/sci/ - Science & Math

read about interferometry
they use many telescopes in order to create one big telescope in effect
imagine if we could place a radio telescope on pluto, and one on some moon on Jupiter while on the other side of the solar system
it would be an insanely big telescope!

a more realistic future is to use the moon
then I'm sure we would get sharper images

>>10541524
Pretty sure that pluto image came from a flyby

>>10541524
I assume with a bigger Very Large Array system you could get a higher resolution up to a certain degree. with radio satellites in space which are linked to satellites on earth you could up the angular resolution far greater

So according to Varitasium's video an image of Sagittarius A was also captured?

>>10541557
Black hole flybys when?

>>10541524
>What would it take to get a proper sharp image?
Think about the wavelength of radio waves. It's not great at being high resolution with waves that are measured in meters.
It's benefit is that it passes through most other mediums letting you see through dust and gas.

Maybe when we FUCKING launch Webb up already

>>10541558
SKA can't come soon enough!

>>10541607
Webb isn't even going to have the same resolution as hubble, but it can look deeper into IR.

>>10541524
That's not the first image of pluto.

>>10541607
never ever

https://youtu.be/S_GVbuddri8

Clearest Image of Pluto (2016)*
* actualy not real image, (((enhanced by NASA to make it clearer)))

>>10541607
should rename it to JUST at this rate

>>10541684
What we gonna achive first
Man on Mars or Webb in Space

why dont we build mirror telescopes with 1km diameter?

>>10541681
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>10541687
I think Webb on Mars is more likely than the two things you proposed.

>>10541524
how would they know that this is a black hole? where is the evidence?`

>>10541572
there is way too much shit in the way for such a clear image of sagitarrius a

>>10541678
>thumbnail
I thought we didn't have any images of SgrA* yet?

>>10541709
looks like a duck
behaves like a duck
was theorized to be a duck for a long ass time
-> probably is a duck

>>10541699
YAAASSS!!! WE'RE LITERALLY THE FIRST GENERATION TO ARTISTICALLY REPRODUCE A BLACK HOLE AND CALL IT REAL!! THIS IS EVERYTHING!!!! JUST...THIS!!!!! PLAYING MASS EFFECT ANDROMEDA NOW TO HYPE MYSELF UP FOR SPACE!!!!!

>>10541572
>Angular size of 50 µas
And the telescope array has an angular resolution of 20 µas. No wonder it's blurry.

>>10541698
Why dont we just invent FTL and Unlimited Energy?

>>10541731
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

>>10541736
lol just connect photovoltaic to a lamp
why is science so dumb?

>>10541709
it should be against the law to be this stupid

>>10541666
Man, astronomers are such a good spot the difference player.

>>10541698
It's really a matter of mass. If you could make an umbrella-shaped aragoscope, it might be able to take a few photos, but I have no clue if NASA has ever considered it, let alone if it's feasible

>>10541607
>mfw rocket explodes

>>10541666
I really wonder how do they spot this shit

>>10541828
>>10541806
They use A.I

>>10541729
its not an association problem. ducks are proven to exist, black holes are not

>>10541748
if it is so obvious and simple that black holes exist give me conclusive evidence. maybe I really am a fucking stupid idiot but I dont see the evidence. hell I am too stupid to understand the schwarzschild radius, why an event horizon can even exist

>>10541849
>they used AI in 1930

>>10541748
Lifetime in daycare should be a sentence enforced by the state.

>>10541572
That's 50 micro astronomical units?

>>10541828

>>10541851
>its not an association problem. ducks are proven to exist, black holes are not
They are now. There was once a time when ducks were not proven to be exist. Imagine if a man had held up a duck as proof only to be answered with “How do you know that’s a duck? They’re not proven to exist!”

>>10541572

Rule 34 on M87 and SgrA now.

>>10541851
there's very conclusive evidence from back when scientists observed the center of the milky way, there was a really small invisible object that was slingshotting stars with massive amounts of force.

>>10541897
50 micro arc seconds or 1/72000000 degrees. It's the angular size.

>>10541908
ok, in which hand are you holding the black hole you morron with your stupid analogy? I too remember when our ancestors were still swinging on trees and came up with mathematical constructs that predict the existence of ducks

>>10541915
I know. when I looked for evidence of black holes this is what I found as the best evidence for their existence. here is even a video of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOW-NYPEp84

still its not conclusive evidence

>>10541524
random shitposting crossboarder to say what the fuck
one of the most exciting pictures of this era

>>10541928
was that referring to distance or angles??

>>10541524
We got that clearer picture of Pluto by sending a camera 99% of the way to Pluto. Not my making a better camera. That black hole appears some 5000 times smaller than Pluto does as seen from earth, yet that picture of the hole is already appreciably better than that earth picture of Pluto (Hubble is basically earth)

>>10541941
Angles.

>>10541935
okay, i like the way you're thinking but, there's severe gravitational lensing on such a short-diameter objects whenever we observe the trajectory/orbits of stars around a "black hole".
There's no other explanation for the reason why there's this same phenomena in the center of every galaxy we're able to observe.

>>10541524
>Actually believing in the heliocentric spheroid model
> not believing in mighty A'Tuin

>>10541935
okay. no, you win, you're right. there's no way black holes are real. you win. i admit you are RIGHT.
how's it feel? warm and fuzzy? revelling in it yet?
now, a few minor points-
1. it is now, because you saw through the ruse, your job to enlighten the masses. you are clearly the only one among your species who can come up with a new, correct, coherent, experimentally validated, useful model of the cosmos. remember, it has to get us to the moon and back, and be able to predict the effect of gravitational lensing to better than 0.003% accuracy, and be able to triangulate satellites and surface points while calibrating for the effect of time dilation, to be actually better than the old model. good luck.
2. you will also have to find a way to deal with the crowd of dumbasses that will inherently swarm around you and claim the whole thing is wrong because they can't understand something if they can't handle it and see it and shove it up their nose. they'll claim that anything you can't stab them with isn't "conclusive evidence". you'll patiently explain that you use the model every day to predict, design and execute complicated procedures, and that every time a probe lands within 10 feet of target on a planet, or a telescope finds an exoplanet exactly where a star's wobble betrayed one, you ARE providing evidence. each brick of your model is laid upon one below, and if the system didn't work, the world you built would fall apart. by analysis of the consequences of your model, you can predict new things, and you may not be able to touch them, but you can find things that look a hell of a lot like your prediction. if the model works with literally everything else, every single day, why not accept that it's working at the edges, at least until we can go physically touch those predictions?

>>10541935
You lack of understanding totally warrants your aggressiveness. You seem like a dick. Look, we wish we had the ability to shoot you at a black hole so you could see for yourself anon.

>>10541935
>>10542044
but guess what? it won't work.
some people just cannot physically believe or understand things that they can't touch with their grubby little inbred paws, even though they don't understand the most basic thing about what they insist isn't real or sounds stupid.
you can't satisfy some people. the worst part? they always somehow try to make it sound like it's YOUR job to convince them, even though the evidence we already have is good enough to use EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN DAY with EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY invented since the 1940's, and if it DIDN'T work, their entire world would shut down, crash, and burn around them. it's still not enough.
And that's just downright stupid of them, isn't it?

>>10541963
ok this might make you give up on me but I am actually serious

I dont see any conclusive evidence for gravitational lensing either. yes I know the images that supposedly prove gravitational lensing but when I look at them all I see is stuff like >>10541666 where I think how the hell do they know that this is actual gravitational lensing? I also know about the solar eclipse alleged evidence but there I wonder how do they know for sure? could the particles near the sun diffract the light or could there be other explanations? where is the conclusive evidence?

of course my standards are way too high. I mean how the hell are you supposed to prove gravity bends light when direct experiments are impossible with our current technology?

most likely its just me being clueless about the theory. its just that there is so much bullshit going around in this world that I have become way too sceptical.

what I dont get about black holes is why doesnt escape velocity obey lorentz transform and instead can exceed c? why does uneven space time bend light? how trustworthy is the space time model? and so on. I guess I just have to learn all this but it is made difficult by bad learning material

>>10542044
>>10542063
insults and ridicule wont persuade me

>>10542034
how can there be one turtle in that image if the turtles go all the way down

>>10541860
>he doesnt know

>>10542073
funny how I am the "aggressive" one when you are sperging out. calm down, take a deep breath. look I dont even want you to be butthurt. by being butthurt you just lose and nobody else wins except maybe someone whos lurking

I believe a lot that cant be seen or touched directly. but read >>10542074, my scepticism is caused by the society we live in, where so much bullshit is spread and any questioning of the status quo is often mercilessly suppressed. I am not saying that black holes dont exist for sure. I just genuinely dont know and I lost faith in the system so I cant blindly believe such things. I used to more than just believe in black holes, I loved them. but as I started questioning stuff, I once wondered, how do I even know that they are real? and ever since I asked that question, 95% of what I got was ridicule and insults and occasionally someone like >>10541963

maybe if people hadnt always insulted me for questioning such things and instead just said "yeah there is no conclusive evidence but everything we know and observe points to their existence" I would most likely accepted that and stopped right there

>>10542086
Silly anon, didn't you know?
There's a gigantic turtle at the center of each galaxy holding it together.

>>10542121
No i get what you're saying as well. And I feel there might be some pause for questioning, especially when it's basically impossible for laymen to have the resources to perform their own observations, so we must rely on what "institutions" say. Most scientific things can be easily repeatable by most humans given the amount of time and effort put in, but things like space, other than telescopes are just unfeasible. And I agree with your point it seems the you are so unable to question the scientific community when it comes to space that it almost seems dogmatic at this point

>>10541550
How's your telescope gonna be bigger if each telescope has roughly the same lens size (small)? Does telescope size even affect the length of radiowaves that can be received?

>>10541524
Reverse engineering collective lens technology.

>>10542074
>insults amd ridicule won't persuade me
and, motherfucker, why is it our job to persuade you? it doesn't matter what you believe. physical machines operate every day, that would break if these principles weren't true. at least they don't whine.
>how do i know it's gravitational lensing and not something else
because you're too ignorant to understand why gravity bends light and far too ignorant to come up with a better theory.
>direct experiments
like what, bitch?
come up with a direct experiment
>most likely me being clueless
no shit
>why doesn't escape velocity obey lorentz transform
lorentz transform is a mathematical observation based on observation of nornal relativity. relativity breaks down in black holes, because they are tiny. relativity only works with big things. small things no work for mathematical framework based on big thing, okey dokey?
>why does uneven space time bend light
because light travels through space. you travel on a road. you stay on the road by following the curves.
>how trustworthy is the spacetime model?
we find planets based on the wobble of stars from lightyears away, got men on the moon, synchronise satellites by factoring in time dilation differences in the gravity well of earth their speed.
pretty damn.

>>10542121
>maybe if people didn't mind me making it their job to come up with new experiments just for me because i can't picture something if it isn't small enough to lose in my left nostril, i would most likely have accepted it
you're prideful and entitled. don't bet on it. other people are not in the wrong.

>>10541912

>>10541731
would you ever fuck off

>>10542074
>when I look at them all I see is stuff like >>10541666
that's your fault for not being able to understand visuals

>>10542121
why tf would they wanna lie about black holes? they won't ever affect our daily lives, go back to r/conspiracy

>>10542171
Kek, love the gravitational lensing effect on it.

>>10541550
woulnd't we need insane amounts of data storage to piece those together though?

>>10542171

eine kleine nachtmusik:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJaypC51Dds

>>10542226
yeh

>>10542162
>relativity breaks down in black holes, because they are tiny. relativity only works with big things. small things no work for mathematical framework based on big thing, okey dokey?
>synchronise satellites by factoring in time dilation differences in the gravity well of earth their speed
contradiction. black holes are often much larger than our planet

>physical machines operate every day, that would break if these principles weren't true
ok name me even one single machine that requires the existence of black holes or gravitational bending of light

>we find planets based on the wobble of stars from lightyears away, got men on the moon
neither depend on it. and yes, we guess the existence of planets that way because our telescopes are so shit there are barely any planets even in nearest solar systems that we can detect directly. yet there are grand claims about all sorts of manufactured images

>>10542121
>maybe if people hadnt always insulted me for questioning such things
That's because you're stupid so it's no wonder you hold stupid opinions. IF you went to a college professor and asked your questions I'm sure they would be more than glad to explain it to you step-by-step and give you an account of all the evidence that verifies our current theories of the universe and how it has been put to practice.

But since you choose to cry foul and express your skepticism on an internet science board of all places, expect to be told to fuck off - since we have no shortage of your types. We know why you're skeptic. You're stupid, ignorant, and fell privy to the ignorance of other truther idiots.

You aren't admitting anything - we know you're naive but we have no patience for it.

>>10541524

That 40 meter telescope goes online in 2025. It will be a game changer. 16 times clearer images than Hubble.

>>10542152
They're EM telescopes and you sync them ahead of time.

What's a black hole even made of

>>10542237
Are you really asking how machines would be affected by the existence of gravity?

>>10542274
quantum space time and some dark matter seasoned with some higgs bosons.

>>10541572
They didn't really focus on it after it became clear that this image would turn out well.
Sag A* is blocked by dust and apparently moving really fast in relation to us so they expected it to be a fucking mess. Maybe they'll still try to calculate an image in the coming years. Who knows. Or maybe that was just an excuse they gave because they did calculate it and it looked like shit.

>>10542237
>larger than our planet
lmao
a black hole- ALL BLACK HOLES- are exactly a nothingth in size. their EVENT HORIZON may be larger than diameter of our solar system.
black holes are small. this is not an argument.
>one single machine
already did
satellites calibrate for the difference in time distortion in Earth's gravity well, and outside of it. they use the same math that we used to predict gravitational lensing.
what you're not seeing is that these are two interconnected things, and that's why no evidence is good enough for you. it's the same math. you can't connect things. not my problem.
>we guess
and then we see, exactly where predicted.
>"yo bill, we got a wobbler"
>"k, how much?"
>"dis much"
>"k then you probably got a planet right about here"
>"oh damn there is is, passing in front of the star"
we can see exoplanets, dude.
>yet there are grand claims
don't care. make your own telescope if you're that worried. not our job.

>>10542274
dunno, but it is exactly equivalent to what fell in, just mushed around real hard

>>10541550
Just use satellites and place them anywhere you need them, idiot.

>>10542313
youre not even trying anymore

>>10542274
Converging towards 100% empty space, that last 0% is mass

>>10541742>photovoltaic in dark space
Normies tonight, I swear.

>>10541524
it will be hard because this image comes from radio-telescope which resolution is pretty limited

>>10541731
>called out and named
>initiate adhom numalesmile pic and capslock mode

>>10541698
one day the earth will just be a giant hub for a giant telescope

>>10542236
>tfw no astronomer gf

why even live?

>>10541698
It's not economical on the ground without other advances like laser optics mapping. That we are able to process information enough to generate the OP pic means we're getting more efficient at data interpretation, rather than just data capture. The same technologies can be reused, and the more accurately we understand physics, the more we can process information faster. Eventually we will reach a point in our path to singularity where it will literally be most efficient to crowdsource the processing of interstellar data. Virtual explorers won't be efficient without VR-style data visualization, and by that point I already become a hyper-AGI by recursively scanning my own brain and optimizing on a metacognitive level to better integrate sensory information.

>>10542274
Black

>>10541524
pluto actually exists

>>10542074
>I mean how the hell are you supposed to prove gravity bends light when direct experiments are impossible with our current technology?
It has already been directly observed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

>>10542074
>where I think how the hell do they know that this is actual gravitational lensing?
Because you see microlensing from transient phenomenon.
Also, in cases like an Einstein cross, you can figure out that all 4 are the same galaxy based on its spectrum, and not just 4 galaxies lined up.

>>10543240
ok thank you

>>10542236
That's not even that much. I'm assuming that's not raw data

>>10541731
Lmao

>>10541550
Well yes, but the same group who published this also stated that you would need to increase the sensitivity of each individual scope as the total size of the scope increases.

>because a long telescope-to-telescope distance (what we call a 'baseline') is only sensitive to very fine detail in the structure of the source that you look at, you miss almost all of the radiation coming from the source when you correlate the signals. You only catch the tiny bit of power that correlates well over such a long baseline, associated with the finest details. This means that the telescopes you use on that baseline need to be EXTREMELY sensitive - if I were to guess, they would need to be kilometers in size each if they were situated on Earth and on Mars.

>>10541731
Easy on the pill

>>10541524
all we have to do is place a craft in fly-by near the black hole

>>10542286
>is exactly equivalent to what fell in, just mushed
It no longer has any identity so it's not equivalent to anything.
It has the same mass though, that's true but it's become part of a hegamonic mass of identical particles now, whatever they are. Sort of like the Scientology of Astrophysics, there's no going back.

Not the *clearest* of course but still outlines more definition to the object.

>>10541582
Unironically this. We just need to suicide a camera into one of these and have it send back pictures for as long as it can along the way.

>>10542171
FUCKING YES!!!!!!

>>10542651
she's so ugly