>> ^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.

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.

Ryjkyj..that's not what I said, or meant. Created from nothing, meaning there was no material that was used. Ie, it was willed into existence.

and it's not that physics breaks down..time and space had a beginning there..without them you don't have any physics. It all goes back to a singularity. I didn't know that a catholic priest proposed the theory, but I don't really see why that's relevant. It points to a beginning, that is what is important. >> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny,
The universe can be eternal without there being a God.

This is actually what science used to think. It's called the steady state theory, in which the Universe has no beginning or end. Scientists and other skeptics used to point to this theory as ruling out the possibility of a Creator. After Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is expanding scientists realized the Universe did have a beginning and thus is not eternal. Now this is what is interesting.
In the entire recorded history of humanity, the judeo-christian belief alone is unique in proposing a creation from nothing. One of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is evidence for the big bang) said this..
"Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"
Just as the bible says, and science confirms thousands of years later, the Universe was created from nothing. Makes you think, doesn't it?

If the universe came from god, then it didn't come from nothing as the bible says, it came from god. It's interesting to me that you would prove the bible wrong yourself and not notice that. Unless god is nothing?
Either way (and completely separate), the big bang theory only states that the current shape of the universe was caused by a particular formation or event. It does not purport to know anything about the universe before a certain point where physics break down. And it certainly does not say that the universe popped into existence from nothing.
It just means that we cannot say, scientifically, what happened in our observable universe before a certain point. But since the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I'm surprised you would use it in conjunction with your beliefs to help illuminate the existence of a creator.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny,
The universe can be eternal without there being a God.

This is actually what science used to think. It's called the steady state theory, in which the Universe has no beginning or end. Scientists and other skeptics used to point to this theory as ruling out the possibility of a Creator. After Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is expanding scientists realized the Universe did have a beginning and thus is not eternal. Now this is what is interesting.
In the entire recorded history of humanity, the judeo-christian belief alone is unique in proposing a creation from nothing. One of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is evidence for the big bang) said this..
"Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"
Just as the bible says, and science confirms thousands of years later, the Universe was created from nothing. Makes you think, doesn't it?


If the universe came from god, then it didn't come from nothing as the bible says, it came from god. It's interesting to me that you would prove the bible wrong yourself and not notice that. Unless god is nothing?

Either way (and completely separate), the big bang theory only states that the current shape of the universe was caused by a particular formation or event. It does not purport to know anything about the universe before a certain point where physics break down. And it certainly does not say that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

It just means that we cannot say, scientifically, what happened in our observable universe before a certain point. But since the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I'm surprised you would use it in conjunction with your beliefs to help illuminate the existence of a creator.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny,
The universe can be eternal without there being a God.


This is actually what science used to think. It's called the steady state theory, in which the Universe has no beginning or end. Scientists and other skeptics used to point to this theory as ruling out the possibility of a Creator. After Edwin Hubble discovered the Universe is expanding scientists realized the Universe did have a beginning and thus is not eternal. Now this is what is interesting.

In the entire recorded history of humanity, the judeo-christian belief alone is unique in proposing a creation from nothing. One of the discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is evidence for the big bang) said this..

"Certainly, if you are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis"

Just as the bible says, and science confirms thousands of years later, the Universe was created from nothing. Makes you think, doesn't it?

>> ^Mcboinkens:
You realize that list had no content, right? It was a list of items with no details. Anything can add a new topic to it since you don't need any actual research. When's the last time you heard about a breakthrough because of the ISS? That was my point. I support the ISS, but to tear into a budget because it is "useless" can definitely be applied to NASA as well.
Reviewing the list, it pretty much just covered anything possible "under microgravity conditions". How practical is that? Are we really planning on going to other planets at the moment? We can't even go back to the moon, and that's what my whole point was. Shift funds to what is the most useful. I would much rather have an upgraded Hubble or even new version of the hubble. Studying how viruses work in space isn't particularly useful when we have no reason to be in space to begin with, and so on.
EDIT: so that it doesn't seem like I am talking out of my butt, take a look at one of their "accomplishment" powerpoints: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168741main_AIAA_2007_ISSProgress.pdf
It's pretty easy to see that it's mostly fluff, and I realize that its an old document, but it was the top result and I was lazy. It talks a lot about what they WANT to do, or what they did, but nothing really came of it.

WTF are you talking about a list with no content? Did you even read ANY of the 720 reference linked in the wiki? And do you realize scientific discoveries take time? Oh you know, we're just running a lab IN SPACE. Let's give it a few years after it's finished assembling before we let our ridiculously shortsighted negativity take over, ok?

[redacted]

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Hunter S. Thompson? Hubble Space Telescope? Health Sciences and Technology? High Speed Train?


If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Neither can we, that's the point- if you follow.

Hunter S. Thompson? Hubble Space Telescope? Health Sciences and Technology? High Speed Train?

Pfft, and that's why they should have just set the Hubble to 'night scene'... really guys, learn your camera.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

It's amazing how it's conclusively debunked in a simple 6-person blind test in this very report, yet the news channel tries to "balance" the report with a "who knows?" conclusion. A fucking VISA card does the SAME FUCKING TRICK, how amazingly stupid are these people???!!!


this is a large part of the issue its this sort of idiotic reporting that Leeds to what happened with the vaccine stuff.

Its like me having a news report on the latest Hubble mission or ISS mission and then having half of footage be about how the earth is actually flat and space travel is all fake.

And yes there are still people that think the eath is flat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

>> ^Ryjkyj:

WTF. It's not as though Hubble zooms through those things. It's just a collection of random images and video from APOD slowly being zoomed in and then getting arbitrarily cut to other completely different images. And what's with the close up of Saturn's rings at the beginning. What image is THAT based off of?
Sorry, don't mean to crap on your video but these are even terrible quality. Here:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/carina07_hst_big.jpg
Now THAT's a Hubble image.


Aren't all the images "false color" anyway? Don't they doctor them to MAKE them more colorfully pleasing?

WTF. It's not as though Hubble zooms through those things. It's just a collection of random images and video from APOD slowly being zoomed in and then getting arbitrarily cut to other completely different images. And what's with the close up of Saturn's rings at the beginning. What image is THAT based off of?

Sorry, don't mean to crap on your video but these are even terrible quality. Here:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/carina07_hst_big.jpg

Now THAT's a Hubble image.

>> ^RFlagg:

I love Sixty Symbols. I also like Meghan Gray's answer to favorite Astronomical feature... then again I also dig her so that may slant me some. The lens effect is excessively cool. But I agree with the last guy, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are some of the most amazing images in the world and tend to be my favorite.

So would you say that you'd shove your white dwarf into her black hole?

I love Sixty Symbols. I also like Meghan Gray's answer to favorite Astronomical feature... then again I also dig her so that may slant me some. The lens effect is excessively cool. But I agree with the last guy, the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images are some of the most amazing images in the world and tend to be my favorite.