SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
Here Is A Good Link To Science News About Space Discoveries
You can see here how scientists and astronomers are constantly trying to fit presumed theories with observable phenomena. If you want to dispute this site, you might as well also admit the earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, while you are at it. Notice how even dark matter is in constant dispute, and even what it might be they are looking for when they refer to it.
To infer that scientists know all about our sun or supernovas that they need to know based on a theory of observations about terrestrial chemistry and nuclear reactions, is not the whole issue concerning the behaviors of the sun. It is just not as simple as that. I simply posted links earlier that throw some doubt on all of this preconceived scientific conjecture.
And the posted link for the electric universe debunker was interesting, too. However, once again, using only observable terrestrial chemistry and nuclear reactions is not sufficient to either explain or debunk all these observable and verifiable theoretical anomalies, such as dark matter. Even the multi dimensional nature of the universe is a largely unexplored area for traditional theoretical science. We simply can not adequately explain how a black hole works, theoretically. If we could, we could possibly build one in a lab. This is yet another example that we do not know as much as we claim to know with regard to space and time theories or theoretical physics.
And as far as a PMed request for proof Mars is not red, just look at the color enhanced doctored rover pictures from Mars that show they are altering the colors of the rover itself when they show pictures of the rover from mars. The pictures taken of the rover colors on earth do not match the picture colors of the rovers what so ever taken from Mars. And the ESA pictures of Mars from orbit do not resemble the reddish hued pictures NASA keeps showing of Mars from orbit, and on the ground.
Many More Mars Links To Doctored Pics
Mars Link
Mars Rover Altered Color
You can see here how scientists and astronomers are constantly trying to fit presumed theories with observable phenomena. If you want to dispute this site, you might as well also admit the earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, while you are at it. Notice how even dark matter is in constant dispute, and even what it might be they are looking for when they refer to it.
To infer that scientists know all about our sun or supernovas that they need to know based on a theory of observations about terrestrial chemistry and nuclear reactions, is not the whole issue concerning the behaviors of the sun. It is just not as simple as that. I simply posted links earlier that throw some doubt on all of this preconceived scientific conjecture.
And the posted link for the electric universe debunker was interesting, too. However, once again, using only observable terrestrial chemistry and nuclear reactions is not sufficient to either explain or debunk all these observable and verifiable theoretical anomalies, such as dark matter. Even the multi dimensional nature of the universe is a largely unexplored area for traditional theoretical science. We simply can not adequately explain how a black hole works, theoretically. If we could, we could possibly build one in a lab. This is yet another example that we do not know as much as we claim to know with regard to space and time theories or theoretical physics.
And as far as a PMed request for proof Mars is not red, just look at the color enhanced doctored rover pictures from Mars that show they are altering the colors of the rover itself when they show pictures of the rover from mars. The pictures taken of the rover colors on earth do not match the picture colors of the rovers what so ever taken from Mars. And the ESA pictures of Mars from orbit do not resemble the reddish hued pictures NASA keeps showing of Mars from orbit, and on the ground.
Many More Mars Links To Doctored Pics
Mars Link
Mars Rover Altered Color
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The suns lease is up in 200 years, God has decided were not worth it anymore and is not renewing it !
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
Wow...I'm not sure I'm going to reply to you anymore because you're really out there. Mark is RED colored because it's soil contains a high amount of iron oxide (rust). Just like water won't appear blue up close but a large amount is blue from a distance, the iron oxide shows up as red on Mars at a distance. I've seen Mars through a one-meter telescope...it is orange red in color, trust me. Color enhancement on space pics is done to enhance otherwise hard to see details.
SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
That is done on Mars in order to merely blur the details up on otherwise high res images. The view you see of Mars through a telescope is largely due to the red color of the planet itself. The sky on Mars, however, is NOT red as seen in all the Nasa pics. The atmosphere is light blue. Unless there is a large sand storm, then maybe it would be dark brown or red in the vicinity of the camera, just like it would be on earth.
It has been stated before by persons associated with Nasa that they are altering the colors of the pics sent back from Mars, from the very first press conference where they showed images of the planet sent back from Viking.
You don't believe me? GOOD! Look at this purple USA flag from the Viking archives. Notice the color charts in the picture on Viking, too. Those are BLUE not PURPLE. Those color charts are there to calibrate the instruments. The rovers are similarly altered. If you can't see the difference, you must be color blind or just really pro Nasa.
NASA images of the Viking Lander
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Oh god, not Enterprisemission.com.
Concerning the Mars Rovers and color, color matching isn't an exact science. For example, the colors on the sundial, the blue chip turns pink in some images. Reason: a lot of images are taken with L2, L5, and L7 filters. That gives a very approximate true color, but isn't really quite accurate. L2 is infrared, L5 is green, and L7 is a bit purplish. Truer color would be L4, L5, and L6, for RGB color. The best colors come from using all six filters, L2-L7. (L1 is a clear filter.)
That blue chip turns pink because of that L2 filter - in infrared, that blue chip is almost entirely reflective. So when the image is taken through the L2 filter, a lot of light comes through. When the images are radiometrically calibrated (another crucial step), and merged, the chip looks pink because of its brightness in the L2 filter.
Sundial through filter 2
Sundial through filter 7
Look at the changes in brightness. That's how it looks through infrared and more purplish filters.
Infrared is used because it is more useful to geologists. The rovers aren't there just for pretty pictures. They are geologists, and as such, their instrumentation is designed for that purpose.
Enlighten thyself, from people who really know what they're talking about.
From this link:
L2. 750nm
L3. 670nm
L4. 600nm
L5. 530nm
L6. 480nm
L7. 430nm
Those are the wavelengths that the filters image through.
Another good link showing the color differences between filters
Earthly pictures of the sundial
Color isn't an exact science when it comes to other planets. Images returned from the Venera landers on Venus weren't quite accurate - the light sifting through the atmosphere was quite heavily filtered. Additionally, the paint that they used on the calibration target actually changed color from the extreme heat.
All the stuff about "omg, MUD!!!" - 1) it's another planet, some things don't have Earthly analogs. The "mud" is extremely fine powder. The rover team likens it to diatomaceous earth. Maybe you could think of flour or talcum powder, with a static charge. It will stick together in odd ways, which will also alter its coloration.
Blue sky? You'll get that from viewing the atmosphere at an angle. Rayleigh scattering, I believe it's called.
Some of their panoramas do feature artificial skies, such as this one. The images were taken over many many days, and so the sky would look either patchy, or else a psychadelic mixture of colors. One picture is taken through one filter, then another picture through a different filter - up to six filters may be used just for one full-spectrum 1024x1024 pixel image. Then it needs to do this for each frame of the panorama, sometimes with hundreds of images.
That one there in the link was from pictures taken over 119 days.
You can see the effect of the lag time in this picture - note the coloration of the shadow. This is because of how much time passed between each imaging. One color filter was rotated in place, and a picture was taken. Apparently it can take quite a few minutes between each picture, and so the shadow will move in that time. With six exposures to take, you've got a lot of time for movement.
Approximate true color
L2, L5, L7 filters
Same image, stretched color, through the same filters. The images are calibrated differently so as to bring out subtleties in the rocks.
Compare this image to this one. The first one is through the RGB filters. The second one is through the L2, L5, and L7 filters, which was also stretched for contrast. Note how it really makes the rock dust visible.
Since most things appear a dull shade of red to our eyes, this use of other color bands makes features much more visible.
More MER imagery, properly calibrated, using filters L2 through L7, from the folks who made the camera. I think they know what they're talking about.
And here is Mars' true sky, viewed by Spirit
Again, from Opportunity
Pancam guts, taken from this page.
Enjoy. Don't make me open the can of Whoop-ass again.
SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
Jeff7 said:
Your post was highly informative to those who don't understand photography or the filtering systems used on the various Mars probes. However, I already have a background in photography and photographic methodology. The point being made by me is not the quality or techniques used on the light filtration process. The point is the pictures are not being released with the proper color filters being used. Since one of the cameras filters is obviously clear on the rovers, why would Nasa choose to only release a false color image of Mars for public consumption? Especially since this lends credence to the fact they are altering the pictures of Mars? Which they obviously are as you are clearly pointing out.
Don't astronomers usually go to great pains to reconstruct accurate color images from the various telescopes they use when they can? And when they reconstruct those false color images, they also tell you how they are reconstructing it. Is Nasa doing this? The answer is NO, they usually aren't. So why is Nasa failing in this regard literally on nearly every image they release? Don't that seem the least little bit odd to you? These hundreds of thousands of false color images might actually be useful to a geologist. But the geologist also has to be aware exactly what filter and lens is being used to achieve this result. Otherwise, all the dark, blurry false color crap is just useless. So why does Nasa not reveal what filters and lenses are being used on what images to make the images actually usable to a geologist to study? What are they hiding? And why?
It obviously makes it easier to hide and obscure odd and unusual features in an image if you use some sort of uniformly dark colorization process on most the pictures to blur important features in an image, depending on whatever it is you may want to hide, such as blue water, or green plants. Make it all look a bit out of focus, dark and red, and the plants then all look like some kind of strange dark mineral deposits. They might as well just stop the false pretense of "color" images altogether, and simply release all the "color" images in high contrast black and white, but they don't because the higher contrast of B&W images would also defeat the purpose of artificially darkening and falsely colorizing an image red, which appears to be the sole purpose of this "red planet conspiracy" if you will.
Your post was highly informative to those who don't understand photography or the filtering systems used on the various Mars probes. However, I already have a background in photography and photographic methodology. The point being made by me is not the quality or techniques used on the light filtration process. The point is the pictures are not being released with the proper color filters being used. Since one of the cameras filters is obviously clear on the rovers, why would Nasa choose to only release a false color image of Mars for public consumption? Especially since this lends credence to the fact they are altering the pictures of Mars? Which they obviously are as you are clearly pointing out.
Don't astronomers usually go to great pains to reconstruct accurate color images from the various telescopes they use when they can? And when they reconstruct those false color images, they also tell you how they are reconstructing it. Is Nasa doing this? The answer is NO, they usually aren't. So why is Nasa failing in this regard literally on nearly every image they release? Don't that seem the least little bit odd to you? These hundreds of thousands of false color images might actually be useful to a geologist. But the geologist also has to be aware exactly what filter and lens is being used to achieve this result. Otherwise, all the dark, blurry false color crap is just useless. So why does Nasa not reveal what filters and lenses are being used on what images to make the images actually usable to a geologist to study? What are they hiding? And why?
It obviously makes it easier to hide and obscure odd and unusual features in an image if you use some sort of uniformly dark colorization process on most the pictures to blur important features in an image, depending on whatever it is you may want to hide, such as blue water, or green plants. Make it all look a bit out of focus, dark and red, and the plants then all look like some kind of strange dark mineral deposits. They might as well just stop the false pretense of "color" images altogether, and simply release all the "color" images in high contrast black and white, but they don't because the higher contrast of B&W images would also defeat the purpose of artificially darkening and falsely colorizing an image red, which appears to be the sole purpose of this "red planet conspiracy" if you will.
PottedMeat
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,363
- 475
- 126
I don't understand all this bitching about NASA releasing false color images to the public. As a member of the public maybe I want to see some cool images of stars/planets and these are the ones that NASA releases and I don't have a problem with that. If I were a geologist, can't I just ask NASA for a copy of the original data and conditions? ...refusing to provide it is another matter though.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
One of the filters is clear - so it would return black and white images. The CCD on the rover is only 12 bit black and white. That's all it can do. L1 is the clear filter. If it's used, all you get is a plain black and white image. When imaged through the other filters, that's when you can get color images. Take three black and white images, one each through red, green, and blue filters, calibrate them properly, combine them, and you'll get an approximate true-color image.
They DO reveal what filters are being used. It's right in the filenames.
The images at the Cornell University site say right there on the page, "All Images were made using filters L2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7." Pretty obvious to me.
This panorama says right in the description, "This is an approximately true-color, red-green-blue composite panorama generated from images taken through the Pancam's 600-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 480-nanometer filters." Based on the publicly-available information on the Pancam, those are filters L4, L5, and L6 - BGR colors, in that order.
(Note too, the filter designations beginning with "L" are for the left camera. The right camera's filters are in the far infrared.)
This image - the filename is Sol1167B_P2419_L257atc_br2.jpg. The bolded part indicates that filters L2, 5, and 7 were used.
Yes, the scientists involved went to great lengths to ensure color reproduction as accurate as a $15 million budget could allow. If you're seeing blue rocks, or a blue sky, that's because they're not using RGB filters. They'll call it a "false color" image for a reason, because other filters were used. Another example
L2, 5, and 7 were used for false color. L2 is infrared, 750 nanometers. L7 is beyond indigo, but not quite violet, 430 nanometers, as stated quite clearly in the description.
The true color was again L4, 5, and 6, RGB color, again, as stated in the description.
Simply put, there is no liquid water on the surface. The pressure there is 1/1000th* that of Earth's. Water would boil away instantly. Ice would sublimate directly to gas.
Any "structures" would be easily revealed now anyway, by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. That thing's got 25cm/pixel resolution. If any discovery by either the MER or MRO team was life, word would get out, fast. Discovering direct evidence of life on another planet would be the biggest scientific even since the COBE mission analyzed the cosmic background radiation.
* correction - pressure there is more like 1/100th of Earth's pressure. Average there is 6.1 millibars. Source.
SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
Ahh. Not all sites list what filters are being used. Obviously, if I was researching the geology, I would know where to look for that information. Good point.
I was also not aware the cameras were not true color imaging, either. Another good point. I failed to click the link enlighten thyself.
As far as liquid water, I listed that only as an example of something that would be desirable to hide. Obviously, if it was there, it would be underground or frozen. Obviously the frozen poles have not sublimated to gas, and are mostly composed of water, according to what I had read previously.
Mars Ice Mostly Water
Mars Express Confirms Water Ice On Mars
I was also not aware the cameras were not true color imaging, either. Another good point. I failed to click the link enlighten thyself.
As far as liquid water, I listed that only as an example of something that would be desirable to hide. Obviously, if it was there, it would be underground or frozen. Obviously the frozen poles have not sublimated to gas, and are mostly composed of water, according to what I had read previously.
Mars Ice Mostly Water
Mars Express Confirms Water Ice On Mars
SlickSnake
Diamond Member
- May 29, 2007
- 5,235
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
LOL! You've lost all credibility by using Enterprisemission.com as a source. You might as well put a link to a story from the National Enquirer
You think posting on here in Off Topic next to posts about non perforated toilet paper rolls gives anyone credibility to start with? Consider the original topic here "Sun burns out in 200 years". I was trying to point out similar conspiracy theories to consider. The Mars pics one fit, and came to mind.
BTW, that site has some interesting articles. It was posted primarily as a link for pics. Not as a valid reference source. But it does support the various Mars conspiracy theories.
And stop PMing me for my old National Enquirers. I reread them often while I'm on the toilet. If I ever decide to sell them, I will let you know first, ok?
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Well the common theory people keep mentioning, that the sun is half way done and has maybe 5-6 billion more years also has another point. Under this idea, it's not the end of the sun, it's implosion that will be disastrous for earth. That would actually happen a short 400-500 million years from now as all the water is boiled off the surface of the earth due to the sun constantly getting hotter. So somewhere before that point is the end of life as we know it. Earth will already be a dry rock before the suns implodes.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
I haven't heard anything like this.
What I've read is that in about 5 billion years, +/- 100 million, that's when the sun will start to cause trouble. That's when it'll start to expand, possibly growing large enough to evelop Earth. I think that'll take a few thousand years though.
I did just find this. According to that, "In the next 1.1 billion years the amount of energy the Earth will get from the Sun (which is directly related to the Sun's temperature) will increase by almost 10%."
Ok, so 1.1 billion years from now. I'd hope that by then some intelligent life form from this planet will have left the star system. Who knows what grand things intelligence and sentience will allow by then.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter