07-01-2013, 03:09 PM
|
 |
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The light detector is what determines the point of resolution.
Some equipment, like the Hubble, can store the information from the gathered light, and continue exposure to gather more and more light from the exact same place, over long periods of time. It took 1 million minutes of light gathering, aimed at a specific pinpoint in space, for enough light to be gathered to create the Deep Field images.
|
Right now I'm talking about diffused light. How can that light ever be collected to form an image when the light is going in opposite directions away from the source? |
Diffused light is radiated in all directions from the source, like from a star or a light bulb. A detector can then collect some of it. What do you mean "opposite directions" and why would that cause a problem in detecting the light? |
|
Exactly what I said. If reflected light is at an angle that is opposite of light that is going at opposite angles, how can this light ever be collected? |
What.The.Fuck. Reflected light at an angle opposite to light that is going at opposite angles? What does that even mean? It's complete gibberish
Light is radiating in straight lines in every direction from the source. This is a fairly good representation
Stick a detector anywhere around the source and you can collect some of that light.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A detector may be able to collect some of the light (theoretically), but how could it ever collect all of it to form the original image?
|
It can't collect all of it nor does it need to. What the hell are you babbling about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A partial image does not an image make.
|
What are you talking about partial images?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The whole thing doesn't even make sense except for the fundies who want to believe it.
|
Of course this incoherent shit you made up doesn't make any sense. Because YOU MADE IT UP! It is a strawman.
What you are talking about has zero to do with observed reality or my explanations of how light works.
Is this a partial image? It's a spiral galaxy from the Hubble Ultra Deep Space Image...so it is a small part of the larger image. Is that what you mean by partial or what exactly?
 |
|