Seven Earth-Like Planets Found

[dad]

So nothing happens... we just feel as if we're in permanent bliss?

No. The only people on earth will be those who chose to believe in Jesus. The rest are evicted. That is why it will be heavenly, no Satan or evil people.

 

[Skavau]

No. The only people on earth will be those who chose to believe in Jesus. The rest are evicted. That is why it will be heavenly, no Satan or evil people.

So what do people actually do? What is there to do?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Which theory? That the Earth is round?

You can see all of the planets out to Saturn or even Neptune with telescopes you can buy yourself.

(No, not that the earth is round...)


So, then, there should be no problem for NASA to give us some higher resolution photos that aren't doctored, smoothed, generated or concept.

But, they dont. All that has been given has been computer generated images, smoothed images, artifacts, etc.

If we are talking about exoplanets, the scientists list all of their methods and materials for measuring transits and Doppler shifts in their peer reviewed papers. Almost every measurement in science is "altered" in some fashion, even by something as simple has subtracting out background.

Which I said is find for the purposes of concepts, but there needs to be a clear transparency on what "pictures" are being presented: concept/CGI or real.

But, I am not talking about exoplanets. We have yet to receive clear, higher resolution images of our backyard that has not been altered. If I can see Ceres with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide recent, high resolution photos (or feeds) of Ceres - not simple concept art with the same cloud formations and landmass face.

Again, this would be FINE if we are only talking about the theory of the planets (composition, distance, orbit, etc.)

Concept art is concept art.

 

[HitchSlap]

(No, not that the earth is round...)


So, then, there should be no problem for NASA to give us some higher resolution photos that aren't doctored, smoothed, generated or concept.

But, they dont. All that has been given has been computer generated images, smoothed images, artifacts, etc.



Which I said is find for the purposes of concepts, but there needs to be a clear transparency on what "pictures" are being presented: concept/CGI or real.

But, I am not talking about exoplanets. We have yet to receive clear, higher resolution images of our backyard that has not been altered. If I can see Ceres with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide recent, high resolution photos (or feeds) of Ceres - not simple concept art with the same cloud formations and landmass face.

Again, this would be FINE if we are only talking about the theory of the planets (composition, distance, orbit, etc.)

Concept art is concept art.

What is your distrust of NASA based on?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What is your distrust of NASA based on?

I don't distrust NASA, I just want non CGI images of the things they purport are existent. If I can see it with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide much higher resolution photos with much clearer details.

It is really a simple request, or query.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't distrust NASA, I just want non CGI images of the things they purport are existent. If I can see it with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide much higher resolution photos with much clearer details.

It is really a simple request, or query.

Here are some pictures of the planets without CGI. A few of them have false colour applied so the varying colour is clearer.

Why the suspiciousness around NASA?

What are you dubious about? Just exo-planets, or all of space?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt here. Tell us exactly how transit data does this.

The width of the dip in the light curve tells us how long it takes to get across the star. The depth of the dip in the light curve tells us how large the planet is. Combine the two and you can calculate the orbit and the density of the planet.

 

[Loudmouth]

(No, not that the earth is round...)


So, then, there should be no problem for NASA to give us some higher resolution photos that aren't doctored, smoothed, generated or concept.

So what if they do?

What is the point of all this?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't distrust NASA, I just want non CGI images of the things they purport are existent. If I can see it with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide much higher resolution photos with much clearer details.

It is really a simple request, or query.

What do you think they are trying to cover up?

 

[USincognito]

I would like to see one picture of any heavenly body in our solar system (besides the moon and sun) that isn't computer generated from NASA.

Or, even one of earth that has not been generated...

Here you go. A 3 second clip created by combining images over the course of 7 years.
NASA Astrobiology

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't distrust NASA, I just want non CGI images of the things they purport are existent. If I can see it with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide much higher resolution photos with much clearer details.

It is really a simple request, or query.

Which planet, specifically, would you like to see a real picture of?

 

[USincognito]

I used to be an "ameteur" astronomer, and while you do see some very interesting activity in the heavens, it doesn't match up to the CGI images presented by NASA - which is how I know the photos have been edited, and it is also the reason why I am asking for NASA photos without editing, smoothing, CGI, or artifacts.

Most images from the solar system are digital, but that's because they were transmitted that way from the satellite (there's no way to get film back from 3 billion miles away). CGI really only used for images of objects outside of the solar system.

 

[USincognito]

I would like to see one picture of any heavenly body in our solar system (besides the moon and sun) that isn't computer generated from NASA.

Or, even one of earth that has not been generated...

Here's the earth from Voyager 1.
Pale Blue Dot - Wikipedia

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Here are some pictures of the planets without CGI. A few of them have Fajar colour applied so the varying colour is clearer.

Why the suspiciousness around NASA?

What are you dubious about? Just exo-planets, or all of space?

Didn't I just say I was not suspicious of NASA? It was a simple question:

Where are the higher quality raw photos without edit? It should be easy to provide if I can see it (and take a picture) from my telescope.

There shouldn't be a reason why we can't see raw, unedited photos from NASA - with absolutely no edit. That wild be profitable for people that understand the physics of what is going on - to draw educated conclusions.

Filtered, altered, smoothed, or CGI images raw from the source should be a public access.

Why does asking for raw, unedited, unfiltered pictures of out back yard from NASA garner thoughts of mistrust? This is the secoND time I have had to say it is simply a request, not an issue of mistrust.


Should I not trust NASA, or something?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So what if they do?

What is the point of all this?

@Loudmouth I accidently quoted you in this post, and I tagged you so it would come to your attention.

Most images from the solar system are digital, but that's because they were transmitted that way from the satellite (there's no way to get film back from 3 billion miles away). CGI really only used for images of objects outside of the solar system.

Thank you for this. (I am fully aware of this, I was actually looking for this answer or similar for my own vindication since I am not a formal astronomer, not is my field astronomy or celestial mechanics.)

I didn't want any circumlocution, just an answer.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Which planet, specifically, would you like to see a real picture of?

Any body in our solar system would be fine - besides the moon and sun (or other bodies that can be seen with the naked eye.)

In general, I am speaking about the outer planets - J/S/N/U/P(?). And, maybe their moons.

 

[USincognito]

Any body in our solar system would be fine - besides the moon and sun (or other bodies that can be seen with the naked eye.)

In general, I am speaking about the outer planets - J/S/N/U/P(?). And, maybe their moons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Didn't I just say I was not suspicious of NASA? It was a simple question:

Where are the higher quality raw photos without edit? It should be easy to provide if I can see it (and take a picture) from my telescope.

There shouldn't be a reason why we can't see raw, unedited photos from NASA - with absolutely no edit. That wild be profitable for people that understand the physics of what is going on - to draw educated conclusions.

Many raw images are available, but there are often artifacts from the detectors, cosmic rays, etc.

 

[Queller]

(No, not that the earth is round...)

So, then, there should be no problem for NASA to give us some higher resolution photos that aren't doctored, smoothed, generated or concept.

But, they dont. All that has been given has been computer generated images, smoothed images, artifacts, etc.

Which I said is find for the purposes of concepts, but there needs to be a clear transparency on what "pictures" are being presented: concept/CGI or real.

But, I am not talking about exoplanets. We have yet to receive clear, higher resolution images of our backyard that has not been altered.

Sure we have. Here is a fairly high resolution raw photo of Jupiter taken by the Voyager spacecraft in 1979.

Here's a raw photo of Saturn's rings taken by Cassini in 2014.

If I can see Ceres with my telescope, NASA should be able to provide recent, high resolution photos (or feeds) of Ceres - not simple concept art with the same cloud formations and landmass face.

Do you have any idea of what it would take to get a live feed from Ceres?

This is a photo of Ceres. I'm fairly certain it is the raw photo but I'm not positive.

Again, this would be FINE if we are only talking about the theory of the planets (composition, distance, orbit, etc.)

Concept art is concept art.

Do you have any idea what NASA goes through to get these images and what the limitations are of receiving data from something that is over a quarter million miles from the sun?

 

[essentialsaltes]

There's no question the depictions of exoplanets are artistic inventions rather than images -- they're just too far away to actually take pictures of. There's a nice article here about how you get from marbles on the floor of my friend Robert's place to the cover of Nature.