Virtual Telescope Zooms In On Milky Way Black Hole

FiReaNGeL writes "An international team has obtained the closest views ever of what is believed to be a super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The astronomers used radio dishes in Hawaii, Arizona and California to create a virtual telescope more than 2,800 miles across that is capable of seeing details more than 1,000 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope. The target of the observations was the source known as Sagittarius A* ("A-star"), long thought to mark the position of a black hole whose mass is 4 million times greater than the sun. Though Sagittarius A* was discovered 30 years ago, the new observations for the first time have an angular resolution, or ability to observe small details, that is matched to the size of the event horizon."

Comments

freeresearcher.com

[Anonymous Coward]

"a virtual telescope more than 2,800 miles across that is capable of seeing details more than 1,000 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope"

- ok, but HST is an optical telescope, not "radio dish".

Re:freeresearcher.com

[Fred_A]

"a virtual telescope more than 2,800 miles across that is capable of seeing details more than 1,000 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope"

- ok, but HST is an optical telescope, not "radio dish".

It's all part of the same electromagnetic spectrum. The fact that you can only see a very narrow bit of it doesn't change the fact that the rest can be used to look at things with the right tools. The only difference is wavelength. If you had the right "eyes" it would all be the same to you.

expanding ...

[rohan972]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expanding

To determine that something is expanding you must first know its dimensions. Since we don't know the dimensions of the universe, we can't really tell if it is expanding or not. There is movement within the observed portion of the universe that is compatible with the concept of an expanding universe.

Re:Interferometry

[eclectic4]

"Interferometry and Aperture Synthesis aren't hard to understand."

Then...

"I'll try to put it simply..."

And with two wiki links included? Sheesh... now I know you stated that /.ers "should be of a level of intelligence that they can understand this stuff", which I believe is true enough, but you greatly underestimate our laziness. "Virtual telescope" works just fine for me... IANAA, and I never will be, sorry.