Yonkers Planetarium Manager Sheds Light On NASA's Newest Photograph

  • Comments (3)

YONKERS, N.Y. -- Astronomers, using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, have assembled a comprehensive picture of the universe – among the most colorful deep space images ever captured by the 24-year-old telescope, according to a release NASA issued

Yonkers' Hudson River Museum's Andrus Planetarium Manager Marc Taylor shed some slight on what the photo means, and how locals can use the planetarium to learn more about the make up of the Universe. 

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 image is a composite of separate exposures taken from 2003 to 2012 with Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys and Wide Field Camera 3.

"Because the telescope is not attached to Earth, they can point it at one part of the sky for very long time with great accuracy," he said. "They basically add all of that data up, all the light scattered throughout, and get an image of all the things that would be too faint to see from Earth."

Taylor said NASA has done this several times before, but when first ones were done, they were in infrared. This image, however, goes in the UV spectrum, which is light that humans are unable to see, until it is converted into visible colors. 

Taylor said what the photo teaches NASA and the scientific community is a sense of, "galactic demographics." It shows the different kinds of galaxies and systems within the Universe and how they fit together.

Taylor said the planetarium will incorporate popular discoveries like this one that into their programs, and encouraged those who wish to learn more about it to ask questions during their presentations.

"The new planetarium is able to take data, which is being gathered by studies like this, and basically turn it into a form where you could really fly through it and see it from different perspectives," he said. "Now, you can do more than just look at a still picture."

He added that the planetarium currently has a model of what entire universe is like, which they use during their shows.

The Hudson River Museum's Andrus Planetarium is open to the public on weekends, with earlier programs for young children on the basics, and live shows later on for older children and adults exploring deeper topics like the search for alien life.

The museum is located at 511 Warburton Ave. 



  • 3

Comments (3)


Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That's contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

"The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation" (Dr. Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses"). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.

Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn't support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It is one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

Most people don't realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn't report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.

Read the Internet article, 'SMOKING GUN' PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert.

I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)


*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.

It took a little longer than expected for this comment to claim scientific evidence supports creationism over natural origins, but when it finally did, it definitely stuck to the traditional "people disagree about details, which means the big-picture concept must be moot" route.

People will always believe irrational things, for varying reasons, but for those of us trying to interpret reality, we must hold people accountable when they try to refute ideas based on evidence and replace those ideas with theories based on anecdotes. Science is constantly evolving and never claims to be 100% right, so when someone claims something as the absolute truth, make sure they don't claim it was scientifically derived.