Slashdot Mirror
Global Internet Telescope Tops Hubble's Resolution
satorchi writes "
The Arecibo Observatory
together with the
European VLBI Network have used the internet to make a
real-time transatlantic synthesis telescope. Data from the individual telescopes was transfered via the internet, and processed in real time by the central processing station at the Joint
Institute for VLBI in Europe. 9 terabits were transfered during the 20 hour experiment, and the resulting synthesised telescope had a resolution of 20 milliarcseconds, about 5 times better than the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). This level of detail is equivalent to picking out a small building on the surface of the Moon!"
we can look for the place where the moon landings took place to finaly debunk all those sceptics ?
How heavily has this impacted the transatlantic Internet communications, during these 20 hours ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Does anybody have an idea about the cost of such a telescope (if you where to build a new one) compared to the Hubble?
Maybe a space based replacement for Hubble isn't needed...
TC - My Photos..
Oh, no room for Bender, huh? Fine! I'll go build my own lunar lander, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack. Ahh, screw the whole thing!
-- look sir droids...
I think you'll find it's 16.384 Mb/s sir.
Maybe because the distributed computer farm was busy correlating the data at the same time ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
9 terabits were transfered...
Yes, but how many Libraries of Congress is 9 terabits equivalent to?
.: Max Romantschuk
The monolith factory.
bkd
imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
We could watch cute alien chicks on thier home planets!
9TB of data - the actual dishes only needed 30GB, but since they had the line, they raped thier fav. P2P networks for pr0n, w4rez and mp3z.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
9 terabits in 20 hours? That must put it on 2. place after p0rn...
People like you would have us leave computer technology development in the hands of the government, too.
No thanks.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
The same reason Europe is building its own GPS-variant... to not depend solely on one country for something. Creating your own alternatives for important things is a good thing, you know.
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
Because they're making a complete mess of it?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
yes, and leave all your OS needs in the hands of microsoft too, then.
...
space travel does not 'belong' in the US
i dare you to give me one good reason why it should
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the Hubble a light telescope and aricebo, etc is a radio telescope?
Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
The title of this story is stupendously moot. It's like saying "oil tanker carries more weight than freight train". Yes, I'm sure it does. It also doesn't go across land.
Very similarly, this is an antenna (radio astronomy) not a telescope (optical astronomy).
Even if it were a telescope, it would still be limited by atmospheric distortions (hence why you'd want one in space).
And even if it were a telescope in space, you'd probably end up with WEBB - which lacks sensors in many of the ranges that Hubble does cover.
All of the above lead up to at least two results...
1. Less scientific data
and, arguably more important as it drives the public's opinion/enthusiasm/taxpaying-willingness/etc.
2. Far less pretty pictures.
I suggest doing a search for Hubble on Slashdot and reading the +5 Insightful/Informative posts, as many of them go into detail as to why many of the proposals simply aren't a replacement for Hubble, and why it either should stay up - or a proper replacement be built.
9TB = 9895604649984 bytes
20 hours = 72000 seconds
=
137438953.472 bytes/second
=
134217.728 Kb / Sec
=
~ 131mb / sec
=
0wned!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Such as the 1:4:9 monolith?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
No. You've highlighted the problem yourself, calling SS1 'his X-15 clone.' The X-15 is history, and never got significant followup. Nor did Apollo, since that's the topic of other posts.
/.ers do, but I will say that space is a long-term project, and any long-term project will serve many masters over its lifetime, as party dominance waxes and wanes, and different personalities enter and leave office. What's worse is that space is not just a long-term project, it's a whole series of projects.
For that matter, however much the Shuttle and ISS may be the whipping boys now, in 50 years your grandchildren will be on some sort of communications medium talking about how fumbled the Shuttle and ISS were, and how they could have really been something if NASA had just followed through.
I'm not going to sit here and criticize NASA the way many
Of course to say the private sector can do better is rather dicey. At least the Federal governement has almost a 4-year horizon, not counting the re-election blindspot. Most businesses can barey think 1 quarter at a time, and space will NEVER go under that premise.
I guess it's no coincidence that space is now the province of Rich folk who have Made It. They're the only ones who can afford to take the long-term view, these days.
Just to let you know that is megabits/second
about 16 Mb a second....
I get about 80Kbyte a second....
Not too shabby!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
The comparison between Hubble's and Arecibo's resolution is misleading. The hubble telescoope operates in the viewable spectrum of light, while Arecibo and VLBI do radio astronomy. Radio waves are several magnitues longer, so it's even more difficult to get the same resolution. But since the frequencies are lower, too, it is possible to synchronize several telescopes using interferometry.
Interferometry is done at ESA's VLT with up to four telescopes and mirrors with a precision of about 10nm in the viewable spectrum, at a distance of about 100m. But here, we have a distance of several thousand kilometers, so the signals are digitalized and put together at the computer. This is difficult because it's really hard to synchronise the time -atom clocks are not precise enough. Hence the synchronisation is done "so that it fits best", not using any precise clock. (I don't think this is any easier to do, kudos to the scientists at arecibo and VLBI!)
The moonlander.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Silly wabbit, everyone knows the secret buildings on the moon are either underground or otherwise camouflaged!
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
If a typical mobile phone handset was really the equivalent of a billion billion supernovas, then you could see why they don't let you use them on aircraft. Even one supernova stuck in your ear might cause cancer over long periods. Okay, I know the comparison is really between the signal from the supernova and the signal of a mobile phone somewhere within its operating range. Even then, the comparison is still pretty meaningless, as we are not interpreting data from the astronomical signal. Whatever...
In case of /.ing click here
The site is slow for me, so if it is going down it's mirrored.
So it can transfer 9TB in 20 Hours but can't take slashdot for just 5 minutes!!
Comparing a synthesised radio telescope (as was done here) with the Hubble is like comparing apples and oranges. It is MUCH harder to generate these kind of high-resolution pictures in visible as it is in radio.
For instance, if I were to use the VLBI technique in optical wavelengths, and if I had conditions where atmospheric turbulence wasn't affecting the image (as happens with radio), I would produce 20 milli arcsecond resolution with telescopes less than 10 metres apart, as opposed to telescopes on different continents!
If my prev explanation confounded you...
ph don't talk to me about mebibits, and kebifloops, and foobooblarfunkles. 1+1=10;
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I already expained :-)
16MB transatlantic is impressive - but they don't way if they used the normal FO feeds, or sat. which is still Xlantic.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Ground-based telescopes using adaptive optics surpassed Hubble years ago in terms of resolution. Prior to adaptive optics, atmospheric turbulance dictated a ground-based telescope's resolution (how close two objects can be and still be distinguished as "separate objects"). The advent of adaptive optics and telescope interferometry as largely solved the problem with the atmosphere so that resolution continues to increase with mirror size or in the case of multiple telescopes in an interferometer setup, the size of the baseline.
Ground-based telescopes have a number of clear advantages in addition to high resolution: they're easily upgraded/repaired and they cost far less than a Shuttle launch.
That said, space-based telescopes still have some advantages over their larger ground-based counterparts: first, they're obviously not subject to day and night but the big advantage is that a space telescope can observe in wavelengths that would be blocked by the Earth's atmosphere.
They're complimentary technologies.
...between the "small building on the surface of the Moon" and the "guy who officially owns that plot of the Moon", whoever that is.
Predicted resolution: in 40 years, private trips to the moon will finally allow the eviction notice to be delivered!
Coral Cache
Note - Doesn't seem to be working. Use mirrordot in case of that.
Mirrordot
Karma whoring since 1962!!!
the hubble telescope gives you informations ...
in the visible and IR spectral range which
is completely different from radio astronomy
which is done here.
Comparing just the resolution of both methods
doesn't make much sense.
Slashdot articles should really be of a better
quality
pairing Hubble with this network of telescopes to somehow compound the resolution? Instead of pitting one against the other...
I got a disturbing view of the telescopes pointing down at us. I was on and could see my house, my car and my kids small playground in the backyard from space.
And then I saw it, a car in my driveway I didn't recognize. I didn't thing there was anyone home at that time...
haha
The Hubble Space Telescope Project. This is an excellent guide to the 'scope and instrumentation on board the Hubble.
http://www.busyweather.com/
The principle involved is the same principle which has been used for some decades now in radio interferometry: the data (consisting of the electric field as a function of time) from several radio telescopes are recorded (with timestamps) and then sent to a correlator which combines the signals. This means that in contrary to optical interferometry, the interference is not realised in real time, but `simulated' afterwards in a computer.
The difference is in the way the signals are transported; they used to record the data on magnetic tape drives, which are still used but are more and more being replaced with hard disks. Apparently they have now also started to use the Internet to transport the data.
Yeah, we need pictures? Like a picture through a telescope of the lunar lander would look that much different than the picture of the lunar lander while they were on the moon? I mean, we already HAVE pictures. They're just from a different angle than the telescope image would be. Not like it would be hard to fake that.
I fully believe we were on the moon, I don't know why there are so many skeptics really, I know it was at a time that was "too convenient" in the scheme of politics and everything, but there are a lot of other things that I find much harder to believe, that I have no physical proof of at all.
http://www.google.com/search?q=9+terabits+in+Libra ries+of+congress
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Very simply, this aperture synthesis experiment is not the same as being able to resolve a house on the moon, unless the house was emitting radio waves. Optical aperture synthesis is harder, but it has been done, at COAST, among others.
Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
Is that the moon landing conspiracy theorists will only accept being taken to the moon so they can see for themselves. Wake up and smell the carpet bagging, it's just a big scam for free moon tickets :-P
> 9 terabits were transfered during the 20 hour experiment
Seems like they exhausted all paid bandwidth with it.
- Hey John, we're running out of bandwidth this month.
- Well, Mike, we have about 2 gbytes left, it's enough for us.
- WTF?!? 1 gbytes
- 0 gbytes
NO CARRIER
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
Evidence??...
...Not so much as warehouse full of high-tensile aluminium mouse mats.
Suppose that you wanted to detect a very faint object. You could aim your telescope at a given point in the sky for a couple of hours each night. You could integrate the image over a six month period. That should give you a baseline of 186 million miles never mind a paltry couple of thousand miles.
One of my favorite experiments is to take a sine wave buried under about 20 dB of noise. By integrating over a long enough period, the signal emerges beautifully. (of course it has zero bandwidth) The neat thing about this is that your detector only has to resolve one bit; you still get a nice sine wave out. This should work for detecting dim stars and I'd be suprised if they didn't do it. Do they? Any astronomers out there?
How about footsteps?
I want to see footsteps on the moon. Even during these years they should still be there having no wind and rain. (I might be wrong and other forces could sweep them away)
To the believers:
How would you know this really has taken place?
Mass manipulation with media is something which still works pretty well.
Specially in the US...
It is not simply that it was too convenient. It is for a host of other reasons. NASA did quite clearly fake or modify a number of pictures. This doesn't mean they didn't go to the moon but NASA doesn't want to explain it either. NASA regularly doctors photos of space today. Hubble telescope pictures are a good example of this, where an artist is hired to make it look more exciting. This is a well known practice, so I don't see anything conspirtorical about it except that with the moon they don't want to say anything.
I would say that based on the evidence from both sides that we did probably go to the moon at least on some of the trips. Although whether or not the first moon landing happened is a bit of a question for me.
My problem is that both sides like to make up facts and both sides like to ignore each others facts.
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
Interferometric telescopes can drastically increase the resolution as compared to single-tube telescopes.
Having two scopes one mile apart, as far as resolution is concerned, is equivalent to having a single one-mile-wide mirror (in essence; the previous poster is correct in his argument about atmospheric distortions & other problems).
The problem is that the amount of light collected is still based solely on the sum of the surface areas of the mirrors-- not the effective area.
If not enough light (or radio waves, in this case) is collected to trigger the CCDs, the object throwing out the radiation simply won't be detected.
Incidentally, the Keck telescopes in Hawaii work this same way, but with a much shorter baseline. It helps that, at two miles above sea level, they're above much of the atmosphere, and that they both have fairly large mirrors to begin with.
For more information about how they work, Google lists plenty of resources.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
Haven't we been using VLBI techniques for almost a decade? Or more?
The only thing I see in this story that is new is the fact that the VLBI data was sent over the internet, instead of the usual method of "Never underestimate the bandwitdth of a Fed-Ex truck full of terabyte data tapes." Otherwise, this is just announcing a new VLBI center.
"This level of detail is equivalent to picking out a small building on the surface of the Moon!"
Now they can prove/disprove our trip to the moon, just point them at the moon, and look for the lunar rover, landing pad, etc.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
we computer guys think we're geeky, but these stargazers make us look like a bunch of high school jocks.
I need some links to REPUTABLE sites supporting your assertions.
I can't help but think that phenomena such as the Oliver Stone JFK conspiracy "theory" and moon landing skeptics "theory" is all part of the rampant anti-intellectualism in this country (USA). It's simply mind boggling.
Self awareness - try it!
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
.45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, Byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors... the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed, "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
This thread is useless without pics!
Rats! Fat fingers and fat brain.
..."
should read "are all part of the
Self awareness - try it!
This level of detail is equivalent to picking out a small building on the surface of the Moon!
OK, let's see:
levelOfDetail = distanceEarthMoon / sizeBuildingOnMoon
whereas
distanceEarthMoon = 384.400.000 m
sizeBuildingOnMoon = 0 m
DIVISION BY ZERO
Stupid comparison...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's some math to explain what a resolution of 20 milliarcseconds really means.
:)), that is.
1 arcsecond = 1/3600 degrees
Therefore, 20 milliarcseconds = 20/3600000 degrees = (20/3600000)/360*2pi radians
Delta = arctan(diameter/distance)
where Delta stands for angular diameter. This formula is the basic definition of angular diameter. (Note : This formula automatically implies that the units of angular diameter are same as the unit of a plane angle, i.e. radian/degree)
Taking tan function on both sides we get
tan Delta = diameter/distance
Since resolution of the telescope is (20/3600000)/360*2pi radians we get
tan ((20/3600000)/360*2pi) = diameter/distance.
Now,
tan ((20/3600000)/360*2pi) = 9.69627362*10^-8,
This means that
9.69627362*10^-8 = minimum diameter/distance
which can be restated as
distance*9.69627362*10^-8 = minimum diameter
By substituting distance as required, we can obtain the diameter of the smallest observable object at that particular distance.
For example, taking (mean) earth-moon distance as 385,000 km we get
minimum diameter for an object on the moon to be observable = (385,000*9.69627362*10^-8) km = 0.0373306534 km = 37.3306534 m (approx.)
All math was done using Google's calculator and all formulae/definitions are from Wikipedia.
Disclaimer : I may have misinterpreted/misued the formulae so the above results are open to mistakes.
Mod this up anyway, I'm sure somebody will find my mistakes, if there are any (I hope not
...was a *radio*telescope. :-/
There was a documentry done by the CBC in Canada called 'Dark Side of the Moon' that addressed this although I don't know where you are going to get it. You can probably bittorrent the *cough* FOX documentary on it, though I don't know how honest you can rely on FOX to be. There are some websites (just Goggle for them you lazy bastard ;-)) on the topic but I would have to say I don't find many of them (for both sides) terribly reputable. Reputable people don't tend to spend time maintaining websites to support or deny conspiracies.
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
"This level of detail is equivalent to picking out a small building on the surface of the Moon!"
Somehow, that doesn't seem too impressive. I would have expected the Hubble to pick out a baseball-size object on the moon, but what do I know.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 full of DVDs"
Credit where credit is due:
In the early '90s I heard this from a college prof, only it was CDs back then.
For a scientific comparison of apples and oranges, see this improbable research article.
The top post completely missed the point of the press release.
VLBI has been getting this kind of angular resolution for decades, this is not news. The news is that they've combined the signals from telescopes positioned across the globe in *real time*, which is a first.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Come on people, wake up, not only the moon landing is fake, or even the Internet Telescope is fake... the whole Internet is fake! The government placed tiny little gnomes in your computer that simulate a global network, but all the while, you've only been chatting with gnomes. CONSPIRACY!!!
Ok... I'm gonna take my pills now
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
Plus, I wonder what that small building on the Moon looks like in the radio spectrum, for it to be a meaningful object when comparing resolutions...
Maybe if the building has wi-fi or electrical wiring of some kind?
A secret adendum to the Malta Accords clearly gave space to the US if they would enter the war. At the time everyone thought Roosevelt was an idiot. Now we know better.
Check out a movie called "The Dish" sometime
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205873/
Ok it is a film, but the facts behind the film etc etc mean the only way to fake the moon landing would be to send a transmitter to lunar orbit and THEN fake a whole load of other shit, a feat that "might" be possible today but wouldn't have been with the computing power available back then.
I don't find a moon landing the least remarkable.
What absolutely fucking stuns the living shit out of me is that apart from teflon frying pans we have done absolutely fuck all since then in THIRTY FIVE FUCKING YEARS!
now THAT blows my mind.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
It goes back farther than your college years, youngster and the originator is more than likely unknown.
I can see my house from here!!!
Just wondering.
I'd hate to be the poor sod who's staring into the eyepiece when this thing blows. AHHHHHH, MY EYESSS!!!! I'M BLINDED!!!!!
So, how many small buildings *are* on the moon?
They landed on the MARKED side of the dune.
It was a windy day in Arizona when that flag waved on its own, hehehehe....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
To implement aperature synthesis you need to have the phase of the signal. Almost all optical recording devices just record the amplitude or intensity, because light waves vibrate at teraherz, i.e. beyond present day electronics, although we are closing in. Radio operates a megaherz which is easy to capture, record, transmit the phased signal.
If you have a full signal and high fidelity transimssion system you can send the actual light signals, with phase, to an analog inferometric synthesizer. This is presently being done at the ESO observatories simulating a optical mirror several hundred yards wide. This system has seen first light light, but is still in the developmental stage. Atmospheric distortion is a major issue.
These people are not skeptics. A real skeptic looks for the facts on both sides of an issue. They don't swallow a story whole just because it fits with their view of the world.
These are very gullable people, and yes, some are downright crackpots, but they are not skeptics.
For a detailed look at what a good skeptic is all about check out the Skeptical Inquirer at: http://www.csicop.org/si/
Humbled? Or hobbled?
What would be REALLY neat is if this Internet-based telescope could be time-shared for ALL Internet-connected persons. This would enable just about anyone to train the synthetic types of ground-based, distributed telescopes on any object detectable in the heavens.
It also would mean that scientists and astronomers, even military planners or astrology fans, could get as much information as they can, but it would be, in real-time, sharable and traceable. Then, a discovery made by one would literally be instantaneously shared without the risk of a loner dying or holding back on information.
On the other hand, it means that anyone "discovering" (really just detecting) the next asteroid or cometary trail to assail us would be squelched by one or more governments. A better thing would be to have live, synthetic, public tracking and explanation of objects. This might dramatically reduce the "hysteria" level if a REAL disaster becomes close at hand.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The moon left orbit in September 9, 1999.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
to the mix, and maybe Keck and that one in Hawaii. One wonders the effect of throwing a few dozen relatively low resolution telescopes out to the Lagrange points and hook them up as well.
I seem to recall at one time there was a project to link thousands of backyard amatuer radio telescopes into a giant array and combine them via the internet. I can't find any links for this, does anyone have any more information? It would be great if it it could get up and running.
While I'm at it, Open Source reminds me of how alot of near space Astronomy is done; clubs of amatuers looking for asteroids, comets etc. and then broadcasting results to academic and other amatuer clubs for confirmation. Or university Astronomers using the amatuers to help locate or confrim the existance of an object. THe power of cooperation...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Great, they got better-than-HST resolution... in the radio spectrum, where it's significantly easier to perform interferometry. Wake me up when they can pull this off at shorter wavelengths... *that* will be interesting.
a small building on the surface of the Moon
There are buildings on the moon now? Great Scott!
A cluster of these.
No really imagine it, it's the whole point of the article after all.
Radio interferometry has been around forever. It would be really be nihilistic if they could do optical interferometry using telescopes on different sides of the planet. It seems because you can't sample an optical waveform like you can with a radio waveform, the optical telescopes need to be next to each other. Couldn't they bounce two optical beams to a satellite where the images are combined?
Maybe a space based replacement for Hubble isn't needed..
You can see the stars from an internet based telescope, but you can't aim it at Earth, which is the real and highly secret reason for Hubble.
signed - I've seen pictures it took.
- "Yes, You're right," or
- "No, you're paranoid."?
It's their right... If they want to do that, then let them. My responses are aimed at the people listening to them, not to the speakers. The speakers are essentially lost causes, for the most part.I have an ex roommate who would fit in the conspiracy theory group, and -- believe me -- hes not going to belive anything that he doesn't want to. He'll 'debunk' a "so-called fact" in one paragraph, and then use that same (just debunked) fact to 'prove' something else 33 paragraphs down.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
That's pretty awesome. So, the largest theoretical separation available on Earth alone is equal to the diameter of the Earth, about 7,926 miles. Imagine if we could link a pair of telescopes from the Earth to the moon, giving an antenna separation of about 239,000 miles, or 30 times the diameter of the Earth.
GANNS.com
Just don't look at the Sun with it the wrong way round.