Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    12 Mar '19 02:34
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/chinas-giant-telescope-represents-its-big-ambitions-for-science

    "China's giant telescope represents its big ambitions for science
    The world’s largest radio telescope is just one part of the far-seeing investment
    which has made China a powerhouse of world-class scientific research"

    "The graduate workforce expanded, Chinese-born scientists who had
    moved abroad were tempted back, more than 4,000 distinguished
    non-Chinese scientists were attracted to Chinese academies and
    universities and by 2014, more than 110,000 PhDs who had left to
    work aboard had returned to China, largely because, for the first time,
    there was a better chance of research support at home than there is
    now in Europe, or the US, where investment in research has been faltering."
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    13 Mar '19 17:35
    @duchess64 said
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/chinas-giant-telescope-represents-its-big-ambitions-for-science

    "China's giant telescope represents its big ambitions for science
    The world’s largest radio telescope is just one part of the far-seeing investment
    which has made China a powerhouse of world-class scientific research"

    "The graduate workforce expanded, Chine ...[text shortened]... at home than there is
    now in Europe, or the US, where investment in research has been faltering."
    You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress, in the world of radio astronomy it is the correlation of many scopes around the world that gives them real resolution power far greater than the Chinese scope or Aricebo, which is just one data point on a larger map with scopes around the world simulating a scope that for resolution purposes is the distance between scopes and signals processed by supercomputers to make much more detailed maps than any one can give.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Mar '19 21:03
    @sonhouse said
    You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress, in the world of radio astronomy it is the correlation of many scopes around the world that gives them real resolution power far greater than the Chinese scope or Aricebo, which is just one data point on a larger map with scopes around the world simulating a scope that for resolution purposes is ...[text shortened]... copes and signals processed by supercomputers to make much more detailed maps than any one can give.
    After I quoted an article, adding no comment of my own, Sonhouse seems eager
    to set up another 'strawman' to attack me as usual. Sonhouse cannot possibly
    know exactly what I know about astronomy.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    14 Mar '19 16:25
    @duchess64 said
    After I quoted an article, adding no comment of my own, Sonhouse seems eager
    to set up another 'strawman' to attack me as usual. Sonhouse cannot possibly
    know exactly what I know about astronomy.
    I said nothing negative about either you OR Chinese astronomy. I SAID just one dish is just one element of a much larger planet wide array and maybe even larger than that if we ever get a real radio telescope on the moon, the resolution would go up ten or a hundred times of what we post now with the sum total of the dishes giving near planet sized dish resolution, and of course that does not make the actual gain any better, the total surface area of the dish is what gives sensitivity besides the actual size of the dish, which gives resolution. It is really sad when I just posted a bit on radio astronomy that you would take it as some kind of insult and strawman. I had ZERO intention of insulting you. I was just saying my bit about dish size V resolution. Besides, BOTH the Chinese and Arecibo have one shortcoming, the inability to aim right at the horizon, only having roughly a 30 degree span of 'vision' since what you are doing is moving an antenna around inside the focal plane of the dish and therefore not only are you limited in what you can observe close to the horizon, you also lose some of the gain that could be had when you aim straight up so the lower towards the horizon the dish aims, the less of the total surface area is available to actually concentrating energy. Now if you chose to see that as an insult, I don't know what to say.
  5. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22675
    14 Mar '19 18:57
    @sonhouse said
    I said nothing negative about either you OR Chinese astronomy. I SAID just one dish is just one element of a much larger planet wide array and maybe even larger than that if we ever get a real radio telescope on the moon, the resolution would go up ten or a hundred times of what we post now with the sum total of the dishes giving near planet sized dish resolution, and of co ...[text shortened]... actually concentrating energy. Now if you chose to see that as an insult, I don't know what to say.
    Maybe she has "abysmal reading comprehension"?

    Or maybe she's just an A-hole.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '19 19:04
    @sonhouse said
    You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress, in the world of radio astronomy it is the correlation of many scopes around the world that gives them real resolution power far greater than the Chinese scope or Aricebo, which is just one data point on a larger map with scopes around the world simulating a scope that for resolution purposes is ...[text shortened]... copes and signals processed by supercomputers to make much more detailed maps than any one can give.
    "You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress..."
    --Sonhouse

    I ALREADY 'realized' that.

    When will Sonhouse 'enlighten' me about the fact that telescopes on Earth are
    constrained by atmospheric conditions when telescopes in space are not?
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '19 19:07
    @wolfe63 said
    Maybe she has "abysmal reading comprehension"?

    Or maybe she's just an A-hole.
    The obsessive troll Wolfe63 seems 'butt-hurt' after recently being embarrassed in the Debates forum.

    IF the People's Republic of Bangladesh were an Islamic theocracy, as Wolfe63 has
    claimed, then why would it NOT rename itself as the 'Islamic Republic of Bangladesh'?

    Note that the lying troll Wolfe63 refuses to concede his blatant errors--in absurdly
    stereotyping many predominantly Muslim countries as ALL Islamic theocracies.
  8. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22675
    14 Mar '19 21:06
    @duchess64 said
    The obsessive troll Wolfe63 seems 'butt-hurt' after recently being embarrassed in the Debates forum.

    IF the People's Republic of Bangladesh were an Islamic theocracy, as Wolfe63 has
    claimed, then why would it NOT rename itself as the 'Islamic Republic of Bangladesh'?

    Note that the lying troll Wolfe63 refuses to concede his blatant errors--in absurdly
    stereotyping many predominantly Muslim countries as ALL Islamic theocracies.
    Hahahaha!!!!

    Duchess64 said "butt hurt"!!! Now that's funny!!!

    Yes, Duchess64, you "butt hurt" me real bad.
    Though you must have taken me whIle I was sleeping: You dirty dog you.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '19 21:13
    @wolfe63 said
    Hahahaha!!!!

    Duchess64 said "butt hurt"!!! Now that's funny!!!

    Yes, Duchess64, you "butt hurt" me real bad.
    Though you must have taken me whIle I was sleeping: You dirty dog you.
    "butt-hurt
    1. overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful"

    Of course, Wolfe63 keeps evading my question and refusing to concede that
    he's woefully ignorant and misinformed about predominantly Muslim societies.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    14 Mar '19 23:041 edit
    @duchess64 said
    "You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress..."
    --Sonhouse

    I ALREADY 'realized' that.

    When will Sonhouse 'enlighten' me about the fact that telescopes on Earth are
    constrained by atmospheric conditions when telescopes in space are not?
    You still have something wrong here. Earth's atmosphere affects OPTICAL telescopes big time but the low frequencies, say 1mm wavelength, or larger, aren't as severely affected by atmospheric blobs. One effect that was measurable though, at 5 and 10 Ghz, on a microwave audio link, my transmitter system was called Microwave Troposcatter communications and there, if you put up a beam with a decent dish and aimed it say to the horizon for max range, there are atmospheric blobs of partially ionized air 'bubbles' floating around the troposphere and they can absorb or reflect the RF coming up from ground level
    So Troposcatter communications used TWO separate dishes about 10 meters apart and shooting TWO identical signals up into the atmosphere. So at the other end there is also two dishes and because the average size of the partially ionized blobs are less than ten meters in diameter, like invisible balloons of small pockets of ionized air at around 30,000 meters or so up. So the signal from one dish alone would render a S/N ratio of basically zero to near perfect, randomly up and down.
    But if two dishes are used like I said, one dish gets a signal through because the S/N ratio of one dish may fluctuate all over the place, if you have a signal combiner, one signal is up while the other is down so one or the other is up and thus you get near perfect communications in spite of the atmospheric blobs.
    At other frequencies that is not so much of a problem but that is changing the angle of deflection of a signal from a dish spewing energy UP from the ground but from the other direction and more vertically oriented signals like a radio telescope it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem, maybe because the dish is a lot larger than the partially ionized blobs floating around.
    There was an attempt to advance that art by using a single dish that used multiple frequencies where the two ends of the links would talk to each other, 'Chan 2 is good, chan 5 went down, and so forth, frequency hopping at a high enough rate that you also got near 100% signal due to the fact those blobs were also highly frequency dependent. But sat technology took over all that work and that technology died on the vine.
    I imagine if you could replace the TRC 90 unit I worked on, replaced the dish with a 30 meter wide dish there would not be so much of a problem but of course that would not be so transportable. And of course all that stuff has been replaced with sat com decades ago so it is a moot point now. Stars just don't twinkle as much at RF frequencies as they do at light or IR or UV. And of course there is not that much UV able to penetrate the atmosphere so it is up to Hubble and the like to see that band of light and even trickier kinds of telescopes to focus x rays, the Russian Doll kind of scopes that just nudges the radiation into a bend using a LOT of smaller and smaller barrels that end up making a half ass attempt at a real focus. Not as good as optical scopes but you get to see a lot more high energy events.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '19 23:171 edit
    @sonhouse said
    You still have something wrong here. Earth's atmosphere affects OPTICAL telescopes big time but the low frequencies, say 1mm wavelength, or larger, aren't as severely affected by atmospheric blobs. One effect that was measurable though, at 5 and 10 Ghz, on a microwave audio link, my transmitter system was called Microwave Troposcatter communications and there, if you put up ...[text shortened]... mpt at a real focus. Not as good as optical scopes but you get to see a lot more high energy events.
    As usual, the extremely arrogant troll Sonhouse regards me as far more ignorant than himself.
    I was well aware of the different effects in atmospheric distortion upon light waves
    (received by optical telescopes) in contrast to waves received by radio telescopes.

    In the Debates forum, even Wolfgang59 (Sonhouse's sometime troll ally of convenience)
    recently sarcastically ridiculed Sonhouse's typical extreme condescension:

    "Thanks for clearing that up sonhouse. I had no idea that the hospital had to buy MRIs
    I thought the manufacturers donated them. Next you'll be telling me the doctors
    and nurses get paid and pharmaceutical companies don't give medicine away as a gift!"
    --Wolfgang59 (to Sonhouse)
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    15 Mar '19 13:15
    @duchess64 said
    As usual, the extremely arrogant troll Sonhouse regards me as far more ignorant than himself.
    I was well aware of the different effects in atmospheric distortion upon light waves
    (received by optical telescopes) in contrast to waves received by radio telescopes.

    In the Debates forum, even Wolfgang59 (Sonhouse's sometime troll ally of convenience)
    recently sarcasticall ...[text shortened]... paid and pharmaceutical companies don't give medicine away as a gift!"
    --Wolfgang59 (to Sonhouse)
    So you take a post out of context and re-post it here as some kind of rebuke. Amazing.
    So why didn't you point out optical scopes need lasers shot up to give the deformable mirrors the ability to focus almost as good as Hubble, not quite though. Better resolution overall though and more light gathering power but they have to live with the limitations of atmosphere in terms of seeing UV and such.

    Of, of course, I forgot, you already knew that so I must be attacking you personally again.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Mar '19 17:59
    @sonhouse said
    So you take a post out of context and re-post it here as some kind of rebuke. Amazing.
    So why didn't you point out optical scopes need lasers shot up to give the deformable mirrors the ability to focus almost as good as Hubble, not quite though. Better resolution overall though and more light gathering power but they have to live with the limitations of atmosphere in terms ...[text shortened]... such.

    Of, of course, I forgot, you already knew that so I must be attacking you personally again.
    The troll Sonhouse's LYING about my allegedly 'taking a post out of context'.
    Here's the thread, so anyone gullible enough to believe Sonhouse can read it for oneself.

    https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/spread-the-truth.180411/page-4

    In the Debates forum, even Wolfgang59 (Sonhouse's sometime troll ally of convenience)
    recently sarcastically ridiculed Sonhouse's typical extreme condescension:

    "Thanks for clearing that up sonhouse. I had no idea that the hospital had to buy MRIs
    I thought the manufacturers donated them. Next you'll be telling me the doctors
    and nurses get paid and pharmaceutical companies don't give medicine away as a gift!"
    --Wolfgang59 (to Sonhouse)

    Sonhouse keeps showing that he's a pathological liar.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    18 Mar '19 14:41
    @Duchess64
    So that keeps begging the question, why do you keep responding to a pathological liar?
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Mar '19 18:14
    @sonhouse said
    @Duchess64
    So that keeps begging the question, why do you keep responding to a pathological liar?
    The lying troll Sonhouse keeps showing his extreme hypocrisy.
    On countless occasions, Sonhouse has described Donald Trump as a pathological liar.
    Yet Sonhouse keeps obsessively writing about Donald Trump.
    And Sonhouse presumably would 'respond' to Donald Trump if he posted here.

    Has the deranged hateful troll Sonhouse ever wondered why he feels absolutely compelled
    to keep hurling his abuse and lies at me EVERY day, sometimes even every hour?
Back to Top