Astronomy

average white guy baka

i know that this sounds naive, but do they actually have the race data available when making selections? for some reason i thought they collected for statistics purposes but it wasn't a part of the selection process, but I don't know much about these things

Gravitational wave astronomy is a hot new field, it'll be a pretty good way to get into the field and explore new problems

serious question, why would gravitational wave astronomy be a good way to get into astronomy?

gravity doesn't exist.

It does but only because the masses believe it exists and reality is shaped by collective consciousness.

It won't. The experts in astronomy don't know shit because they think theyre the smartest people alive,

they are looking at lights and will tell you with a straight face that because a light is red the wavelengths parralax determine it's size and distance from Earth while all are moving.

they're spewing this shit to get you to believe dark matter is holding the big bang universe together when they cant prove it exists, but they need it for their gravitation equations to work.

the random explosion of mass from the center to allow the sun and moon and earth perfectly eclipse one another.

scientists:
>hmm, that's an interesting anomaly in our data.
>it's not explained by anything we know
>well, here's an explanation for it, let's investigate
>while we investigate we can call it dark matter

you:
>hurr durr retard scientists have massive conspiracy they don't actually know what's going on they're just spewing shit and making it all up hurr durr they're all stupid

scientists:
>keep doing what they were doing, never knowing you existed, because you are meaningless

Actually al you guy do is try to silence and shame away all debate to make yourselves feel intellectually superior when all you do is live your life on appeals to authority and ad hominems.

Many problems can be studied using g waves. Basically an unsolved problem in astronomy is how short term gamma ray bursts are created with the many believing them to be caused by merging neutron stars, so if you detect g waves from two in-spiraling neutron stars you can point your telescopes in that direction and test whether or not the hypothesis is true. Another issue in astronomy is the formation of binary bhs (blacks holes=bhs) with three hypothesis, chemically homogeneous channel, dynamical formation, and the common envelope each of these makes various predictions about the relative masses and spins of the bhs and by analyzing g waves we can determine these properties thus finding out how the systems form. Next there is the problem of primordial bhs, did they form in the early universe or do they even exist, super massive bhs have similar issues, g wave analysis can give insight into these problem as well. Next we have the ability to test various theories about dark matter (are they machos, wimps, lots of small bhs, primordial bhs does it even exist?). Another one is the understanding the distribution of masses of black holes and the various "populations" of stars, i.e. old large starts formed of purely hydrogen gas, newer stars with higher "metallicity". The reason we what to know about old stars and bhs is cause they seeded the universe with heavy elements and are responsible for the current state of the universe.

Essentially g wave astronomy allows us to test various theories about cosmology, astrophysics and the early universe, place constraints on models and also gain new insight into astrophysical process. There's various other specific topics I haven't gone into, but those are more advanced and require a more in depth knowledge of astrophysics,

>Not knowing what g wave astronomy is nor what people are using it for.
>Assuming it's just for dark matter
What else was I expecting from Veeky Forums

Earth is flat

OP do it. I majored in physics and philosophy but loved astronomy so much I'm doing research on cosmology. Take some programming if you're doing this bc thats how all the labs share information through github.

Do you guys also applied for positions around the World outside USA?

Such as Chile?
> Home of 42% of world's astronomical infrastructure.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_Chile

And other places All Around the World?
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observatories

>an unsolved problem

What I noticed was there are many unsolved problems in basic astronomy yet they continue at building an entire theoretical field around theoretical g waves built upon theoretical gravity based all upon Eratosthenes expirements on the earths curvature which have been proven wrong due to his lack of awareness of light refraction through the atmosphere...which many ball earther's will claim as a proof the earth is round.

I did my research,but the fact is you take your information at face value and never look into how it works in reality. You can't because you trust NASA and Elon Musk and Brian Cox or Carl Sagan to teach you how to smart.

But thats okay because Einstein taught you to think everything was relative and nothing you see is real anyway everything is in motion.

>take the word of experts or authorities who have a paper saying theyre experts..
>notice when they are wrong
>defend them anyway because you think their job is to educate you
>call flat earthers stupid because deep down you don't wan't there to be a gods or angels because that's somehow less cool than space alien wars.

First off, these aren't "basic" questions in astronomy, secondly the lack of understanding is due to the enormous difficulty in testing these things, many of which aren't even tied to GR but to the QCD and more generally QFT. Also I said nothing about flat earthers, how did that even come up? But as for you asking about g waves/GR and how it's based on the earth's curvature, that's flat out wrong, many experiments of GR are preformed with no reference to the curvature of the earth, like the trajectories of planets like Mercury, red shift of light via gravity, gravitational lensing, time dilation and frame dragging which need to be accounted for in gps, there are the decay of binary orbits which is indirect evidence of g waves but perfectly matched with theoretical calculations, also the actual detection of g waves. Further I fucking hate Musk, Cox, and Sagan, they're meme scientists and engineers. Also it's clear you haven't even tried to understand GR if you really think all it's about is things being relative when in reality GR is built on certain things being invariant in all reference frames, i.e. fundamental quantities are NEVER relative. As for the "take the words of experts" I've actually run many of these classical and modern experiments and done the calculations myself, like every physicist working in the field is supposed to. I know this bait, but still, it's such a stale meme at this point that it's just getting annoying, can we just move onto the next Veeky Forums shitposting meme already?

>Eratosthenes expirements on the earths curvature
>I did my research,

E's experiment had nothing to do with proving whether the Earth is round or not. Clearly, you are *not* doing your research. E, like the everyone else at the time, knew the Earth was round. So E knew how to use shadowplay to determine its size.
And *that* is why we call you stupid. You *don't* do research.

nice ad hominem.

>everyone else at the time, knew the Earth was round.

really?? that's just completely not true

>E's experiment had nothing to do with proving whether the Earth is round or not

no he set out to measure the circumference as you wouldn't know about egyptian monotheistic sun worship that was established by priests of amon so you couldnt understand why he started with a ball( pregravity)

you clearly didn't look it up because that's exactly what he did and he bagan by assuming the earth was round, and did not know the light refracts through the atmosphere yet he came up with 25,000 miles which scientists use today as a measurement of earths cirumference even though that's not right.

and you finish with typical ad hominems of ball earthers.

I don't se whats wrong with a flat earther studying the data of all three scientist on youtube, when im sure you use youtube for similar reasons.

Isn't calling someone a "ball-earther" an ad-hominem of itself?

How do you explain the variations in ((gravitational)) acceleration around the earth? Cause they surely are there (space-electronics.com/contentAssets/Literature/Precise_Measurement_of_Mass.PDF).

How do you explain the coriolis force acting on an earth-bound object? Anyone having followed a basic classical mechanics course can tell you about rotating frames of reference causing this (rotating sphere maybe?). (pic related. I know it is wikipedia, not a credible source, but tell me please what is factually false there).

There is so much evidence of earth being a sphere of mass orbiting a sun, why do you choose to deny it?

>Isn't calling someone a "ball-earther" an ad-hominem of itself?

no, these are the terms and titles of opposition given at the time of the debate.

you belive the earth is a ball/round/sphere/oblate spheroid/pearshaped
supported by gravity and freemasonic theories

I believe the Earth is flat plane with no edge but maybe a barrier or ice wall where we call antarctica and a hole the emmits light at the north pole. all of which are open to debate.

the difference between the two paradigms isn't in it's details perse the problem is that Flat earth does not claim to require tax funding of billions of dollars to explore space, as such this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. However evience has not been provided in sufficient enough consistency to warrant many peoples support of the theories regarding why we live on a ball and should support the space travel/heliocentric paradigm.

>coriolis effect is a myth
youtube.com/watch?v=P6kp0ramXGs

There is so much evidence of earth being a sphere of mass orbiting a sun, why do you choose to deny it?

there is much more evidence against this, simply due to the vast amount of cgi and NASA fakery.
youtube.com/watch?v=mIl34U4ccbE

beyond nasa there is an abundance of religous pretenses regarding the heliocentric model that were not explored accurately during primary and secondary education.due to the indoctrinating nature of public education itself.

Im not here to decieve you ,i went to college and was taught the same standard sciences.

the only reason I deny the Heliocentric model is due to it's history and it's failures in application and experiment, which I studied rigorously .

I simply cannot believe you actually went to college.

The arguments you raise have no basis in rudimentary scientific method. Instead of giving proof of your world view (the world is flat) you try to debunk any arguments raised against your world view. For me this is a battle that cannot be won.

The video you use as an argument is hopelessly wrong. The arguments used have no basis in mathematics, only in pictures which show that the creator has no actual understanding of rigorous physics. The coriolis effect can be proved from the basic concepts of impulse, rotation and vector maths. Nothing freemasonic about those I hope.

For example, your picture. The reason why the smoke plume on the train stays behind is because the air around the train is still in our frame of reference, while the train moves. The smoke is pushed back by the air, as there is no longer a force acting on the smoke.

The smoke in the right panel rises up, since the air surrounding it has no relative motion with repsect to the plume (since they all rotate together). If the plume were to move, then all of us would also be experiencing the same force as the plume, being blown away at 1000 mph.
(This picture is an obvious troll, I really hope you don't mean this.)

I hope you are a troll, and if so, props to you, you got me. If not, I have no words for how ignorant you can be, and how much you lie when saying you went to college.

Now before you play the ad-hominem card, please realize that if you keep sending false arguments, people will not take you serious. That is just how humans work, and that is that.

Although this attempt is futile, good job on trolling.

>thread gets immideatly hijacked by flat earth shitposters
colour me suprised

Can you even get a job in astronomy without a PhD?

can't debate flatearthers without ad hominems and appeals to authority.

calls them shit posters when they only post photo and video experiments to understand ball only to realize it doesnt exist.

>For me this is a battle that cannot be won.

Precisely. That's why deep down you hope I am a troll or shitposter and am not a genuinely educated person who believes in something that has never been considered a possibility by you personally due to the structured agenda of your education.

We know this which is why Flat Earth can't die.

We know it's only a matter of time until you've seen enough NASA CGI photos of space and heard so many contradicting arguments from professional intellectuals that you won't know what to believe.

There is absolutely no proof that the Earth is spinning at all or of the atmosphere rotating with the Earth.

youtube.com/watch?v=W2csHo821oM

Oh get lost, this is just such low-quality bait.
Flat earth can't die because there will always be shitposters having nothing to do but troll others, because facing the reality of their lives (NEET) is too much to bear.

How come I can measure the sun's rotation with my own research? Is my self-made measuring apparatus suddenly influenced by a ((freemason)) ghost? Looking at doppler-shift it is clear the sun is rotating.

And now onto your explanations for the world as it is. How are we not flying away from the earth? What is your explanation for the constant force pushing us down?

I must congratulate you, master shitposter. I have lost, for I have spent too much time on you.

>The arguments used have no basis in mathematics

>I was only pretending to be retarded

The maths used for proving this is so minimal, I was taught it first year of college. Coriolis forces are very real and very easily measurable (having a rotating disk and a moving object on it.)

But feel secure in only doing physics with addition and subtraction.

Nice comic sans, brainlet.

>How come I can measure the sun's rotation with my own research?

To understand this you must first understand the basics of the dominant Paradigm

Because you were taught by an educational establishment as to how to properly analyze, percieve, and measure without questioning the basis of their standard models of measurement philisophically to determine it's basis in observable reality.

> my self-made measuring apparatus suddenly influenced by a ((freemason)) ghost?

No doubt you used a standardized measuring unit that has been prescribed by the Royal Society in London to study topics and theories presented by these very same institutions.

So in some way yes, especially if it involve models presented by Copernicus, and or Newtonian physics in general, Calculus is a result of Newton.

>master shitposter.

Noone is this good at shitposting on Veeky Forums, the truth is stranger than fiction which is why it's so easy for me to sit here typing all this, you're not an idiot I give you that, but you should reconsider the foundations of your education and it's merits.

>How are we not flying away from the earth? What is your explanation for the constant force pushing us down?

Were standing on a flat plane rested on a foundation and our bodies are dneser than the surrounding air and aether..

1.The earth is round this is the illusion set by Eratosthenes and Pythagoras egyptian cult of Hermes Trismagestus and put forth by Copernicus and Keplar even though Tycho brahe thouth it ludicrous and was poisoned by Keplar who kept his observatory one of the best in the world at the time.

2. because the Earth was taught to be a ball by nobleman who funded scientific inquiries, during the "enlightenmnet" the earth needed to spin to explain the movements of the stars

3. because it spins it needs a force holding us on the surface to make sense( Newton's gravity)

4. Because there is gravity, it must now be explained in theory because it is not observable

hahaha nice try I got plenty more

Which is it?

what's great is you are the first ballearther who tried to prove curvature from on top of a mountain.

>an abundance of religous pretenses regarding the heliocentric model that were not explored accurately during primary and secondary education.due to the indoctrinating nature of public education itself.

are you joking?
you do realize that the church literally killed people in the past for "believing" in the "heretical" heliocentric model?
that far after there was unequivocal proof that geocentrism was total shit, the church still shilled it, and silenced opposition?
and with GREAT reluctance, after this failed due to science, only THEN did they accept heliocentrism?

and now you're going to say that heliocentrism is a massive conspiracy supported by the church?

and your picture? you do realize that the train is moving relative to the air around it, which is also at the surface, where air is densest?
and that the pic on the right there is very little relative movement, combined with very little atmospheric density, and thus (I'm sorry, I'll try to keep the physics as light as possible for you) the molecular collisions which cause the smoke on the left to leave a trail are not happening on the right? is that really so hard to comprehend? what type of mental hoops do you have to jump through for that pic to confirm anything for you?

>Because there is gravity, it must now be explained in theory because it is not observable

>gravity
>not observable
u wat? Just drop an apple, and "observe" what the fuck happens.
I mean sure, you can't see a force. That includes nuclear forces, EM force, and gravity force. I suppose that means they are all made up, right?

Actually, my device used optics, as it was a diffraction grating, which breaks up the light into different wavelengths. Analyzing the shift in these wavelengths measured at different spots on the sun reveals that at the sides they are shifted, which is caused by the relative motion of these parts of the sun away from us or towards us. pic related.

Your argument for us staying on the earth has no merit. You claim that because our bodies are denser that the surrounding air we sink. What mechanism causes bodies that are denser to sink? (hint: it might be a constant force pushing down!)

>Not understanding the basic workings of a camera.
has to be bait

>posts pics taken with fisheye lens which bends the horizon
>shows pic taken without the fisheye effect taken from orbit
>due to modifications made by the cameras and how the images are projected, you see the same curvature

see???? the curvature is fake!!!!!!

>If the earth is a ball, how does the shadow of K2 extend into space?

If the earth is a plane, how does the shadow of K2 extend into space?

>now you're going to say that heliocentrism is a massive conspiracy supported by the church?

yes.

the catholic church is a pagan sunworshipping cult also with roots to ancient egypt.

What you don't realize is the widespread effects of the 100 years war and the Counter Reformation in general.

you know nothing of Jesuit astronomy or the big bang's connection to Kabbalah.

You know nothing of Vatican 2, or why the pope is an SJW and Jesuit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

you don't even know catholic priests own the best observatories in the world,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_the_Catholic_Church#Vatican_Observatory

>Just drop an apple, and "observe" what the fuck happens.

this is your programmed response, I had it to.

the fact is apples are denser than air and fall down. Helium balloons rise because less dense than air.

If an apple fell onto the surface of a river it will float on water because it is less dense.

yes it is fake, and you know why so keep an eye out in the future when people try to prove the curvature of the earth knoiwing how cameras and cgi work, especially since NASA admits using cgi composites
>>posts pics taken with fisheye lens which bends the horizon

>You claim that because our bodies are denser that the surrounding air we sink. What mechanism causes bodies that are denser to sink?

the density of the material itself, in contrast to other substances.

materials are bonded through electromagnetism and frequency of the base elements which can be both repeatedly observed and proven in experiment and use of magnetic material like compasses which like gyroscopes only work on flat surfaces.

Except... in zero gravity, these fluids do not separate.
For example:
youtube.com/watch?v=n53U024JMo4
(not a NASA film)

So now you're calling on hocus-pocus to support your argument that the Earth is flat. Not very convincing, even though you seem to know a lot about mythology. Relying on that is why you will not understand reality.

Let's get back on topic, what're good schools to go for to do astrophysics or astronomy? Any good textbooks?

There are plenty. First of all, what country?

Dont argue with flat earthers. Even if you could convince them (which you cant) that wont make them any less retarded, it would only make it slightly less obvious that they are which is a bad thing

>Dont argue with flat earthers
> Call them retarded and use ad hominem

Projecting derision at us to control the consensus away from reasonable debate over uncomfortable questions.

Wow this is the same tactic cults use in censoring dissenters.

Instead of heretics were just retards.

Very scientific

>Even if you could convince them (which you cant)

Correct, because you're not making scientific arguments or using repeatedly testable/observable phenomena as proof.

Flat Earthers can do it all day, and your only argument are

>"you're seeing it wrong"
>gravity
>sci fi jargon dependent on gravity
>appeals to Authority
>adhominem

Well I was saying that more or less to facilitate conversation for other people interested in the topic, I already know about some good schools to such work in. Something I personally would like to discuss is problems/objects/theories in astrophysics/astronomy you find interesting (binary black holes formation, galaxy formation, FRB's, short/long term GRB's), which various hypothesis sound most convincing or cool for unexplained phenomenon (cmb cold spot being the result of a void or something super speculative like a universal collision or primordial black holes as dark matter), I don't know, I feel like this thread really has a lot of potential, I'm the guy who posted about g waves before so if you wanna talk about that i'm up for it.

>zero gravity

Im glad you posted that video because you showed how NASA fakes Zero G expirements.

youtube.com/watch?v=xmyFeMxmYK0

The fact is Gravity doesn't exist and what you witnessed is the air pressure changing in the cabin of a compressed airplane nosediving from 30,000 ft, to 25,000 ft in a parabolic maneuver to simulate weightlessness.

because of these very controlled circumstances the pressure holding the bonds of the water and oil separated gave way to that of the surrounding air pressure of the cabin. Also the oil and water are in a sealed bottle and were also pressurized.

>the book of Enoch.

>
Correct, because you're not making scientific arguments or using repeatedly testable/observable phenomena as proof

As if you do.

Oh wait, you don't, since there is no proof.

Oops

>your only arguments
I didnt make any arguments and i dont intend to. Nor was i talking to you. Fuck off now youre boring.

so the flat earth BS started as a joke to make fun of people who deny other scientific theories (like evolution etc) by using their arguments to argue for something that is obviously not true
then all the newfags came, saw people post flat earth stuff and thought to jump in on the meme thinking it was just about trying to "lol prove flat earth" and started spamming it in every possible halfway related thread completely missing the entire purpose, making an ass out of themselves without realizing it and obstructing any other discussion.

...

>I didnt make any arguments and i dont intend to.

duh because you have none, which is why we believe Earth is flat .

OP here. im not surprised flat earthers showed up, though im disappointed that the thread is only flat earth arguments. I wanted an astronomy thread not "the earth is flat" thread

Go for it, but you must very strongly consider doing a masters or a phd, and planning for that as well: