The daring mission by astronauts to repair and upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope in May 2009 is the perfect subject for a brilliant, thrilling 3-D Imax movie. Such a movie, alas, has yet to be made.
While one might agree that making a movie about the 2009 mission could be interesting, nobody asked you for a suggestion. Your job is to review the movie.
Yes, focusing a bit more on some aspects of the 2009 mission could have made things a little more interesting, but as you have already said, this is NOT a movie about that. That was NOT their focus, so why do you keep ranting about it? I understand that the piece you did on that mission was your only contact with aerospace engineering, astronomy, and related sciences, and I'm glad that you enjoyed the experience. However, you clearly have very little knowledge of physics, so why are you making comments that highlight that ignorance? Nobody faults you for being a communications major, but you need to stick to what you know.
The reason that you are seeing a "cosmetically enhanced" universe is that the Hubble telescope does not pick up only the visual light that humans can see. This visual light makes up only a tiny fraction of the total light that actually exists. The Hubble picks up electromagnetic waves (light)with wavelengths between 300nm and 2500nm. To put this in perspective, the human eye detects light only between 400nm and 700nm. These Hubble pictures are showing us the stunning colors that exist in nature in a form that our human eye can process.
The reason the stars are not "point-like objects" is that, as you put it, the camera is "zooming through space". At light speed, the light emanating from the stars is going to appear frozen and stretched. Why would there exist empty space in between the stars? Is there not light travelling between the stars? The pictures are of this very light that is travelling. What on earth do you expect? Are you accusing the producers of doctoring the video to exaggerate things? Do you believe the pictures from the Hubble are faked? I am not entirely sure what your point is with all of this was, but all it served was to demonstrate your absolute lack of knowledge on the subject. Overall, your review was useless and irritating to read.
Eric Fernandez
While one might agree that making a movie about the 2009 mission could be interesting, nobody asked you for a suggestion.
Your job is to review the movie.
Yes, focusing a bit more on some aspects of the 2009 mission could have made things a little more interesting, but as you have already said, this is NOT a movie about that.
That was NOT their focus, so why do you keep ranting about it?
I understand that the piece you did on that mission was your only contact with aerospace engineering, astronomy, and related sciences, and I'm glad that you enjoyed the experience.
However, you clearly have very little knowledge of physics, so why are you making comments that highlight that ignorance?
Nobody faults you for being a communications major, but you need to stick to what you know.
The reason that you are seeing a "cosmetically enhanced" universe is that the Hubble telescope does not pick up only the visual light that humans can see.
This visual light makes up only a tiny fraction of the total light that actually exists.
The Hubble picks up electromagnetic waves (light)with wavelengths between 300nm and 2500nm. To put this in perspective, the human eye detects light only between 400nm and 700nm.
These Hubble pictures are showing us the stunning colors that exist in nature in a form that our human eye can process.
The reason the stars are not "point-like objects" is that, as you put it, the camera is "zooming through space". At light speed, the light emanating from the stars is going to appear frozen and stretched.
Why would there exist empty space in between the stars?
Is there not light travelling between the stars?
The pictures are of this very light that is travelling.
What on earth do you expect?
Are you accusing the producers of doctoring the video to exaggerate things? Do you believe the pictures from the Hubble are faked?
I am not entirely sure what your point is with all of this was, but all it served was to demonstrate your absolute lack of knowledge on the subject.
Overall, your review was useless and irritating to read.
Jul 12 - 08:24 PM
Aaron Yovanovits
Eric just owned the f#ck out of this guy. Wow.
Feb 3 - 11:07 AM