Comments on: Huge Camera to Observe Dark Energy

By: David Gronczniak

David Gronczniak — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:50:33 +0000

Should a black hole effect dark matter ? How about a star ? Is there a barrier like the opposite of gravity preventing this merge? Could gravity be actually dark matter flowing through us and into us and into the earth (all objects) all to keep us in existence ?
How about before the big bang there was dark matter then the bang that forces the weight of the black matter out into the depths of space and we appear (our visible world) then as this dark matter is expanding it is also expanding our universe like a suction so now we are in the vacuum of space .now here is where it gets tricky now the black matter is drawn back into our universe and its inrush is what is the force pushing us apart even faster because there is only so much room for black matter to exist in and we are being forced out of its way ( accelerated expansion of our universe)!

By: JamesB

JamesB — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:53:48 +0000

This sounds like a fun experiment.

Ian/Nancy, can you please keep us up to date on how this is progressing?

By: Al Hall

Al Hall — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:45:30 +0000

Yeah exactly.. Or better yet, put it a couple of kilometers underground so it can look for WIMPS.. Oh wait.. That's dark 'matter', I think..
Sorry.. Just messing around..

By: al

al — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:34:43 +0000

Can't they just leave the lens cap on ?

By: Uclock

Uclock — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:22:21 +0000

How can they be sure what physicists will be observing is dark energy? If the understanding of time and space is in fact incorrect then mapping galaxies and galactic redshifts will not prove anything other than noting that in the distant past galaxies were moving away from us at a faster rate due to the time it takes for their light to reach us. As for cosmological redshift, well that supposition is only right if physicists do really understand space and time.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:35:20 +0000

The problems with refractors are 1) chromatic aberration, and 2) over a certain size, the lens can't support it's own weight. A refractor in space can be bigger, but you still have chromatic aberration.

But this isn't a refractor. It's a camera.

"The cage containing the system mounts at the prime focus of the Blanco 4-meter telescope at CTIO, a southern hemisphere NOAO telescope." This is a reflecting telescope. So, one might think of this as an eyepiece for a big CCD. Maybe it lies flat, and therefore doesn't have to support it's own weight. The second of the two links has an image of the camera. It's unlabeled, and i can't make much from it, like where the lens or CCD goes.

My point and shoot camera has a smaller detector than 500 megapixels. But, it can take pictures faster than 17 seconds, without having to wait to 2011. There are always trade offs.

Maybe some small university could take delivery and make use of their older camera.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:00:29 +0000

I don't understand. For a long time telescope makers have favored mirrors over lenses. What advantages does this big lens have over an equivalent mirror?

By: R2K

R2K — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:25 +0000

Looks like great fun, I love huge lenses.

You know… the size limit on glass lenses found on earth (About 40 inches) doesn't exist if they are created in space. Perhaps some day it will be possible to bring a bag of sand up to space and grind it into a huge lens.

By: Al Hall

Al Hall — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:23:27 +0000

I was thinking the same thing.. I don't know if it will be successful in proving, understanding or debunking the current theory of dark energy (hopefully something will come of it) but the spin-offs could be useful.

By: Greg G

Greg G — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:46:07 +0000

Quite apart from the important and interesting science to be taken from projects like these, maufacturing and engineering challenges at a whole new level have to be met., and solutions found.

These are important spin-offs which may bring benifits in other areas

By: AndyF

AndyF — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:35:50 +0000

Nice to see the UK is still putting some efforts into research, but still below par compared to our European neighbours. For subjects like this, international collaborations are vital and need to be funded at a much higher level.
Nancy: it's 'gravitational effects', not 'affects'

By: Steven Londe

Steven Londe — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:55:27 +0000

My reply to this article is that research should be a high priority for Science in these United States. I am a Math Professor and I think the students of today need a future they can look forward to.