Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Feb 8, 2017.
I wonder how they measure the background with so many galaxies out there.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Scientists tend to think of the word "proof" as in "absolutely proven" whereas non-scientists may either mean that as a bait and switch attempt to claim scientists are overstating the case or they just mean "proof" as synonymous with "evidence".
With a radio telescope.
...but that probably isn't really the question you wanted to ask. Why don't you ask the question you really wanted to ask?
I know you know the answer to this, but it's perhaps a teachable moment for cosmology.
I am in my backyard looking up through my thick canopy of trees.
The unform blue/white I see virtually everywhere I look is not coming from the trees themselves.
I doubt [even our most doubting members] would suggest I can't distinguish between light from a grey tree branch and light from the sky behind it.
And despite the fact that the trees obscure quite a bit of the sky, I can do some pretty good science of the features of the sky.\
I guess because Olber's Paradox has been explained.
Much more concise than mine.
Hi Russ, my question pretty well says it all.
Like you I do some astro photography and so I wondered just how one would go about it.
I had intended to look into it yesterday but ended up following up other enquiries.
Off the cuff I expect one would have to subtract data given by galaxies.
Maybe I will look into it today.
I don't know the procedure and what I think I know on this is a guess but I know they managed to collect the data.
I am not sure what you suggest.
Consider Hubble Deep Field captures, small field of view and 2000 galaxies I think it must be a challenge to separate the background radiation from the "noise" of the galaxies.
If you know how its done please tell me.
Big bang is not a "thing", just an imagination or hypothesis.
If the universe comes from a sudden burst of a singularity point, where did this point come from and how could it possess all matters & energy? No theory can explain this.
Paul Davies said Nothingness is the most powerful,
matter can pop up from nothingness.
If this is true, then nothingness is not "nothing" at all.
Can scientist show to us how atoms can suddenly pop up in a vacuumed container?
Why do you ask questions of which you are already sure of the answer?
To show that when scientists cannot explain something with reason, they will create their own superstition. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is a wonderful question. After knowing this you will be able to see few announcements (especially regarding cosmology) with a critic perspective. Let me try in lay language.
Suppose your friend is your co passenger in a open geep, travelling with you and he wishes to audio record your dialogue with you. You are not in good mood, speaking very slowly with pasue, geep clutter is there, lot of surrounding traffic noise is there, then you are passing through a crowded market too, and but his recorder is of very high quality, it records every whisper including tyre screech or even the air drag from the open window. recording over.
Time to extract your voice. Now the recording is nothing but electrical signals, try playing a audio clip on your laptop, what you see, some kind of ECG/EEG sort of wave forms. Now if this wave form is given to you, and your voice is to be extracted, then how do you do it? So either you must know about your voice, an electronic sample must be there or he must know about the background. If your sample is available then it is positive detection, but if background is known, then background has to be eliminated and left over is your voice. Thats where maths comes into picture. Well try reading about Fourier Transforms or Digital Signal Processing or leave it, you got the hunch, that its purely maths and data analysis. Thats how they have detected GW. Thats how they have mapped CMBR.
Thank you for addressing my question.
In astro photography the long exposures cause "noise" which are pixels that white out and we get a fog in the image.
You can reduce the noise by keeping the chip cool and in addition by taking what we call a dark frame exposure. This is an exposure of the same duration as the capture of the object.
So one would capture the object thru your scope with an exposure time of say 20 minutes and then put the lens cover on and take 20 minutes of dark.
Via the magic of the computer you then subtract the dark frame(and the noise therein) from the capture which give a more realistic image.
I don't know that I could be critical of such a process having used it.
No doubt to get a better picture of the background radiation one would have to remove various sources of noise in a similar fashion.
I suppose you think such a process would be open to manipulation and it may well be but the approach works.
The true question is ; why are not CBM's a true measure of BB , reality ?
What are CBM's?
Do you possibly mean the CMBR?
CMBR , Correct .
When CMBR "left" on its jouney how big was the universe?
Separate names with a comma.