APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by APOD Robot » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:05 am

Image All of These Space Images are Fake Except One

Explanation: Why would you want to fake a universe? For one reason -- to better understand our real universe. Many astronomical projects seeking to learn properties of our universe now start with a robotic telescope taking sequential images of the night sky. Next, sophisticated computer algorithms crunch these digital images to find stars and galaxies and measure their properties. To calibrate these algorithms, it is useful to test them on fake images from a fake universe to see if the algorithms can correctly deduce purposely imprinted properties. The featured mosaic of fake images was created to specifically mimic the images that have appeared on NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD). Only one image of the 225 images is real -- can you find it? The accomplished deceptors have made available individual fake APOD images that can be displayed by accessing their ThisIsNotAnAPOD webpage or Twitter feed. More useful for calibrating and understanding our distant universe, however, are fake galaxies -- a sampling of which can be seen at their ThisIsNotAGalaxy webpage.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

User avatar
alter-ego
Serendipitous Sleuthhound
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by alter-ego » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:21 am

I did find it almost immediately, sort of stood out I thought. Only then did I find the answer right in front of me :)
Crab Nebula
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11656
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Ann » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:30 am

Hey, alter-ego, I spotted it almost right away and I was right, too!

Ann
Color Commentator

RocketRon

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by RocketRon » 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 ...

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11656
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Ann » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:51 am

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 ...
These images are not "obtained". They are "created", using algorithms.

Fake NASA images.png
Fake NASA images of a warped galaxy (left) and a warped nebula(???)
Or is that another fake version of a warped galaxy?
Integral Sign Galaxy UGC 3697 SDSS DECaLS.png
True image of a warped galaxy, the Integral Sign Galaxy
or UGC 3697. Photo: DECaLS

The Integral Sign Galaxy, UGC 3697, is for real, and the picture is real, too. In order to figure out how galaxies warp, NASA created the warped galaxy image at left, and they also created something else that is warped, and which looks like a warped nebula to me. Or is that another galaxy?

Anyway. By comparing the fake image of a warped galaxy with a real image of a real warped galaxy, NASA could test how well they understand the processes that cause galaxies to warp.

Ann
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Ann on Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

Ironwood

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Ironwood » Tue Nov 09, 2021 7:24 am

I recognized the APOD of September 6, 2020.

Iksarfighter
Ensign
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Iksarfighter » Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:42 am

CN is real image.

The only one with a good contrast and a deep black.

stephen ramsden

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by stephen ramsden » Tue Nov 09, 2021 10:23 am

ironic that APOD is publishing this as they are
pretty much renowned for both publishing fake images and being the impetus for the silly overcompetitiveness that drives people to fake their images.

Dan

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Dan » Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:21 am

I thought at first, oh great... soooo many I might just skip this.

But my eye was immediately drawn to it.

Ya just can't fake nature :lol2:

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16229
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Chris Peterson » 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.)
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 6993
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by orin stepanek » Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:55 pm

AIapods01_Geach_960.jpg
Nice to look at anyway! :roll:
.jpg
Roaring to go! 'Er; mewing to go! :wink:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by orin stepanek on Tue Nov 09, 2021 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Orin

Smile today; tomorrow's another day!

ems57fcva
Ensign
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Silver Spring, VA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by ems57fcva » Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:21 pm

No trouble finding the real image. But I did enjoy the postcard from Tatooine. :-)

E Fish
Science Officer
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:29 pm

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by E Fish » 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?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 16229
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Chris Peterson » Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:20 pm

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?
I think the term is used here simply for its rhetorical value. With a bit of humor.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11656
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Ann » Tue Nov 09, 2021 5:50 pm

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?
Those very strange assigned colors to wavelengths we can see, and which are sufficiently well separated to produce colors that look obviously different to our eyes, or assigning longer-wave colors to shorter wave filter images and shorter-wave colors to longer-wave filter images, are things I really can't deal with. They are needless and provocative violations of chromaticity!

There was such an "unreasonably false color APOD" recently that I decided to have nothing to do with, and say nothing about!

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18572
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by neufer » Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 pm

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: <<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.>>
Art Neuendorffer

ems57fcva
Ensign
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Silver Spring, VA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by ems57fcva » Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:52 am

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?
With the CN picture, the colors are synthetic, but the phenomena they depict (being the view in wavelengths of light that we both can and cannot see) are real. So that is a "real" image even if it is a view that we cannot see with our eyes. Many APODs are like that: Views of the universe taken in wavelengths that we cannot see and rendered in a form that we can see and appreciate.

The issue with the other pictures is that they are all synthetic: The astronomical parts are all computer-generated. They are not real objects in our sky (or the sky in them is not "real".) So in this APOD, "fake" = "synthetic". Otherwise there are plenty of times that simulations and artist's impressions have become APODs, and on 5th anniversary (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000616.html) and 15th anniversary (https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100616.html) the images were quite synthetic.

User avatar
alter-ego
Serendipitous Sleuthhound
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by alter-ego » Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:30 am

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

Ann
Yeah, it was an interesting and fast thought/recognition process. At first glance, I thought holy crap! Am I going to have to search for all these APOD look-alikes. When I clicked on the image and zoomed in and looked at subsets of 4 x 3 images, I couldn't recall or identify any of the images except the Crab. When I went back and look at the whole array, it was clear as a a sparkler at night - the Crab stuck out as the only one I could recognize for sure.
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist

User avatar
RJN
Baffled Boffin
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: Michigan Tech

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by RJN » Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:11 pm

FYI this APOD was reported on in the Daily Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... t-one.html

SeedsofEarfth

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by SeedsofEarfth » Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:19 pm

I believe the Crab Nebula is real. I have seen this image many times over the years.

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18572
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by neufer » Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:52 pm

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:
<<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.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 11656
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by Ann » Wed Nov 10, 2021 6:15 pm

neufer wrote:
Tue Nov 09, 2021 8:38 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability wrote: <<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.>>
👽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.:rocketship:👽🛸

🚀In contrast, the observation of a single alien civilization is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible, and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.👽 :rocketship:

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 18572
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: All of These Space Images are Fake... (2021 Nov 09)

Post by neufer » Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:33 pm

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.
Verifying the claim "Earth sized planets in the habitable zone are half-full (rather than half-empty) of water" would require observing all habitable planets in the Universe. In contrast, the observation of a single earth sized planet in the habitable zone that is half-full (rather than half-empty) of water is technologically reasonable, or at least theoretically possible.
Art Neuendorffer