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

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
150
Reactions
716
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

Well-known member
Messages
1,570
Reactions
5,065
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.
 

perplexed

Well-known member
Messages
36
Reactions
128
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.
 

Schism

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
163
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.

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.


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.
 
Last edited:

kentucky

Well-known member
Messages
70
Reactions
277
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?
 
Last edited:

Schism

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
163
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

Active member
Messages
46
Reactions
209
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.
 

BrokenAgate

Well-known member
Messages
367
Reactions
1,319
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.
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
808
Reactions
2,176
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.
 
Last edited:

Schism

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
163
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.
👍
 
Top