"China's giant telescope represents its big ambitions for science"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You do realize the size of individual scopes is not what makes the most progress, in the world of radio astronomy it is the correlation of many scopes around the world that gives them real resolution power far greater than the Chinese scope or Aricebo, which is just one data point on a larger map with scopes around the world simulating a scope that for resolution purposes is the distance between scopes and signals processed by supercomputers to make much more detailed maps than any one can give.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I said nothing negative about either you OR Chinese astronomy. I SAID just one dish is just one element of a much larger planet wide array and maybe even larger than that if we ever get a real radio telescope on the moon, the resolution would go up ten or a hundred times of what we post now with the sum total of the dishes giving near planet sized dish resolution, and of course that does not make the actual gain any better, the total surface area of the dish is what gives sensitivity besides the actual size of the dish, which gives resolution. It is really sad when I just posted a bit on radio astronomy that you would take it as some kind of insult and strawman. I had ZERO intention of insulting you. I was just saying my bit about dish size V resolution. Besides, BOTH the Chinese and Arecibo have one shortcoming, the inability to aim right at the horizon, only having roughly a 30 degree span of 'vision' since what you are doing is moving an antenna around inside the focal plane of the dish and therefore not only are you limited in what you can observe close to the horizon, you also lose some of the gain that could be had when you aim straight up so the lower towards the horizon the dish aims, the less of the total surface area is available to actually concentrating energy. Now if you chose to see that as an insult, I don't know what to say.

@sonhouse said
I said nothing negative about either you OR Chinese astronomy. I SAID just one dish is just one element of a much larger planet wide array and maybe even larger than that if we ever get a real radio telescope on the moon, the resolution would go up ten or a hundred times of what we post now with the sum total of the dishes giving near planet sized dish resolution, and of co ...[text shortened]... actually concentrating energy. Now if you chose to see that as an insult, I don't know what to say.

Maybe she has "abysmal reading comprehension"?

Or maybe she's just an A-hole.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Hahahaha!!!!

Duchess64 said "butt hurt"!!! Now that's funny!!!

Yes, Duchess64, you "butt hurt" me real bad.
Though you must have taken me whIle I was sleeping: You dirty dog you.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You still have something wrong here. Earth's atmosphere affects OPTICAL telescopes big time but the low frequencies, say 1mm wavelength, or larger, aren't as severely affected by atmospheric blobs. One effect that was measurable though, at 5 and 10 Ghz, on a microwave audio link, my transmitter system was called Microwave Troposcatter communications and there, if you put up a beam with a decent dish and aimed it say to the horizon for max range, there are atmospheric blobs of partially ionized air 'bubbles' floating around the troposphere and they can absorb or reflect the RF coming up from ground level
So Troposcatter communications used TWO separate dishes about 10 meters apart and shooting TWO identical signals up into the atmosphere. So at the other end there is also two dishes and because the average size of the partially ionized blobs are less than ten meters in diameter, like invisible balloons of small pockets of ionized air at around 30,000 meters or so up. So the signal from one dish alone would render a S/N ratio of basically zero to near perfect, randomly up and down.
But if two dishes are used like I said, one dish gets a signal through because the S/N ratio of one dish may fluctuate all over the place, if you have a signal combiner, one signal is up while the other is down so one or the other is up and thus you get near perfect communications in spite of the atmospheric blobs.
At other frequencies that is not so much of a problem but that is changing the angle of deflection of a signal from a dish spewing energy UP from the ground but from the other direction and more vertically oriented signals like a radio telescope it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem, maybe because the dish is a lot larger than the partially ionized blobs floating around.
There was an attempt to advance that art by using a single dish that used multiple frequencies where the two ends of the links would talk to each other, 'Chan 2 is good, chan 5 went down, and so forth, frequency hopping at a high enough rate that you also got near 100% signal due to the fact those blobs were also highly frequency dependent. But sat technology took over all that work and that technology died on the vine.
I imagine if you could replace the TRC 90 unit I worked on, replaced the dish with a 30 meter wide dish there would not be so much of a problem but of course that would not be so transportable. And of course all that stuff has been replaced with sat com decades ago so it is a moot point now. Stars just don't twinkle as much at RF frequencies as they do at light or IR or UV. And of course there is not that much UV able to penetrate the atmosphere so it is up to Hubble and the like to see that band of light and even trickier kinds of telescopes to focus x rays, the Russian Doll kind of scopes that just nudges the radiation into a bend using a LOT of smaller and smaller barrels that end up making a half ass attempt at a real focus. Not as good as optical scopes but you get to see a lot more high energy events.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So you take a post out of context and re-post it here as some kind of rebuke. Amazing.
So why didn't you point out optical scopes need lasers shot up to give the deformable mirrors the ability to focus almost as good as Hubble, not quite though. Better resolution overall though and more light gathering power but they have to live with the limitations of atmosphere in terms of seeing UV and such.

Of, of course, I forgot, you already knew that so I must be attacking you personally again.

@Duchess64
So that keeps begging the question, why do you keep responding to a pathological liar?