On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:22:58 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:31:31 UTC, Eric Stevens  wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 07:58:15 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
>><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 14:20:16 UTC, Mayayana  wrote:
>> >> "David B."<DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> wrote
>> >> 
>> >> | 
>> >> http://www.sci-techuniverse.com/2017/11/nasas-1-billion-jupiter-pro...
>> >> |
>> >> | Fascinating images.
>> >> 
>> >>   Except that the colors are made-up, 
>> >
>> >all colours are made up, it;s what our eye does, colours don;t really exist.
>> >But I do no what you mean the colours are used to sperate things that are going on making them
easier to see. A bit less crude than a highlight pen 
>> >
>> >
>> >>so what
>> >> you're really seeing is sci-fi fantasy.
>> >
>> >Not really it's being  able to see more wavelenghs or more information than the human eye could
actually see.
>> >
>> >Itls a bit likke claiming that bats don;t fly at night because you can;t see them in the dark,
in ordee to see how they fly yuo could use infra-red light with an infra-red sensative camera, you'd
see bats flying but not their correct colour.
>> >
>> >It;s a bit like teh link below we can;t see carbon dioxide in the air but colouring it makes it
easier to see and understand,
>> >
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41604760
>> >
>> >So as long as you appreciate this there shouldn't be a problem.
>> >
>> Except that is not any sort of a photographic image. Its a computer
>> generated diagram based on observational data.
>
>No one said it was a photographic image, perhaps you assumed it was because you viewed it using
your eyes.

We were discussing photographic images and then, suddenly, without
warning you popped up a computer generated diagram.

>
>> >
>> > On the
>> >> bright side, NASA images are public domain
>> >> by law.
>> -- 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Eric Stevens
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens