This is a neat photo.
(Mega-version.)
I wish people would send out neat things, though, without accompanying them with dumb chain mail text like:
"Subject: FW: NASA Photo! Dont Delete! Dear All: This photo is a very rare one, taken by NASA. This kind of event occurs once in 3000 years. This photo has done miracles in many lives. Make a wish ... you have looked at the eye of God. Surely you will see the changes in your life within a day. Whether you believe it or not, don't keep this mail with you. Pass this at least to 7 persons. This is a picture NASA took with the Hubbell telescope. Called "The Eye of God." Too awesome to delete. It is worth sharing. During the next 60 seconds, Stop whatever you are doing, and take this opportunity. (Literally it is only One minute!) Just send this to people and see what happens. Do not break this, please."
And of course when the email text says "This kind of event occurs once in 3000 years," this is BS. It's a picture of a nebula (the Helix Nebula), not an "event". For all human purposes, nebulae are static.
----
I just noticed that I have used 99 megabytes worth of images on this blog so far! And I'm quite selective.
23 comments:
Oh My Gosh!!!
If I don't keep this chain going am I going to....
"I wish people would send out neat things, though, without accompanying them with dumb chain mail text ..."
Say no more. Or indeed give them silly names ("The Eye of God") while forgetting to mention the real name, Helix Nebula, and the publisher of the image, HubbleSite.
Astronomy always makes me go a big rubbery one.
What's "a big rubbery one"?
Is it like a nebula, but on Earth?
Hey, it was me, who forwarded it to Eolake. Sorry, if I have done any harm to Eolake.
I know what you mean. Back in the late 1990's, I'd set up a chainmail site. Now it's just a category in my blog with the cool stuff that's sent through. Sometimes I'll even find the blog (send this on to so many people or...) funny or annoying enough that I'll post that, too.
I love space photographs, always have. I just don't understand when they photograph the earth from space or the moon YOU NEVER SEE ANY STARS AROUND OR BEHIND THEM?
I just don't get it? I know I've mentioned this before it's just that they're gone? Crazy to me.
Color me confused.
A big sunlit object is too bright compared to the stars. You can get the stars in the photo, or Earth, but not both at the same time.
"A nebula, but on Earth", get it? A cloud of gas. Coming out with a big rubbery sound. ;-)
Say no more. Or indeed give them silly names ("The Eye of God") while forgetting to mention the real name, Helix Nebula, and the publisher of the image, HubbleSite.
I dig that HubbleSite, but I wonder how much the pictures are dressed up with gnarly colours which aren't really there. I just kind of glanced at their explanation of how that works.
joe dick said: "I dig that HubbleSite, but I wonder how much the pictures are dressed up with gnarly colours which aren't really there."
I don't think we can compare photography of astronomical objects with regular photography. For one, you are not always photographing visible light to begin with, but rather infrared or some such. So in order to see anything at all in those pics you have to somewhat "dress it up".
But you raise a good point nevertheless. I too have wondered how much astrophotographers let themselves slip into artistry rather than presenting the sight as neutrally as possible.
Pascal said:
"A nebula, but on Earth", get it? A cloud of gas. Coming out with a big rubbery sound. ;-)
Maybe that was a little too cerebral? ;-)
It's those academics. And their big, rubbery brains.
"What kind of an academic wears a leather jacket and rides a motorcycle?"
- Little Shop Of Horrors
One of Jack Nicholson's first movies. It was also an interesting stage play which toured in the late 80's. I kinda like it, for all its sins.
Now I think I'll have to go listen to the soundtrack album "Suddenly Seymour, right there beside me..."
I may like the other version even better, the one with Steve Martin as the dentist.
TTL said...
"I don't think we can compare photography of astronomical objects with regular photography."
I beg to differ. Domai.com is all ABOUT photos of celestial bodies!
:-)
Today's star has a dazzling smile, don't you think?
Joe Dick said...
"Maybe that was a little too cerebral? ;-)"
A fart joke, too cerebral??? Man, I'd hate to find out what you call crude humour. :-D
Is this what they mean by "having a brain fart"? Making cerebral nebula puns?
"What kind of an academic wears a leather jacket and rides a motorcycle?"
An archeologist by the name of Indiana Jones?...
Questions, questions. To be or not to be gassy in the morning...
"What kind of an academic wears a leather jacket and rides a motorcycle?"
Didn't any of you guys read/see "The History Boys". I picked up the text last time I was in the UK, typical great Bennet.
Oh, and Pascal, next summer, Indian Jones comes to Lego!!!
You mean Indy's staying at your house? You lucky bastard! I envy you to death!!!
In the Holy Grail! DVD extras, there's a Lego Studio version of the Camelot dance scene. Superb, of course.
I sure hope they make a PS2 version of that Indy game. I'm not planning on getting a next-gen console. All prices are skyrocketing (speaking of astronomy!) in Lebanon right now, and just the daily necessities is costly enough as it is. This year we're heating the house with firewood.
A big sunlit object is too bright compared to the stars. You can get the stars in the photo, or Earth, but not both at the same time.
That just doesn't make sense? Sorry Mr Stobblehouse. zzzzzzzhow can one bright light dim or make other lights suddenly disappear?
You can get the stars in the photo, or Earth, but not both at the same time.
I'm with you, there is no answer here he provided, only a watered-down attempt at the question. You need to check with NASA. They could easily explain it.
The time taken to photograph a star would be too long the closer heavenly body. The brightly lit object becomes washed out.
The relative motion will also become a problem.
It's because the crystal sphere containing the stars is too close to the planets; you can't take a close-up of a planet and the stars at the same time.
Post a Comment