arrival at Pluto of the Horizon. Last I heard that will be in 2015-16.

I've always said that in order to have a better manned space program--build more robots. Build a bunch of little ones and spread them all over Mars.

(Psst)... hey... letting you in on a secret... NASA's not dead.

New bot (Curiosity) launching to Mars later this year; should land Aug. 2012.

Also, Opportunity found a fucking amazing rock just this week; search out that shit if you're interested.

I'm actually very excited by the new direction in manned space exploration... essentially a focus on funding technology development and testing to make near earth orbit commonplace. http://www.nasa.gov/about/whats_next.html

>> ^Boise_Lib:

This is a great video.
RIP US space program.

Was your Anthropology class a graduate level class? Did you have to take five of them? If you want to compare the intro class you took to taking five classes, many of them graduate level, be my guest.

BTW, wtf does Anthropology have to do with astronomy? Are you seriously suggesting psychology has no relation to teaching? You do understand that in order to help teach, you should know how the human mind works, right? It's not the ESPN Decathlon jump where you're sprinting, and suddenly have to fish. You're argument is like saying a scientist doesn't know math well because they're a scientist. Uhh, math and science are heavily related.

Nobody said teachers are dedicated expert psychologists. But to pretend that a teacher doesn't need any or even just a cursory "Intro to Psych" level knowledge to teach is silly. I've taught, I have the degree, I've proven to you just how much psychology is involved in getting degree alone, nevermind what's involved in the actual job; you pretend the only thing in the coursework was an Intro to Psych class, and pretend you're an expert in what is involved in teaching because you went to school as a student. I guess I'm an expert in architecture because I've lived in buildings all my life. I also know all about what it must be like to be a professional cook, since I've eaten food all my life.

But I get it though, you're just trying to troll, not have an honest discussion.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.


Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

>> ^heropsycho:

He did claim the job is easy. I'm sorry, but that's what it implied.
He's not saying teacher's are all Einstein's. He's saying the swath of skill a teacher must possess is very wide, and it's not a cursory level of knowledge and skill. And his description is absolutely correct. He never said teachers are full time experts in every single one of those fields.
Before you say something idiotic like teachers don't need or are not required to have in depth knowledge of psychology, you could do a few common sense things like, oh I don't know, check college requirements for education degrees.
I must have imagined all those undergrad & graduate level psychology and education classes that were REQUIREMENTS to getting an education degree, which I had to have to get a teaching license! You know, classes that couldn't have a thing to do with psychology. Let's whip out that transcript and take a look:
101 Introduction to Psychology
300 Foundations of Education (heavy doses of educational psychology)
301 Human Development and Learning
607 (That's a graduate level class) Advanced Educational PSYCHOLOGY
605 Theory and Practice of Education/Special Needs Students
There were also Practicum classes with heavy doses of psychology.
Does your job require you to take five semesters of psychology in college to get licensed to do your job?
And that's my point with both of you. You have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the teaching profession, and yet you insist over and over and over you somehow do because you attended school. You clearly don't have a clue, so how about you go learn about these specific areas before you speak to them instead of trying to prove an ignorant point of view.



Ah, got it. So I guess the Anthropology course I took at my Liberal Arts school makes me a scientist. I'm also now qualified to operate the Hubble Telescope because I took a general studies course called 'Stars & Galaxies'.

You might like this one, not so much for the coldplay track but for the video made from images of Mars (from Hubble and the Mars orbiter etc) which go with it.

http://videosift.com/video/Coldplay-Moving-to-Mars

Of course, you might not

>> ^eric3579:

The very high angular resolving power will be achieved when used in conjunction with a ground-based system of radio-telescopes and interferometrical methods, operating at wavelengths of 1.35–6.0, 18.0 and 92.0 cm. With its Earth-based companions, it will form a network able to provide detailed images of the universe at 1,000 times the resolution attainable using the Hubble Space Telescope. -wiki
>> ^rychan:
>> ^rich_magnet:
The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.

Yeah, how can any radio telescope be remotely as sharp as a visible light telescope? At that frequency it's hard to get high angular resolution from a single dish.



Ok, that's believable. But the title and summary clearly imply that this single instrument will be 1,000 times sharper than the HST.

The very high angular resolving power will be achieved when used in conjunction with a ground-based system of radio-telescopes and interferometrical methods, operating at wavelengths of 1.35–6.0, 18.0 and 92.0 cm. With its Earth-based companions, it will form a network able to provide detailed images of the universe at 1,000 times the resolution attainable using the Hubble Space Telescope. -wiki

>> ^rychan:

>> ^rich_magnet:
The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.

Yeah, how can any radio telescope be remotely as sharp as a visible light telescope? At that frequency it's hard to get high angular resolution from a single dish.