There are cases of people who claimed this hypersensitivity, and when they went to a radio telescope area in WV that has a "radio blackout zone", their health improved. A better experiment would be to take them there "blind" without them having any knowledge of what the place is, to see if they improved without knowledge of the blackout.

A friend of mine is a PhD student in Astronomy and he sometimes observes at Arecibo in Puerto Rico (a single radio telescope). And his collaboration will generate so much data that it's faster and cheaper to send by mail on external hard drives than through any sort of network!

Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

That's incorrect. We have radio telescope images of the galactic center which is 26000 light years away. Second, the estimates are based not on what we can't see, but the percentage that we can see and then averaging for the rest.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

Actually, O3 type stars can go nova in about 3 million years time, according to that model.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

You can't argue that the galaxy is that old because the stars are that old, when that is the thing in dispute. The argument is intending to prove the stars couldn't be that old in the first place, thus proving the galaxy is not that old.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

According to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html

"Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before."

So, they can be visible up to 1,000,000 years, yet we don't find even one at the maximum range of expansion that we are able to detect (or anywhere near it). We should be seeing the entire range of the spectrum, but the biggest we can find (according to their model), is 20000 years old. So this evidence doesn't hold up and the point remains.

But of course. Silly me. I knew that.... I was just excited.

And yeah, what is special is the altitude -- a dry place high up so not as much atmosphere between the antennae and what they are watching.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^bareboards2:
I love that they are approaching the idea of an observatory in a different way. Not one huge telescope but an array.

The idea of antennae array has been around for a long time, so I don't know what is so special about these exactly. I mean, remember contact, when she goes to the desert...and there were like dozens of antenna? That was a antennae array, and there are several space array systems in the world...and any radio telescopes can be linked up to form an array with some effort. The real step, I'm guessing, is in the most dry desert in the world. It is compared to a mars-scape.

Edit: Grammar...sometimes I think I need a lobotomy

>> ^bareboards2:

I love that they are approaching the idea of an observatory in a different way. Not one huge telescope but an array.


The idea of antennae array has been around for a long time, so I don't know what is so special about these exactly. I mean, remember contact, when she goes to the desert...and there were like dozens of antenna? That was a antennae array, and there are several space array systems in the world...and any radio telescopes can be linked up to form an array with some effort. The real step, I'm guessing, is in the most dry desert in the world. It is compared to a mars-scape.


Edit: Grammar...sometimes I think I need a lobotomy

That radio telescope is a movie star.

'The Dish' trailer

>> ^eric3579:

The very high angular resolving power will be achieved when used in conjunction with a ground-based system of radio-telescopes and interferometrical methods, operating at wavelengths of 1.35–6.0, 18.0 and 92.0 cm. With its Earth-based companions, it will form a network able to provide detailed images of the universe at 1,000 times the resolution attainable using the Hubble Space Telescope. -wiki
>> ^rychan:
>> ^rich_magnet:
The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.

Yeah, how can any radio telescope be remotely as sharp as a visible light telescope? At that frequency it's hard to get high angular resolution from a single dish.



Ok, that's believable. But the title and summary clearly imply that this single instrument will be 1,000 times sharper than the HST.

The very high angular resolving power will be achieved when used in conjunction with a ground-based system of radio-telescopes and interferometrical methods, operating at wavelengths of 1.35–6.0, 18.0 and 92.0 cm. With its Earth-based companions, it will form a network able to provide detailed images of the universe at 1,000 times the resolution attainable using the Hubble Space Telescope. -wiki

>> ^rychan:

>> ^rich_magnet:
The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.

Yeah, how can any radio telescope be remotely as sharp as a visible light telescope? At that frequency it's hard to get high angular resolution from a single dish.

>> ^rich_magnet:

The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.


Yeah, how can any radio telescope be remotely as sharp as a visible light telescope? At that frequency it's hard to get high angular resolution from a single dish.

The title is quite misleading. Hubble is a visible/UV telescope, where this one is a radio telescope. They image completely different parts of the spectrum. Think of the comparison of the ground-based VLA and VLT telescopes: quite different instruments.

>> ^Duckman33:
I'm referring to NASA's own pictures after the landing has taken place. Not the footage of the landing. You tell me where the blast crater is, or any disturbed dust under the thruster of the lander for that matter in these pictures:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5873.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5927.jpg
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5931.jpg
The first linked picture pretty much sums up my point. I suppose they moved the lander to a different spot then took the pictures because the blast crater created by the thruster was unsightly? I'm not saying it was fake or not. But there are many discrepancies in NASA's own pictures that need to be answered.


What does disturbed dust look like as opposed to undisturbed dust? What does a blast crater in a bunch of craters look like? Even more so, this isn't earth dust, most of it is very ridged and doesn't behave in the same manor as the rounded dust you and I are exposed to everyday. You are using your experiences of unlike conditions on earth to equate to the entirely different conditions on the moon and trying to pass that as a reasonable.

I tell you who doesn't doubt the moon landing; radio telescope operators who traced its decent and ascent to and from the moons surface. Not to mention that the government couldn't keep the Manhattan project a secret and NASA is 20 times as large as. The Russians would have been the first ones to call our bluff.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'jody, foster, movie, sagan' to 'jody, jodie, foster, movie, carl, sagan, ann, druyan, prime, seti, radio, telescope' - edited by my15minutes