The evolutionary reason for space pics to look cool

kwerk

kwerk

kwerk

Wise Guy
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2009
Posts
5,748
When I look at pictures of space and galaxies and the like I think how beautiful it is. Even if I just look up at a clear night sky it's really impressive.

Same thing for mountains. Why do mountain look so nice?? We can't eat them or trade them or **** them. Maybe early humans knew there would be clean water available near them and that's why we are drawn to them??

But what was the evolutionary pressure that made human brains wired to find space beautiful? Or have we been culturally programmed to like it? Maybe the earliest people who appreciated the stars the most became the best navigators and passed on that trait. Still doesn't explain why a close up of a galaxy would look so awesome though, it's an unnatural sight.


arp273hst.jpg
 
Dunks said:
Note to OP, they're all artists impressions, sadly space does not look like that.
Click to expand...

What?

Yeah, i don't see why it would be linked to evolution as such. But i think we enjoy such sights because it adds perspective to our lives, to see something so magnificent and... huge makes us realize just how insignificant we are. That often leads to a complete change in attitude.
 
Dunks said:
Note to OP, they're all artists impressions, sadly space does not look like that.
Click to expand...

The image above is taken with a Newtonian telescope, you can tell by the diffraction spikes in the stars, the colours are stretched out to make them more visible to our eyes. If you look at space with the entire spectrum it looks even more fantastic. :)
 
Most photos we see of space are colour enhanced. If you were to fly a spaceship up close to the Orion nebule (for example) and look out the window, it wouldn't look anywhere near as impressive as the photos make it look, assuming it'd even be visible at all.
 
kwerk said:
Still doesn't explain why a close up of a galaxy would look so awesome though, it's an unnatural sight.
Click to expand...

that's because it's a false colour image.

the images of the nebulas which look so great/spectacular they're bull****, composites made up from lots of different views that show up various chemical elements better, they don't actually look like that.
 
Mik3 said:
The image above is taken with a Newtonian telescope, you can tell by the diffraction spikes in the stars, the colours are stretched out to make them more visible to our eyes. If you look at space with the entire spectrum it looks even more fantastic. :)
Click to expand...

Strong post/sig combo :)

It's nothing to do with evolution. I bet you could ask any number of people and they wouldn't have the slightest interest in mountains or what the galaxy looks like.
 
[FnG]magnolia;20350520 said:
I bet you could ask any number of people and they wouldn't have the slightest interest in mountains or what the galaxy looks like.
Click to expand...

You know, I think they would.

Here's a theory I've just pulled out of my donkey. There's an evolutionary advantage to the urge to explore. It means you and your tribe are likely to find new lands to inhabit, new resources to exploit, and generally make your tribe thrive, thus making it more likely that you'll pass on your genes.

Pictures of planets and galaxies represent unexplored territory. There's nothing inherent in the images themselves to suggest that, but we've been trained to recognise a picture of a galaxy as a galaxy. Once you learn that there's all that space out there, all those places to explore, it's natural to want to visit them and see them close up. We associate those images with the urge to explore.

There you go - a possible link to evolution.
 
SlyReaper said:
Most photos we see of space are colour enhanced. If you were to fly a spaceship up close to the Orion nebule (for example) and look out the window, it wouldn't look anywhere near as impressive as the photos make it look, assuming it'd even be visible at all.
Click to expand...

Tefal said:
that's because it's a false colour image.

the images of the nebulas which look so great/spectacular they're bull****, composites made up from lots of different views that show up various chemical elements better, they don't actually look like that.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at in my post, Permabanned.
 
Its the psychological impact of Awe(some). Think rabbit in headlights effect. When something is significantly 'bigger than you' (literally or symbolically) the resulted rush of emotions creates a tangibl, notable and memorable experience
 
I think we're projecting a bit here. Just because we find it fascinating and awe-inspiring or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else necessarily does. In fact, it doesn't even mean that many people do.
 
Tefal said:
that's because it's a false colour image.

the images of the nebulas which look so great/spectacular they're bull****, composites made up from lots of different views that show up various chemical elements better, they don't actually look like that.
Click to expand...

That's still what the object looks like. Just because they've taken the image using something more sensitive than the human eye doesn't detract from that at all. Broad or non-visible spectrum images are more useful from a scientific point of view than images taken purely in visible light, but it doesn't make them less impressive. It just makes them viable pictures to take. Because as you've probably noticed, we aren't right next to it.

Even if that's not what they would look like to you, that's still what they look like. If i took a picture of you in infared it would still be what you look like, just what you look like in infared. Are you saying that any image that is edited is less impressive because of it? Because i know of an entire photographic community that would disagree with you.

SlyReaper said:
Most photos we see of space are colour enhanced. If you were to fly a spaceship up close to the Orion nebule (for example) and look out the window, it wouldn't look anywhere near as impressive as the photos make it look, assuming it'd even be visible at all.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see if you still held that view after having looked at M42 through a decent telescope.
 
PermaBanned said:
That's still what the object looks like. Just because they've taken the image using something more sensitive than the human eye doesn't detract from that at all. Broad or non-visible spectrum images are more useful from a scientific point of view than images taken purely in visible light, but it doesn't make them less impressive. It just makes them viable pictures to take. Because as you've probably noticed, we aren't right next to it.

Even if that's not what they would look like to you, that's still what they look like. If i took a picture of you in infared it would still be what you look like, just what you look like in infared. Are you saying that any image that is edited is less impressive because of it? Because i know of an entire photographic community that would disagree with you.



I'd like to see if you still held that view after having looked at M42 through a decent telescope.
Click to expand...

There's a guy who works with them on here somewhere he posted a a quite detailed description on how they're made (+ the composite) parts they're basically paintings.

saying how amazing something looks when it's not actually what it looks like is just pointless.

if you ever got there it would be more like a grey barely visible fog.



take a stick man, take a picture of it and then make an artists interpretation of it looking like the Mona Lisa and you wouldn't be bigging up the stick man as brilliant would you?
 
Most of the time they assign a particular colour to the wavelengths detected, nothing to do with the 'colour' of the object at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom