James Webb Space Telescope Launch

dsturgeon

dsturgeon

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,144
Reaction score
3,961
images not pictures, note that they don't say pictures


Oldest-galaxy.jpg

"A newfound galaxy dubbed GLASS-z13, which is so far away that we see it as it appeared 300 million years after the Big Bang, now holds the record for the earliest known galaxy. That record is not expected to last long.

Both galaxies look extremely small, perhaps 100 times smaller than the Milky Way, yet they show surprising rates of star formation and already contain 1 billion times the mass of our sun — more than expected for galaxies this young. One of the young galaxies even shows evidence of a disklike structure. More studies will be done to break apart their light to glean their characteristics."

It sounds stupid and fake to me. I don't think these guys know what they are talking about. They are making stuff up
 
Last edited:
dsturgeon

dsturgeon

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,144
Reaction score
3,961
The James Webb Space Telescope's recent snapshots are the clearest images of the distance Cartwheel Galaxy to date.

The Cartwheel Galaxy took on its magnificent shape when a larger spiral galaxy collided with a smaller galaxy about 400million years ago, Nasa reports.

The high-speed, high-impact collision gave the Cartwheel Galaxy its concentric and spoked look.



Today during NASA story time, a 400 million year old fantasy tale
 
Hoofbite

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,872
Reaction score
11,572
I know the pictures are awesome and whatnot, but when they compare them to Hubble all I can think is, "jeez, Hubble is kicking butt for being over 30 years old". Funding began in the 70s. That's pretty crazy.
 
Runwildboys

Runwildboys

Confused about stuff
Messages
51,732
Reaction score
96,965
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Hoofbite said:
I know the pictures are awesome and whatnot, but when they compare them to Hubble all I can think is, "jeez, Hubble is kicking butt for being over 30 years old". Funding began in the 70s. That's pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, the HST is amazing still. The JWST doesn't make it obsolete.
 
dsturgeon

dsturgeon

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,144
Reaction score
3,961
Hoofbite said:
I know the pictures are awesome and whatnot, but when they compare them to Hubble all I can think is, "jeez, Hubble is kicking butt for being over 30 years old". Funding began in the 70s. That's pretty crazy.
Click to expand...
Runwildboys said:
Oh yeah, the HST is amazing still. The JWST doesn't make it obsolete.
Click to expand...


Back when I bought a plasma, how true the black was on tv was one of the main determinations of how good the tv was. Once I read that and looked for it, I could never not see the lack of black quality in plasma's and other tv's. When you look at these images, not pictures, look at the black quality or the in between, and you can see the enhancement. It is more easily seen on the left picture of the 2 that was posted a few posts ago, and not as much in the one on the right. A lot of the hubbles are really bad.

When I was small I used a program on the computer called paint to make pictures. I would use the spray can/paint feature and sit there and layer the colors until I filled up the screen, and I made designs within it. The in-between or black on all these nasa images looks like the spray paint can feature layered with colors. That is how they make these images. They apply colors and layer them on.

I can't not look in-between on them and see how bad and fake it looks. You can compliment them all you want, but it is an artists rendition. They can assign and layer whatever colors they want. A better determination is the difference between the HST and the JWST would be how it looks precolor and research how accurate these telescopes are in the function they provide
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top