Getting Ready To Map The (Visible) Universe

phanki writes "The Arecibo Observatory is gearing up to map the universe soon. This article talks about the university getting a set of new radio recievers to complete the background work for the mapping process. So very soon we may have the map for the Andromeda !"

Comments

Misleading article, etc.

[barakn]

Getting Ready To Map The (Visible) Universe is a bad title, as the word 'visible' in astronomy means light with wavelengths between ~380 nm and 780 nm, while Arecibo looks at stuff from 3 cm to 6 m.. Also, the AP news article repeatedly equates the radio telescope with a listening device, though it can map the sky at resolutions better than most telescopes.

20% is not nearly everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

" Of course it was an over-generalization, but in and around Pittsburgh, PA, it holds some water as nearly everything is ClearChannel or Infinity:"

You then list 8 CC/Infinity stations. A quick search on a station locater shows 41 total stations to listen to in that area: again, even in this market, CC and Infinity control a minority of the radio stations (20%).

You left off about 28 non CC/Infinity stations on your local list. Oops!

To say that Clear Channel controls everything is not only an overgeneralization: it is nothing like true.

Re:20% is not nearly everything!

[jpsst34]

OK, take output wattage into consideration. There may be 41 stations. Now cut to just the the stations strong enough to pick up in my car as I travel the 60 miles or so from one end of Greater PGH to the other.

My list came from the stations that I know exist and know their call letters. How do I know they exist? I am able to tune them in when driving in my car.

I admit, CC are not the majority based on number of stations, but if you look at demographics - number of listeners - they are sure to be up there. I'm not claiming to have numbers to back it up - it's just the impression you get around here.

Anyway, my original post was a joke! Laugh! Have fun! You needn't always be so stiff.

Re:Useless to real men

[Kibo]

Not knowing where you're going isn't lost. That's exploring. Not being able to get back, that's lost.

Re:Final Fontier

[Christopher Thomas]

We'll probably never again be at a point where we say "What in the heck is out there?" We'll never again have Uncharted Territory. But rather we say "What in the heck will that look like up close."

This is only partly true. Many space objects are the next best thing to invisible. Barring a really concerted (and expensive) effort, we won't have maps of, say, the Kupier belt that are anywhere close to complete. Even closer to home, we only have records for the _big_ asteroids in the belt (and inner solar system).

Similarly, while we've found at least one white dwarf star in our local neighbourhood, others may very well exist that we aren't noticing - they're quite dim. Smaller objects, like gas giants ejected from systems during formation and drifting in interstellare space, or the myriad of objects in the Oort cloud, may not ever be found - unless an object emits a lot of light or is both large and quite close to a bright light source (like a star), it's lost in the void.

Think of our medium-term mapping situation as the equivalent of having the tourist brochures for the area we want to visit, and our current maps as being the blurb on the back of them. Still plenty to discover.

Re:Useless to real men

[Planesdragon]

No, no, no. You've got it backwards.

MEN are the gender that read maps. That's why we never have to ask for directions.