Am i the only one to believe this picture of NASA is a hoax?
How is it possible for the galaxies in the front of the picture to seem so close to each other when in reality the distance between galaxies can be 10x or even 100x a galaxy's size.
Discuss
That's a picture of space, not of NASA, idiot.
anyway. the picture of hubble. its the famous deep space picture of hubble. Hubble is NASA's therefore you are the idiot. Focus on the subject please.
>Am I the only one who is fucking retarded?
Not by a long shot.
>How is it possible for galaxies to look closer together?
Whatever that even means, there are a metric shitload of galaxies in the observable universe.
>Discuss
What, your stupid conspiritard conjecture? No thanks. Have a neat galaxy instead.
There's no goddamn hubble in the picture.
kek
▲
▲▲
>hold my hand up in the air
>holy fuck wtf how is my hand literally right next to that cloud but its up in the air
Newfags can't trihubble.
fucking magnets brah
What does that even mean? Do you think all of these galaxies are aligned in the same plane perpendicular to the viewer?
How is it possible for Venus to be so close to the Moon.
you can assume that the galaxies of similar size are on the similar plane. You know there is an average for galaxies' size.
but venus is a planet and still appears much smaller than the moon, therefore you can tell that there is a huge difference in the distance from viewer
fuck. this still doesnt make sense
i wait for a valid expanation
Bumpiddy
you are all drinking Nasa's thorium water and have accepted the round earth as a reality. I feel sorry for you Veeky Forums
I have personally circumnavigated Earth.
>you can assume that the galaxies of similar size are on the similar plane. You know there is an average for galaxies' size.
So which galaxies in the picture are the same size? And your logic is flawed anyway. The Milky Way, for example is much larger than the average galaxy.
>Whatever that even means, there are a metric shitload of galaxies in the observable universe.
It's seriously difficult to even think about the total amount of matter in the universe. Even with the vast amounts of resources our vacuum cleaner-like species consumes, there's enough material in our solar system alone to last us billions of years of heavy industrial existence. Even if we became a spacefaring race and our population increased 200x we'd barely make a dent in our corner of the milky way. Absolutely insane.
it seems that the average size of a small galaxy is 5-10 times of the average large galaxy.
They distance between galaxies should have been 50-100+ times the size of the galaxies'.
Open your eyes. The OP pic doesn't make sense. I can't believe they published such a blatant lie.
Nigger I'm posting this from inside the Earth's hollow center. The wi-fi sucks down here.
Your move Veeky Forums
So which galaxies in the picture are the same size, retard? Answer the question or fuck off.
5-10 times smaller ***
>assuming all the galaxies lie on the same plane
You realize this chart puts in scale only the sizes of the galaxies and not the distance between them, right?
Are you trying to reply to me or OP?
perhaps u didnt read the whole thread before posting. There is a limit at the size of the galaxies and there is also an average size. The background of the picture looks okay. But many galaxies you can actually discern are not okay. I've red circled some examples.
Im OP replying to you..
Then how does that respond to anything I said?
Are you illiterate? For the third time, show which galaxies are parallel to each other or fuck off.
Parallel no. But on a similar plane taking in account that the average small galaxy is 5-10 times the average big galaxy.
Lemme ask you something.
Are you from NASA?
So which ones are on a similar plane? This is the fourth time you've avoided the question with irrelevancies.
the ones i red circled in this picture for example.
You circled multiple galaxies and I don't see any reasoning or data that says these are on the same plane.
OP you are not the only one.
aplanetruth.info
The reasoning is that the difference between a small and a big galaxy is not so large.
Look at the charts. There are big and small galaxies in scale.
Your own chart shows a wide variation in the sizes of galaxies. IF the difference between a large galaxy and a small galaxy can be a factor of 10, then you have no way to tell whether a galaxy that appears twice the size of another is simply larger or farther away. So your "argument" falls apart by your own admission.
>the distance between galaxies can be 10x or even 100x a galaxy's size.
Can be. Doesn't mean they always are. You've circled a few groups, compact groups do exist like the famous Stephan's Quintet which even includes a galaxy which is not part of the group but appears to.
Stephan's Quintet has been imaged by many amateurs.
your argument is an ecxeption? There is a reason its called Stephan's Quintet.
but if u take into account the average intergalactic distance it still doesnt add up.
relative size
OP here i am off. Cant talk with brainwashed people anymore.
No, i am no tinfoil. I'll get some sizes and distances data and I'll come again to debunk this.
Also inb4 "this is the light from the young universe coming so the galaxies are clustered together".
Ciao.
What doesn't add up? You just admitted you don't know how far away these galaxies are from each other.
Amatures have also observed some of the deep fields and you find the sources line up.
It can't be faked. Please fuck off to /x/ now.
what is this? Do you even know what the deepfield pic is?
The OP pic covers an area about 2.6 arcminutes on a side, about one 24-millionth of the whole sky.
We are talking about a relative plane that places the closest galaxy in the OP pic at least 13 billion ly away.
It's the most famous compact group, it doesn't mean it's the only one. There are hundreds. There were hundreds known in the 80's.
heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov
The Hubble deep fields are massive volumes.
>Average
But you've picked the outliers. That's not average.
>astrobin.com
That's awesome. I tried to post it but the gif is too big. Well, that sets this to bed.
amateurs... you know them? the pic could be a black cardboard box with led lights. It's not clear at all.
>We are talking about a relative plane that places the closest galaxy in the OP pic at least 13 billion ly away.
No. There are lots of very low redshift galaxies in the image.
No I don't know them. It just means they aren't professional astronomers.
Follow the link. It couldn't be more clear.
If the field of view of the telescope is low enough (and it probably is low), the galaxies could be a trillion lightyears apart and only change one pixel in size compared to if they were on the same plane. Thats what youre not getting.
Im just gonna leave this here...
youtube.com
> trillion lightyears
Is more than the observable universe. You're not helping.
if that was the case then the galaxies should have been so small that wouldnt even be visible on the pic.
and this...
youtube.com
The senpai was closer way back then, OP
> could be
In the extreme case of an orthographic projection, they will not shrink with distance at all.
"From where we're talking to you right now" aka, from where the kids are watching the livestream, idiot. Delusional or troll?
You can see the bubbles are inside the craft as they come up in front of the window frame. See 0:59
This is a waste of time. You're a moron.
No, they couldn't.
That's what NASA always does.
NASA: Let's Photoshop many galaxies in the picture to show that space is mind boggling vast.
Always making us, people, something small compared to the universe. Something so insignificantly small would easily obey and waste its trivial life in hard work..
If only man realized his and his life's significance...
>I have literally no proof, but trust me guys.
Die in a fire.
What about OP and his arguments then?
underrated
See this
What arguments? He quoted the average distance and claimed the galaxies looked to close. People explained projection and then OP circled just a few groups, nothing average about that. Someone then pointed to compact groups. Op had no response. Then it was pointed out that previous HST deep fields have been observed by amateurs, they're not fake, they have been independently confirmed. Op had no response.
Maybe this will help.
"of" can mean belonging to
Although in English you would write "picture of hubble's" or "picture of NASA's "
I like the fourth point in that video the most:
>Here is footage of an astronaut floating around.
>Therefore the ISS is not real.
It's like they just gave up even trying to make an argument.
If you ever wondered how these sorts of things get going, just remember that by definition 50% of the population have an IQ of 100 or lower.
>what is depth
Its all a hoax user.
All of it.
You me...the memes...we are all in a machine.
The illuminati controls reality through the power of suggestive incogniscent implementitative psycho science.
With some long exposure and Photoshop contrast fuckery, light sources of different sizes can appear to be the same (or very similar) size. Take a look at . You can see in the first picture, some galaxies appear as barely visible dots and some appear as bright white dots. In the second part of the picture, the barely visible dots look almost identical to the bright dots of the previous picture.
The matrix isn't far off from the truth. The illuminati possess important figures to keep us in check. They feed us carefully crafted rare pepes which instill a sense of humanity and a belief in free will. Only there is no way out in "real" life.
This guy gets it.
That's wrong for at least two reasons. Mean is different from median, and IQ scores seem to rise over time (all over the world).
Also OP asked a perfectly reasonable question in a style not unlike the responses he got. The only post with information was:
You can't consume matter you fat American piece of shit
This is a picture taken of an area of sky more towards the edge of the observable universe which also means it's a picture of a time relatively early in the universes existence. Because of the expansion of the universe, galaxies in the early universe (the early universe is in the photo) were much closer together than they are today.
Also just because something looks close together in a picture doesn't mean they're actually close together in space. It's obviously difficult to discern depth and relative distances with a static image of objects of such size, especially when the sizes of galaxies also can vary greatly.
>Am i the only one
No, the world is full of denialists.
You're just another brick in the wall.
I read this whole thread, and I feel dumber. This is all I have to contribute.
Sub-100 brainlet detected. Get gud faget.