If we have Hubble space images of clusters of galaxies that were supposedly taken by focusing on a blank section of the sky,
Why are you asking questions which have been answered forever ago? You just admitted you never research anything.
Focus into infinity at stellar distances and low luminosity is the exact opposite of very near focus at high luminosity.
Your claim is saying, the fact race cars are not used for commuters is proof roads don't exist. It's almost as if tools are developed for specific tasks and are unfit for tasks for which they were not intended.
We have satellite imagery of mountain ranges and glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland, covered in ice. Is that more or less luminosity?
Not from Hubble we don't. Hubble has covers to prevent damage to its sensors from bright light sources. Those pictures are from sats designed to do so in our orbit.
Why do you guys never know anything about anything?
Spent time studying the Hubble telescope then.
Did you watch a special on History channel?
You feign this utter superiority over people who simply have a questioning attitude over things that we're just supposed to take as fact on the word of a government agency, when all you're doing is spouting the words of those same sources in question. It's frankly pathetic.
(post is archived)