Starship Asterisk*

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

And whence where all these obtained ??

(And how did the algorithm(s) do in sorting them ???)

____________________________________________________
The difference between an optimist and a pessimist.
An optimist is one who sez that all that happens is for the better.
A pessimist is the one it happens to ...

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:36 pm

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

E Fish wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:36 pm

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

E Fish wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:36 pm

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fake

fake : of unknown origin; attested in London criminal slang as adjective (1775, "counterfeit"), verb (1812, "to rob"), and noun (1851, "a swindle;" of persons 1888, "a swindler"), but probably older. A likely source is feague "to spruce up by artificial means," from German fegen "polish, sweep," also "to clear out, plunder" in colloquial use. Or it may be from Latin facere "to do."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability wrote:

Even with no black swans to possibly falsify it, "All swans are white" would still be falsifiable—a black swan would still be a state of affairs, only an imaginary one.

---

<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.

Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

E Fish wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:36 pm

RocketRon wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am The question here is then - what makes a 'fake' image in astronomy ?

Of course, these images aren't really "fake", any more than a painting of a landscape is "fake" in comparison with a photograph. They are is synthesized images that realistically represent an assortment of astronomical objects.

(I'd argue that "fake" often carries with it the idea of an intent to deceive.)

That's my issue with the description. Why call the images fake? False color images, assigning colors to wavelengths we can see with our eyes, enhancing details so that we can better appreciate them... are all those things fake? I mean, even the correct one has had colors assigned to it. So... is that fake, too?

Ann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am Hey, alter-ego, I spotted it almost right away and I was right, too!

Ann

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:19 pm
I believe the Crab Nebula is real. I have seen this image many times over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_stick wrote:

Mr. KRABS ticks

---

<<Crab sticks, krab sticks, imitation crab meat or seafood sticks (originally known as kanikama in Japan) are a type of seafood made of starch and finely pulverized white fish (surimi) that has been shaped and cured to resemble the leg meat of snow crab or Japanese spider crab. It is a product that uses fish meat to imitate shellfish meat. Legal restrictions now prevent them from being marketed as "Crab Sticks" in many places, as they usually do not have crab meat. Most crab sticks today are made from Alaska pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) of the North Pacific Ocean. This main ingredient is often mixed with fillers such as wheat, and egg white (albumen) or other binding ingredient, such as the enzyme transglutaminase. Crab flavoring is added (natural or more commonly, artificial) and a layer of red food coloring is applied to the outside.>>

neufer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability wrote:

Even with no black swans to possibly falsify it, "All swans are white" would still be falsifiable—a black swan would still be a state of affairs, only an imaginary one.

---

<<In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation statement that has a conventional empirical interpretation. For example, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because "Here is a black swan" contradicts it. The contradictory observation statement, also called a potential falsifier, can correspond to an imaginary state of affairs: it is a logical construction that does not have to correspond to an actual past, present or even future falsification. But, it must be observable with existing technologies that would be valid in scientific evidence against the theory.

Falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book Logik der Forschung (1934), faithfully translated into English by him and two other translators in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation. Without falsifiability, there is no predictive power and statistical tests are not applicable, seriously compromising usefulness. These predictions and tests are used within a methodology that, in Popper's own account, is hardly rigorous, because it involves irrational creative processes and, as pointed out by Duhem and others, definitive experimental falsifications are impossible. However, Popper insisted that falsifiability is a logical criterion and, therefore, does not have these problems and is sufficient to make these mathematical tools applicable within a critical discussion. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

Ann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:15 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability wrote:
<< Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science and pseudo-science, falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific controversies and applications.>>

Verifying the claim "There are no alien civilizations out there" would require observing all habitable planets and moons in the Universe, as well as all other places where a technological civilization might dwell, such as on an advanced space ship, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.