SH Archive Hubble Telescope and the Olbers' paradox: where is the space dust?

[Wildfire2000]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: WildFire2000
Date: 2018-08-04 02:03:04
Reaction Score: 0

I agree. While I find the whole ... earth, space, moon stuff to be too questionable overall, this video was making a big deal about nothing.

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2018-08-04 03:16:28
Reaction Score: 1

this video is badly interpreted, look at what the the girl asked him, she asked if we ever went back to the moon after the apollo age, suffice to say we din't

And apparently we forgot how after losing every scrap of evidence that ever existed showing we went there in the first place.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: perplexed
Date: 2018-08-08 03:06:18
Reaction Score: 0

There is no such thing as outer space.
You can never prove it exists, you can never go there, you can never see it or experience it with your own sense and mind.

Instead, you must trust the modern day high priests of science, and take them at their word. No different than blindly following a slick televangelist or a medicine man from the past. Its a religion to believe in outer space

Ironicaly, a medicine man from the past is exactly what you want. Snake oil has been demonized from our inception of indoctrinization. The various lipid compounds from the fat sack in snakes confer incredible biological benefits in snakes, as well as humans. Medline has numerous white papers detailing the numerous biologic actions of said lipids. There's a reason a snake can consume 80-100% of it's weight in one meal and then survive for a month, while its blood turns to a gel, its heart grows by 40% to accomodate the exponential increase in cholesterol and triglycerides with NO adverse affects. Its the lipid compounds sold by the "snake oil salesman"
I use Google scholar vs PubMed as all published works worldwide will be accessed.
Not surprisingly the first Rockefeller in the US was a travelling medicine man. More likely as an intelligence gatherer using the tried and true medicine of the day, who's agenda was far beyond healing. The knowledge gained from the medicinal standpoint was to patent everything for profit, so long as it wasn't actually beneficial. Hence the litany of useless and very problematic patent drugs, of which they own and control virtually all of.

Anyway, the snake oil salesman lie is a very clever indoctrination.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: humanoidlord
Date: 2018-08-08 21:14:32
Reaction Score: 0

And apparently we forgot how after losing every scrap of evidence that ever existed showing we went there in the first place.

destroyed, they din't like what they found there

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2018-08-08 21:54:41
Reaction Score: 2

We all choose what to consider plausible.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-05-29 17:55:21
Reaction Score: 7

What do you do when there is something contradicting your theory to the point of invalidating it? I don't know about you, but our science declares it a "PARADOX". A very simple solution to a very complicated problem. Now, everything in this story is official, and that makes it just that more ridiculous. That's my personal opinion only, but feel free to voice yours.

Dark Night Sky Paradox

View attachment 3385

In a nutshell ~ Olbers' paradox. The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a flood light due to the amount of stars up there. This is clearly not the case. And the reason we do not see this overwhelming sky size spot light shining down our own backyard is... cosmic dust blocking the view.

• Olber's paradox is explained by cosmic dust instead of the Big Bang
• On Olber’s Paradox
• Wikipedia - Olber's paradox

View attachment 3389
Schematic of the distribution of stars in an infinite universe and Olber's Paradox
Credit: Penn State Astronomy & Astrophysics

Hubble Space Telescope

View attachment 3386

Hubble orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 353 miles (569 kilometers). It takes about 97 minutes to complete one orbit around the Earth. Hubble passes into the shadow of the Earth for 28 to 36 minutes in each orbit.

Here are some of the pictures allegedly made by this awesome piece of equipment. More HUBBLE pictures at this NASA link.

• Hubble’s Lonely Firework Display - Roughly 50 million light-years away the little galaxy NGC 1559 has hosted a variety of spectacular exploding stars called supernovae.

View attachment 3387

• Hubble Spots a Green Cosmic Arc - This Hubble Space Telescope image shows a cluster of hundreds of galaxies located about 7.5 billion light-years from Earth.

View attachment 3388

My question: Where is this interstellar cosmic dust? How come this Hubble thing allegedly orbiting our planet at 353 mile altitude can take a photo of galaxies located 7.5 billion light years away? NASA taught it to see through the dust?

7.5 billion light years away... how many miles is it? Let's see.

1 light year = 5.88 trillion miles.
7,500,000,000 light years x 5,800,000,000,000 = no clue what this is called but my calculator demonstrated this 4.35^22 miles. I think in a more conventional way the distance looks like this - 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.

This is your paradox, ladies and gentlemen: The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a gigantic floodlight. Obviously it is not because we have this interstellar cosmic dust blocking our view. Yet the Hubble telescope orbiting 353 miles above Earth is able to penetrate at least 4.35^22 miles of dust saturated space and snap a photo of some Galaxies far far away.

What's funny, we are so dull, we believe this non-sense. What's even funnier, Hubble is unable to take a picture of Earth. Why? Here is why:

• The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.

Hubble orbit speed: 5 miles per second at 353 miles above Earth
ISS orbit speed: 4.76 miles per second at 205-270 miles above Earth

$2.5 billion Hubble telescope weighing, 24,500 pounds and measured at 43.5 feet does not have a camera to take a picture of Earth located only 353 miles away. Yet, it brings us joy with the images of the galaxies located 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. It is also capable of penetrating 4.35^22 miles of space dust. That same dust preventing the stellar light from reaching our planet Earth.

Are we being duped?

This was a fascinating thread to read through. I'm not thinking I will derail this thread easily as it's posts cover a lot of territory. The OP really set my mind into overdrive since I read it.

I'm not sure if we are being duped when it comes to Hubbel, but you've really got me thinking KD. Are we?

I grew up in Montana, in an area that had very minimal light pollution, and I had an arsenal of telescopes to play with that many never have to opportunity to get hands on with for many years on end. I'm not talking about the little stuff, I'm talking about 6"+ refractors, and up to 18" reflectors, 10"+ cassegrain's, 120mm+ binoculars, etc.

My guess regarding why Hubble has never taken a shot of earth would be - it has to much magnification at its minimum setting to even view it.

What I'm saying is not an excuse for why NASA this, that, and the other nonsense, and other such agencies regarding their related conflicting BS, lack of, the lies, etc, I could go on.

Anyone that's ever tried to observe the moon with a decent hobbyist telescope with a high magnification eyepiece knows that it's nearly impossible to stay on it. I'm talking about trying to zero in on a small area of the moon. The stars, and planets are no different, and that's where equatorial tracking tripods come to be must haves. Anyone that's actually been there, done that, knows exactly what I'm talking about. Things are in motion.

I grew up reading countless editions of sky and telescope magazine, astronomy magazine, etc. I am on my game compared to pretty much everyone else I know in daily life when it comes to mainstream astronomy. Ask almost anyone to point out a celestial body in the northern hemisphere night sky and they probably can't point out the most basic things. Where's the north star, where's the Andromeda galaxy, and so on.

I do subscribe to a lot of the newer contradictory celestial research that's come out over the years from sources such as the thunderbolts project. The golden age, other ideas, etc.

I have Hubble deep space art hanging on my walls at home, and now I'm looking at it with my head tilted sideways. Is it really all fake?

I was red pilled a long time ago, and like many would say, and I agree with them, that since then, it's been an ongoing journey of enlightenment. I've read through many mind blowing threads and posts on this site, and continue to have my mind blown. I can't thank you all enough for the opportunity to learn about so many things that I wasn't aware of, or never even considered.

 

[WorldWar1812]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: WorldWar1812
Date: 2019-05-29 18:02:14
Reaction Score: 1

I don't think there is any Hubble out there

YEP, right bro'

 

[Kentucky]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: kentucky
Date: 2019-05-29 20:45:07
Reaction Score: 1

We were told those are stars and planets. I understand how ludicrous it sounds, for I fid go to a few educational establishments after all.

But what we really see is a bunch of shimmering lights. Our teachers and parents told us that those are stars and planets. Would we know that if it was not for them?

Our space programs could be for instilling a certain belief, that’s all.

I do have to disagree on one point there KD. If you get your own telescope and go somewhere that has minimal light pollution, you can see the planets and some of their moons at least.

Now, stars at a distance? That's not available to the public, but Jupiter, Saturn, Mars.. Venus, they're all visible and what not. There is also a visible difference between what we're told are planets and the stars, but it could be 'distance' related. Stars have a twinkle to them, the planets are steady and do not twinkle.

I just started reading this thread for the first time and feel that this is a good place to share something that I've pondered for sometime and hope that it sparks exploration in others (or maybe hope to hear from those that have found that this conversation has been had before).

First, this is going on two assumptions - one, that, there is possibly an alternative understanding yet to be publicly uncovered about the nature of what is happening up there; two, if at least *some* of the imagery produced by Hubble is a relatively authentic attempt to capture what is going on "up there", then items such as Hubble's deep field images only seem to support my conjecture, which is:

Whatever is is that may be up there, there is nothing but (using *their* terminology) galaxies and the things that we know as solar planets and their satellites. No stars. Everything that we've called a star since childhood when looking up at the night sky (Orion's Belt, Big Dipper, Polaris, etc), when zoomed in enough to get clarity on it, may be merely the light coming from the center of what we currently call a galaxy, it's "galaxies" all the way down. And those things that make up a galaxy, which we also call stars, may be nothing more than electrical phenomenon.

Now, to speculate even further, if I were allow to offer an even more completely unsubstantiated perspective, you have non-exploded/poorly-charged things (planets, and then you have things that have "exploded" with highly charged things electro-magnetically "orbiting" it. Add to that some perspective which allows us to consider that it's hard to reconcile size vs distance vs speed when looking up there. Things that may appear trillions of light years away may also be much smaller and closer with different levels of "charge" (brightness).

How it relates to our current local environment is a question that may yet to be answered, if looking through a lens alternative to the modern heliocentric view (which in and of itself is an already outdated term that has yet to be replaced, as there was no such thing as a galaxy or even a universe as we have come to know it when that concept and the term heliocentric was coined). When we look to the skies, are "planets" and "moons" what happens to things such as Venus and Saturn when they die/transform? Or are objects such as Saturn and Venus the result of a "galaxy" losing its charge? And is there any "as below" down here that correlates to the "as above" up there?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-05-29 23:02:48
Reaction Score: 1

I just started reading this thread for the first time and feel that this is a good place to share something that I've pondered for sometime and hope that it sparks exploration in others (or maybe hope to hear from those that have found that this conversation has been had before).

First, this is going on two assumptions - one, that, there is possibly an alternative understanding yet to be publicly uncovered about the nature of what is happening up there; two, if at least *some* of the imagery produced by Hubble is a relatively authentic attempt to capture what is going on "up there", then items such as Hubble's deep field images only seem to support my conjecture, which is:

Whatever is is that may be up there, there is nothing but (using *their* terminology) galaxies and the things that we know as solar planets and their satellites. No stars. Everything that we've called a star since childhood when looking up at the night sky (Orion's Belt, Big Dipper, Polaris, etc), when zoomed in enough to get clarity on it, is just the light coming from what we currently call a galaxy, it's "galaxies" all the way down. And those things that make up a galaxy, which we also call stars, are nothing by electrical phenomenon.

Now, to speculate even further, if I were allow to offer an even more completely unsubstantiated perspective, you have non-exploded/poorly-charged things (planets, and then you have things that have "exploded" with highly charged things electro-magnetically "orbiting" it. Add to that some perspective which allows us to consider that it's hard to reconcile size vs distance vs speed when looking up there. Things that may appear trillions of light years away may also be much smaller and closer with different levels of "charge" (brightness).

How it relates to our current local environment is a question that may yet to be answered, if looking through a lens alternative to the modern heliocentric view (which in and of itself is an already outdated term that has yet to be replaced, as there was no such thing as a galaxy or even a universe as we have come to know it when that concept and the term heliocentric was coined). When we look to the skies, are "planets" and "moons" what happens to things such as Venus and Saturn when they die/transform? Or are objects such as Saturn and Venus the result of a "galaxy" losing its charge? And is there any "as below" down here that correlates to the "as above" up there?

You have an interesting perspective. I certainly couldn't tell you one way or another. Perhaps.

I tend to try to stick with what history suggests these days, and not mainstream. I learned so many things to consider from the thunderbolts project ideologies, and of all people, it was actually David Icke that lead me to them via his talks regarding the golden age, saturn, how many planets there used to be in the sky, etc.

This seems like the relevant thread to mention this as it ties into my previous post, but what got me investigating NASA as a potential fraud was, someone I knew laid the moon landing hoax subject on me quite some time ago, and I was like, you know what, if that had ever happened, I should've seen countless pictures of what they left on the moon taken by amateur astronomers in magazines growing up, and I never did. We all know what my research turned up.

As far as why stars twinkle, and perhaps I got that all wrong as well, to the best of my knowledge, they twinkle because of atmospheric shimmer (hot, cold, humidity, etc). They don't put observatory's on high mountain tops, preferably in an arid climate zone for no reason at all. I'd get twinkle on warm summer nights in Montana, and no twinkle on a dry winter night. Winter time was always the best. As below was as above atmospherically speaking.

Atmospheric shimmer was said to be the main benefit of putting a massive telescope such as Hubbel into "space" as it has no significant atmospheric distortion to contend with.

It wouldn't surprise me that it doesn't exist, or perhaps not as described, or perhaps we haven't been told everything. IDK with any certainty.

Based on the OP's observations, mathematics, etc, it really does make the logical - science part of me reconsider everything that we have been told about it.

I don't recall seeing pictures of Mars, or other planets from Hubble, but Hubble has been around a while (supposedly), and perhaps I've just forgot some of its supposed achievements.

 

[Starman]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Starman
Date: 2019-05-30 04:15:34
Reaction Score: 0

YEP, right bro'

Thanks for the video suggestion. Easy for my conspiracy addled brain to believe the Hubble is a hoax after watching the video. Just more ammunition that we are being lied to on a scale unimaginable. That's the ticket - to make sure that the lies are HUGE enough to get people sucked in beyond their ability to think rationally. Go BIG or go home.

Imagine a world where the joke is on us.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: BrokenAgate
Date: 2019-05-30 04:59:51
Reaction Score: 2

What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-05-30 07:02:37
Reaction Score: 1

What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.

Mud from space would certainly be a thing to witness, as all the space is real stuff we get sold in school, media, science etc would go out of the window in an instant but the true marvel would be to see how it copes with the 1000 mph spinning atmosphere.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-05-30 12:53:56
Reaction Score: 2

YEP, right bro'

It was an interesting video, but there's certainly a lot of repetitive dialog, pictures, etc. I felt like I was being told the same thing over, and over (programed).

At around 30:00, one guy says that in his opinion "orbit" doesn't exist, and I'm like, ok... I'd like to hear that guys take on the ISS. It can clearly be seen with the naked eye, and I'm not thinking it's traveling through water at such a velocity.

I've been studying "space" for decades. I was watching "underground" VHS videos regarding proof of the secret space program (star wars) before photoshop, computers, Adobe, etc was around. Many of them videos can be seen on Tyler's "secure team" Y tube channel, and I was watching them before he was born. I've watched many videos on Tyler's Y tube channel that I can debunk in a matter of seconds.

What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.

Interesting idea, and one that I've consider myself. That kind of stuff is actually quite plausible when one considers the thunderbolts project ideologies, and other historical accounts of the planets, where they used to be located (old planets and new planets), some of them passing by the earth, or being knocked out of earth's grasp (electromagnetism or orbit), and through time, these planets have found their current positions in orbit around the sun as we know them now.

Mud from space would certainly be a thing to witness, as all the space is real stuff we get sold in school, media, science etc would go out of the window in an instant but the true marvel would be to see how it copes with the 1000 mph spinning atmosphere.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: PrincepAugus
Date: 2019-06-06 00:34:47
Reaction Score: 2

Lol get a load of this video:

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: rengel
Date: 2019-09-23 09:48:20
Reaction Score: 2

What do you do when there is something contradicting your theory to the point of invalidating it? I don't know about you, but our science declares it a "PARADOX".

Here is my take on Olbert's so called Paradox:
It's a fallacy, not a paradox, and one doesn't need 'cosmic dust' to explain it.

I guess we can agree that there is a limited number of stars visible to the naked eye and that the space between them appears to be black even if it contains more stars (as we can see with the help of instruments), because the visibility of any light source diminishes with distance.

Now, imagine you are an oberserver on earth looking at the sky.
If the first star on any given line of visibility (relative to an observer on earth) is too far away to be seen by the naked eye, the sky appears to be black. Then it doesn't matter, how many millions of other stars are behind this first one. The first one would block their light. This is the fundamental fallacy in Olbert's argument. The strength of the light of these stars is not additive, but is determined by the first star in the line of visibility. If the first star is too distant to be seen by the naked eye, the sky appears to be black. Of course, this holds for any direction the observer is looking in. That's it.

...
I don't recall seeing pictures of Mars, or other planets from Hubble, but Hubble has been around a while (supposedly), and perhaps I've just forgot some of its supposed achievements.

Have you ever googled for 'Hubble Mars'?

 

[Verity]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Verity
Date: 2019-10-27 10:31:34
Reaction Score: 3

Another fellow in the same chat facetiously asked me, "Okay, if you're so smart, then *what is knowledge*?"

What I like so much about what you're saying, is that you zero in on what the ACTUAL means of Science is -- human perception. Nothing more..

I do have to disagree on one point there KD. If you get your own telescope and go somewhere that has minimal light pollution, you can see the planets and some of their moons at least.

All these quotes remind me of a new quote I heard a day or two again from (the late) Terrence McKenna;
'The data stream is corrupted, return to first principles.'
All we can do is hunt down facts we can confirm with our own eyes.

What if space dust is real, and is responsible for all those mysterious dust falls we've read so such about? Like, it accumulates, or is consolidated somehow (artificially), and creates deserts and covers up cities? Just throwing that out there for consideration. I have no idea how it would actually work.

Was reading Velikovsky last night. He seems pretty convinced there is tonnes of the stuff dropping all the time. I just tried to find it in my book to post here but got side-tracked talking to my boy about the Egyptian myth of Set who turned the rivers to blood. He did a project on it a few months back and we couldn't figure out what the blood would have been in reality.
Looks like it was 'space dust', or the foreboding omen of a major cataclysm.

Turns out the tail of the comet that started the fall of the Egyptian 'Middle Kingdom' (and Arabia) started with the falling of red dust on everything. It poisoned the rivers and streams, the animals couldn't drink it any more than the men could, the fish died, decomposed and poisoned the water further.
I'm only a chapter or two in.

He talks the mechanics of it too; our planet was caught in the comets tail. It started with ferruginous dust, a soluble pigment, the world turned red.
It was followed by more dust, gravel and then stones, or 'barad', a word for hail. But these were hot stones. It got worse, rocks fell, and then the freaky 'Naptha', which is described as petroleum, but ignited.
So viscous fire-bombs coming at you from the sky, burning everything it came in contact with.
Then, some massive rock hit, possibly that one in Arizona (which is mentioned but I might be getting ahead of myself). Anyway the 'sky stood still', massive winds rushed over the globe, the internal plasma of the globe kept rotating but the shell of the planet was somewhat stumped it seems, and new mountains formed, broken up from the crust, lands under the sea became cliffs/mountains reaching for the heavens, water was displaced on unimaginable scales, cities dropped under the seas, volcanoes erupted, earthquakes, weeks of night, weeks of daylight, chaos...

basically everything we're looking at in SH, in the first two chapters. I get the feeling this book will filter through in every comment I make here until I've finished it. Due warning..

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Schism
Date: 2019-10-27 11:34:48
Reaction Score: 0

Have you ever googled for 'Hubble Mars'?

Yes, I have. When I replied to this thread quite some time ago, it had been many years since I had looked into some things (a bit rusty).

BTW, I am not one who believes space is water, the Hubble space telescope is not real, and so on. All at the same time, I do not believe the mainstream narratives of such topics wholeheartedly either. I definitely support some non mainstream ideologies such as plasma cosmology, and a couple other things I mentioned previously - etc.

This was a fascinating OP and I entertained the idea for a short period of time, lol. I'd never heard of it.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2019-10-31 18:23:12
Reaction Score: 2

Really intended to post to this a few days ago. Oblers' paradox is only a paradox because the true nature of light is not divulged and therefore this plausible but still silly explanation of space dust is forwarded to cover a paradox created by a lie. It is that simple and it's common among criminal minded persons to try to explain away a paradox with inventions. Every cop with any experience knows that.

Light is a product of induction; wherein the ether (dielectric energy) must be moving through a magnetic field in order for light to be created and to exist. They cannot tell you that without destroying Einstein's physics and that is something they will never do for a host of reasons. Hence we have a paradox due to a criminal construct which is designed to hide the true nature of our physical Universe.

Timm Vanderelli invented the Ferrocell. Just look at what they show. There is no light between the coherent lines of magnetism. There is no light in the center of a magnet viewed top down, that's the black hole the black hole they are telling you swallows spacetime. Really? Wonder why we all haven't been sucked into another dimension if that's the case.
Ferrocell
experiments

You have to have energy in order to have light. All a magnet is doing is creating focused coherent lines of dielectric energy, and which cycles through a center point. The ferrocell can illuminate these dielectric lines but it cannot illuminate space which has nothing in it. So between the lines of magnetism there is no light because the lines are themselves made from the ether which is a dielectric energy.

Space is dark because there's nothing in it, neither energy nor matter, and it can be neither bent, nor molded, as Einstein thought. All matter is mutually attracted to other matter, gravitate towards one another is the term, but that co-gravitation is the product of weight inducted into matter by a moving energy field. Most all matter lies on or near either planes of dielectrical energy or lines of dielectric energy.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Tart Aryan
Date: 2019-10-31 19:43:30
Reaction Score: 1

What do you do when there is something contradicting your theory to the point of invalidating it? I don't know about you, but our science declares it a "PARADOX". A very simple solution to a very complicated problem. Now, everything in this story is official, and that makes it just that more ridiculous. That's my personal opinion only, but feel free to voice yours.

Dark Night Sky Paradox

View attachment 3385

In a nutshell ~ Olbers' paradox. The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a flood light due to the amount of stars up there. This is clearly not the case. And the reason we do not see this overwhelming sky size spot light shining down our own backyard is... cosmic dust blocking the view.

• Olber's paradox is explained by cosmic dust instead of the Big Bang
• On Olber’s Paradox
• Wikipedia - Olber's paradox

View attachment 3389
Schematic of the distribution of stars in an infinite universe and Olber's Paradox
Credit: Penn State Astronomy & Astrophysics

Hubble Space Telescope

View attachment 3386

Hubble orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 353 miles (569 kilometers). It takes about 97 minutes to complete one orbit around the Earth. Hubble passes into the shadow of the Earth for 28 to 36 minutes in each orbit.

Here are some of the pictures allegedly made by this awesome piece of equipment. More HUBBLE pictures at this NASA link.

• Hubble’s Lonely Firework Display - Roughly 50 million light-years away the little galaxy NGC 1559 has hosted a variety of spectacular exploding stars called supernovae.

View attachment 3387

• Hubble Spots a Green Cosmic Arc - This Hubble Space Telescope image shows a cluster of hundreds of galaxies located about 7.5 billion light-years from Earth.

View attachment 3388

My question: Where is this interstellar cosmic dust? How come this Hubble thing allegedly orbiting our planet at 353 mile altitude can take a photo of galaxies located 7.5 billion light years away? NASA taught it to see through the dust?

7.5 billion light years away... how many miles is it? Let's see.

1 light year = 5.88 trillion miles.
7,500,000,000 light years x 5,800,000,000,000 = no clue what this is called but my calculator demonstrated this 4.35^22 miles. I think in a more conventional way the distance looks like this - 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.

This is your paradox, ladies and gentlemen: The night sky is supposed to be lit up like a gigantic floodlight. Obviously it is not because we have this interstellar cosmic dust blocking our view. Yet the Hubble telescope orbiting 353 miles above Earth is able to penetrate at least 4.35^22 miles of dust saturated space and snap a photo of some Galaxies far far away.

What's funny, we are so dull, we believe this non-sense. What's even funnier, Hubble is unable to take a picture of Earth. Why? Here is why:

• The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.

Hubble orbit speed: 5 miles per second at 353 miles above Earth
ISS orbit speed: 4.76 miles per second at 205-270 miles above Earth

$2.5 billion Hubble telescope weighing, 24,500 pounds and measured at 43.5 feet does not have a camera to take a picture of Earth located only 353 miles away. Yet, it brings us joy with the images of the galaxies located 43,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. It is also capable of penetrating 4.35^22 miles of space dust. That same dust preventing the stellar light from reaching our planet Earth.

Are we being duped?

In this case I don’t think we’re being duped. It makes perfect sense that its shutterspeed isn’t fast enough to take a picture while also moving that fast. If it could take a picture of Earth that would be the real conundrum.

As for how it penetrates all of that space dust, the exposure times on this thing are days, weeks and months. It’s staring at the same spot in the sky and taking a long exposure shot. Over that long of an interval that dust will move and the light will peak out and be captured.

Professional photographer in my younger years. I see nothing strange here at all.

Really intended to post to this a few days ago. Oblers' paradox is only a paradox because the true nature of light is not divulged and therefore this plausible but still silly explanation of space dust is forwarded to cover a paradox created by a lie. It is that simple and it's common among criminal minded persons to try to explain away a paradox with inventions. Every cop with any experience knows that.

Light is a product of induction; wherein the ether (dielectric energy) must be moving through a magnetic field in order for light to be created and to exist. They cannot tell you that without destroying Einstein's physics and that is something they will never do for a host of reasons. Hence we have a paradox due to a criminal construct which is designed to hide the true nature of our physical Universe.

Timm Vanderelli invented the Ferrocell. Just look at what they show. There is no light between the coherent lines of magnetism. There is no light in the center of a magnet viewed top down, that's the black hole the black hole they are telling you swallows spacetime. Really? Wonder why we all haven't been sucked into another dimension if that's the case.
Ferrocell
experiments

You have to have energy in order to have light. All a magnet is doing is creating focused coherent lines of dielectric energy, and which cycles through a center point. The ferrocell can illuminate these dielectric lines but it cannot illuminate space which has nothing in it. So between the lines of magnetism there is no light because the lines are themselves made from the ether which is a dielectric energy.

Space is dark because there's nothing in it, neither energy nor matter, and it can be neither bent, nor molded, as Einstein thought. All matter is mutually attracted to other matter, gravitate towards one another is the term, but that co-gravitation is the product of weight inducted into matter by a moving energy field. Most all matter lies on or near either planes of dielectrical energy or lines of dielectric energy.

Have you ever made a ferrocell? You should make one it will change some of your thoughts on how they work. Especially once you understand how a commercial one used Wheeler functions. Making your own allows you to see without the refraction of commercial ones.

 

[KD Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: KorbenDallas
Date: 2019-10-31 20:00:51
Reaction Score: 0

In this case I don’t think we’re being duped. It makes perfect sense that it’s shutterspeed isn’t fast enough to take a picture while also moving that fast. If it could take a picture of Earth that would be the real conundrum.

As for how it penetrates all of that space dust, the exposure times on this thing are days, weeks and months. It’s staring at the same spot in the sky and taking a long exposure shot. Over that long of an interval that dust will move and the light will peak out and be captured.

Professional photographer in my younger years. I see nothing strange here at all.

Have you ever made a ferrocell? You should make one it will change some of your thoughts on how they work. Especially once you understand how a commercial one used Wheeler functions. Making your own allows you to see without the refraction of commercial ones.

If it was that easy to explain, they would not call it a paradox.