/sci/ - Science & Math

CSI zoom & enhance doesn't work. Software can't give you details that aren't there. You can however stack multiple images to get better sensitivity.

>>15199725
I am trying to get the details by adding light gathering area anon, it's not that complex

>>15199676
For a radio telescope, The wavelength is long enough (hence frequency is short enough) to record the phase information of the incoming radio waves, and thus coherence can be maintained across the telescope arrays.

>>15199725
you are retarded

>>15199676
your question is akin to a cargo cult strapping together wood in the shape of a plane and asking why it doesn't fly

>>15199743
>your question is akin to a cargo cult strapping together wood in the shape of a plane and asking why it doesn't fly
should be easy for you to explain why it does not work then....

>>15199756
>>15199734
they are completely different ways of capturing data. it requires precise instruments and computation to measure changes in waves. a traditional mirrored telescope is not a precise enough analog

>>15199676
You van and they do. The tech is reliant on computing power which has only advanced significantly enough in recent history to make it viable for anyone other than the best funded nerds. You can do it anon, I believe in you

>>15199676
That's how they took the picture of black hole.
Spoiler alert
It's fake and gay

>>15199676
it does work as you pointed out. your post should start with 'Why is it that I cannot ...'

>>15199994
no

>>15199676
How is 10 8 inchers better than a 18 inch? It's not like it's more affordable, unless you're buying cheap shit, in which case there are ways to improve your imaging other than interferometry.

>>15200959
an 18 inch dob is a beast you have to have heat sinks and fans on the mirror and shit

>>15199999

>>15200959
>It's not like it's more affordable,
a not shitty 18 dob is ten grand, and OP said that big or bigger, once you start getting into the 20s you are dealing with something so unwieldy you practically need a home observatory for it

>>15199676
It would work in theory, but not in practice because you could not spatially or temporally synch the telescopes.
Look. A single 50 inch mirror doesn't move from one side to the other more than a few picometers, yet we still have to correct for that movement.
You could put telescopes all over the place, but unless you can know their position is space to the nanometer, you could not tell if one photon came from that area of the sky, if it came from some other area of the sky, or if it were just noise.

>>15201493
>You could put telescopes all over the place, but unless you can know their position is space to the nanometer, you could not tell if one photon came from that area of the sky,
you could tell where the photon was coming by where you had pointed the scope anon

>>15199994
what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>>15201508
It's because people don't realize that the thing at the cent of a black hole is basically a neutron star

>>15201519
>the thing at the cent of a black hole is basically a neutron star
wtf big if true

>>15201508
they are pretty neat

>>15201505
>you could tell where the photon was coming by where you had pointed the scope anon
You could tell its angles re:that scope. And in order to take those angles from many separate telescopes and actually, provably gain precision or resolution, you'd need to know PRECISELY how they're positioned and oriented relative to each other.

>>15201508
>what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
They're easy to describe in a simple way that sounds interesting, conceptually and philosophically.

Other popular cosmic oddities; we all grow up with a main-sequence star, booooring. Solar systems, moons, galaxies all seem reasonable with a natural understanding of gravity (or experience swinging a ball on a rope). Neutron stars (and pulsars), Quark stars, etc are difficult to describe and make interesting to popsci audiences without an understanding of subatomic or fundamental particles. Quasars are a flavor of black hole.

A lot of the physics around black holes and relativity in general is very unintuitive. Things like the event horizon, encountering true physical infinities, etc are interesting because they're very odd from a classical, natural perspective.