Star's birth glimpsed 'in real time'

BBC ^ | 3 April 2015 | BBC

[WhiskeyX]

“Thank you for the reply. I understand what you’re saying. My problem is that I know the reason why I get a picture on my TV set is because a camera and other equipment feeds a coded digital image into a transmitter and the decoded signal causes a picture to be displayed on my TV screen. The electromagnetic “noise” arriving here from thousands of light years distant is just random noise supposedly being emitted by the random, uncontrolled actions of myriad objects interacting, There is no code, no system, no program to be deciphered.”

Your comment saying, “The electromagnetic “noise” arriving here from thousands of light years distant is just random noise....”, is nothing less than a really ignorant and stupid lie. The only difference of consequence between the light and the radio waves emitted by the targets of observation are their wavelengths and properties. Both forms of electromagnetic energy can be sensed and recorded to produce images of the target of observation, one using light energy and the other using radio energy.

“To say that a beautiful color picture of a glorious combination of lights, etc, can be displayed on our monitoring screens from that random noise along with all the other space noise arriving here strains my credulity to the breaking point.”

Since the source electromagnetic radiation which produces the images are not “random noise” as you falsely claim, your comments and conclusions are false and utter nonsense.

“I consider the fact that macro-evolution and AGW, both being promoted as “settled science” are really both blatant lies.”

AGW is a political lie. Another lie is the way in which you have deliberately conflated astrophysics with biology. Although it is true that the evolution of chemical species is related to the evolution of biological organisms, astrophysics is still a separate subject from biology. When you categorically state that you know for a fact that biological evolution is a lie, you cannot know such a thing and are using a lie to claim so.

“Any reasonably intelligent person with a discerning eye and an honest heart innately knows this”.

There is not a scintilla of honesty in your statement.

“So when I’m shown a beautiful photo, and told that it was created from random noise received via radio telescope dishes, I balk. You cannot display intelligent information at this end unless someone or something is transmitting intelligent information at the source.”

Your statement is an utter falsehood and about as intelligent and ignorant as a dead roofing nail. Every form of matter emits electromagnetic energy in varying amounts across the electromagnetic spectrum when the atoms are heated or otherwise excited to a sufficient degree. When the emissions are sensed directly from the emitter, they are recorded as a coherent image and in color using differences in frequency and Doppler properties.

“Random radio noise emanating from a maelstrom taking place in deep space is not intelligent information.”

Since the “radio” energy “emanating from a maelstrom taking place in deep space” is subject to the problems of resolution common to all forms of electromagnetic energy and not random as you falsely say, your comment is a lie and a fraud. See:

Radio Astronomy

[....]

Optical telescopes give such clear images since the wavelength of visible light is so small in relation to the diameter of the focusing device (mirror or lens). Radio waves having enormous wavelengths by comparison do not focus into neat “pictures”, rather they tend to interfere with one another since the focusing device (reflector) is tiny in relation to the wavelength. To construct a 10 mm wavelength radio telescope with the imaging capabilities of a small 4-inch optical telescope, one would need a reflector about 2 km (over 6000 feet!) in diameter; clearly this enormous size is impractical. It might seem at first glance that radio astronomy would be doomed to low-detail observations and rather dull data gathering tasks. The fact that light and radio waves tend to interfere with one another gives rise to a technique known as interferometry. Simply put, it allows two or more dish antennas to be placed widely apart or in arrays (such as the VLA “Very Large Array” in New Mexico) to function as if they were one large antenna (Aperture Synthesis). The interference between the signals of each of the receiving antennas, when timing corrections are introduced, allows for image reconstruction using Fourier Transforms. We can now get the resolution of a 2 km antenna by placing several antennas 2 km apart and correlating the data. Using this technique, it is possible to obtain milliarcsecond resolution. A milliarcsecond is roughly the equivalent of seeing a quarter in New York from Los Angeles!

With the advent of DSP (Digital Signal Processing), faster and smaller computers, and the introduction of super conducting amplifiers, radio astronomy has progressed at a breakneck pace. New arrays of antennas are being designed and built. Some contain over a thousand individual antennas all operating in harmony, giving resolutions that rival optical telescopes. Other arrays cover a hectare, and one in process covers a square kilometer as a “phased array”, giving imaging capabilities not experienced before. The future for radio astronomy looks brighter than ever.

Jim Fredsti is a Research Engineer at
Owens Valley Radio Observatory,
California Institute of Technology,
Big Pine, California, USA.

http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/radioastro.html

It will become possible to construct a multiple radio telescope array in space with an areal distribution larger than the entire Earth, and such a vast telescope will have a resolution far surpassing any optical telescope in existence today.

[Tucker39]

Hi Whiskey!
I freely and openly admit that in reading your reply I realized that I can no doubt learn something of value from your technical explanation.

But your accusatory condemnation of me, just for expressing my opinion is a real turnoff. The mere fact that I expressed an opinion that perhaps contained some technical errors or misunderstandings does not seem to me to be grounds for making a federal case out of it.

I can’t help wondering what a difference it might make if you had the heart of a teacher; and a desire to impart knowledge to confused turdbrains like me in a wise and kindly manner, instead of beating us over the head with it. Since you obviously are the superior intellect, why is there any call to be caustic and condemning when you set out to correct the views of the many lowlifes such as I?

Have a blessed Easter.