Sensation in the world of science !!!
We managed to get very detailed images of one of the most distant planets in the solar system - Neptune.
And these pictures were taken not by expensive orbiting telescopes Hubble or Kepler, but by the most common ground-based telescope located in the Chilean desert.
The pictures are really very bright and detailed.
Here, for comparison, a picture taken by the Hubble telescope:
Planet Neptune . Image from the Hubble telescope.
But how is it that a picture from a telescope, which is located on Earth, where the atmosphere and other factors, such as air fluctuations and others, interfere, came out much better and clearer in resolution than a picture from an orbiting telescope, where all these critical moments are absent, which can interfere with the observation ???
Direct comparison of images. On the left - Image from a ground-based telescope, right - image from the Hubble telescope.
Promotional video:
Science has its own explanation for this paradox:
“Theory tells us that space telescopes have better resolution than ground-based telescopes because they are isolated from atmospheric distortion and receive more electromagnetic radiation, especially in the infrared. However, the Hubble telescope has a drawback - its age (it was launched into orbit in 1990 and improved for the last time in 2009). The telescope at the European Southern Observatory in the Atacama Desert is technically superior to the Hubble telescope.
The incredibly clear image of Neptune is made possible by adaptive optics technology called laser tomography, which can correct turbulence in the atmosphere - a distortion that causes stars to twinkle and distant objects blur.
To correct the distortion, a module called GALACSI fires four very bright lasers over space, creating a false star in the sky. He then analyzes the lack of detection of the laser and informs the computer, which constantly changes the shape of the mirror. Finally, the MUSE spectrographic instrument uses this system to obtain a better resolution image."
What is it that ground-based telescopes, due to laser correction, can now ignore the atmosphere and its fluctuations ???
But this means that all expensive projects are like telescopes: Hubble, Kepler and James Webb are just huge waste of budget money and useless toys.
After all, why are they needed now, if astronomers receive much higher quality images from the Earth …
Of course, on this score, I have my own opinion, which I will try to express.
Take one of the famous images taken by the Hubble Telescope:
Galaxy "Sombrero" Image from the Hubble telescope.
This beautiful galaxy is located at a distance of 29 million light years from us (according to official science).
Just read this figure !!!
But at the same time, Hubble easily photographs this object, and the picture quality is at a height.
Many will say that I don't take into account the angular dimensions of objects. Like a planet or a galaxy. Found something to compare.
In this regard, the answer is:
The angular dimensions are truly disparate, but the distance is everything. It doesn't matter how big the galaxy is if it is located 29 million light years away.
Let me remind you that the speed of light is almost 300,000 km / s.
This means that one light year is approximately 10 trillion kilometers.
Now it's worth multiplying 10 trillion kilometers by 29 million.
Distance is inconceivable, just as it is inconceivable that science operates with such numbers. In the head of any sane person, such distances simply will not fit.
There are also much more detailed pictures of more distant objects.
And here's the paradox:
A relatively close and sufficiently large object, which is located in the solar system, Hubble cannot clearly photograph.
It is very strange, because the optics allows you to see at unimaginable distances and the pictures confirm this.
It's just that there are no orbiting telescopes. They just don't exist.
All beautiful pictures of galaxies, nebulae and distant objects are taken from Earth, or simply drawn.
What am I leading to ???
Using the example of the same picture of "Neptune", I will try to explain the obvious.
Indeed, it makes no sense to deny the existence of real observations of celestial objects.
All these objects are visible through telescopes. Even the notorious planet Neptune.
There is only one but, and it casts doubt on the whole idea of distances and scales.
As we can see, the image shows the planet in very bright light. It seems to glow from a powerful light source. Could this be ???
Planet Neptune is the farthest planet from the Sun (not counting Pluto).
Located at a distance of 4.5 billion km from the star.
The body is not small enough.
Again, all data is taken from official sources to keep everything honest.
The planet Earth (from the point of view of science) is located at a sufficiently comfortable distance from the Sun to create optimal conditions for the emergence of life. This is both warmth and enough light. Neither more nor less.
Only now the Earth is located only 150 million kilometers from the star, and Neptune is 4.5 billion kilometers.
Let's take a look at an illustration from a Soviet astronomy textbook:
These are the apparent sizes of the Sun from different planets.
And a more modern image:
Now we just turn on the logic and watch.
Neptune is much larger than Earth and needs much more light to illuminate the entire surface of the planet, which cannot be in the conditions of the official position.
The angular size of the Sun is too small for Neptune to glow as shown in the photograph.
According to the inverse square law, the power of light decreases with distance from the source:
Thus, in order to see Neptune from the Earth, the light from the Sun must reach Neptune, reflect from it, fly to the Earth and enter the optical device.
Everything is simple and obvious:
A small dot in the sky of Neptune is unable to illuminate the planet so brightly that, according to the inverse square law, the light (which loses strength with distance) could still reach the Earth and show us this:
The official position has a photograph that was taken from the orbit of Saturn. Which is called: What the Sun looks like from the position of Saturn:
Small dot - this is the Sun.
The conclusion from everything is this:
All objects observed in the sky do not have huge distances from the Sun. They do not have such large sizes and are not at all what the official science says.
As well as the distance of the Sun from the Earth is questionable, the shape of the Earth and its true purpose.
© TM STUDIO
