Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #460120 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-02 16:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-20 16:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-02 16:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-03 01:49 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 09:45 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-04 19:19 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-07 18:29 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-11 11:30 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-11 17:14 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-12 14:33 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-11 23:59 -0500
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-12 18:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-13 13:16 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-13 14:48 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 18:59 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 19:19 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-14 13:13 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-14 18:55 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-16 09:14 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:05 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:24 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-15 19:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:11 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:31 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-06-17 14:42 +1000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 17:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 19:09 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 09:55 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 15:46 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 10:10 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 19:14 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 19:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-25 22:38 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 21:02 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 21:28 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 22:02 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 18:34 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:43 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-01 12:20 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 17:04 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 03:55 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:39 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:42 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 19:51 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 05:04 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 20:58 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 20:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-06-12 22:18 -0500
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-13 19:23 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:37 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-16 20:20 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:40 +0200
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 08:35 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 17:33 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 10:26 -0700
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth Zprávn Udoucih <zpnvn@nwinst.ce> - 2018-06-19 17:32 +0000
Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 16:12 -0700
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-02 16:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: To see instantaneously from the moon on Earth |
| Message-ID | <9b65c7c9-6669-4098-925a-58ffd5292391@googlegroups.com> |
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size > > of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! > > What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? > > The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. > So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take > (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec > to arrive at earth. > > Hardly instantaneous. > > Enjoy, > ed You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous and does not require signaling devices which say that c always is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-03 01:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b132ca4$0$29213$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #460120 |
John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: >>> The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size >>> of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! >> >> What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? >> >> The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. >> So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take >> (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec >> to arrive at earth. >> >> Hardly instantaneous. >> >> Enjoy, >> ed > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous It is not. period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff56cff9-7a78-454b-8f3b-09c718197758@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460120 |
On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:26:19 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size > > > of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! > > > > What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? > > > > The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. > > So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take > > (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec > > to arrive at earth. > > > > Hardly instantaneous. > > > > Enjoy, > > ed > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic > radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, > travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- > that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous > and does not require signaling devices which say that c always > is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. Then your goal is simple: present the equipment or method that can send a signal to the moon (or anywhere) instantaneously. You claim it is possible, so do it. Or at least describe how to do it. Otherwise your comment above is fantasy. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-04 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68ca2a31-5c01-45a8-af6d-a5eb7a2d14d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460266 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:45:29 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:26:19 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size > > > > of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! > > > > > > What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? > > > > > > The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. > > > So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take > > > (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec > > > to arrive at earth. > > > > > > Hardly instantaneous. > > > > > > Enjoy, > > > ed > > > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic > > radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, > > travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- > > that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous > > and does not require signaling devices which say that c always > > is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. > > Then your goal is simple: present the equipment or method that > can send a signal to the moon (or anywhere) instantaneously. > > You claim it is possible, so do it. > Or at least describe how to do it. > > Otherwise your comment above is fantasy. > Ed Yes, I am trying to describe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-07 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d659cdb7-27d7-45a0-8907-2cb9dfb48534@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460266 |
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:45:29 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 7:26:19 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > > > > The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size > > > > of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! > > > > > > What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? > > > > > > The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. > > > So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take > > > (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec > > > to arrive at earth. > > > > > > Hardly instantaneous. > > > > > > Enjoy, > > > ed > > > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic > > radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, > > travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- > > that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous > > and does not require signaling devices which say that c always > > is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. > > Then your goal is simple: present the equipment or method that > can send a signal to the moon (or anywhere) instantaneously. > > You claim it is possible, so do it. > Or at least describe how to do it. > > Otherwise your comment above is fantasy. > Ed I just proposed an idea to build a telescope on Earth powerful enough to see household items on moon and what else do you want me to do?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 11:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fo61lbFbl30U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #460120 |
On 3/06/2018 9:26 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: >>> The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size >>> of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! >> >> What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? >> >> The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. >> So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take >> (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec >> to arrive at earth. >> >> Hardly instantaneous. >> >> Enjoy, >> ed > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous and does not require signaling devices which say that c always is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. > It is abundantly clear that our eyes respond to light in the visible part of the spectrum (it's almost a tautology). We even know the chemistry involved. Provide light in a previously dark room, and suddenly you can see. Stop providing it, and you cannot. Experiments with visible light clearly show that it does not propagate instantaneously. What possible line of reasoning could lead you to believe that seeing is instantaneous? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5338c32d-7598-4568-ac3b-4c83f994d857@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460876 |
On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:30:22 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/06/2018 9:26 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: > >>> The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size > >>> of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! > >> > >> What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? > >> > >> The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. > >> So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take > >> (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec > >> to arrive at earth. > >> > >> Hardly instantaneous. > >> > >> Enjoy, > >> ed > > > > You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous and does not require signaling devices which say that c always is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. > > > > It is abundantly clear that our eyes respond to light in the visible > part of the spectrum (it's almost a tautology). We even know the > chemistry involved. Provide light in a previously dark room, and > suddenly you can see. Stop providing it, and you cannot. > > Experiments with visible light clearly show that it does not propagate > instantaneously. > > What possible line of reasoning could lead you to believe that seeing is > instantaneous? > > Sylvia. We can figure the instant thing out later. Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. If this is true, then we should be able to build a telescope which is capable of imaging the rovers we left there from the Apollo missions. If we are capable of doing this it will set the record straight to all those moon lander deniers. It certainly would make all the major news networks. I must admit that in the scientific community- too much brain matter has been spent on whether we have been to the moon or not. Images of the moon landers, the flags we planted- would go a long way to sewing the seeds of this reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fo90o6Fsjf3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461008 |
On 12/06/2018 10:14 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, June 10, 2018 at 8:30:22 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/06/2018 9:26 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> The LED light source on the moon would have to be the size >>>>> of a very large football field- even with our most powerful telescopes! >>>> >>>> What makes you think the communication will be "instantaneous"? >>>> >>>> The moon is roughly 380,000 km from the surface of the earth. >>>> So light traveling from the moon to the earth will take >>>> (380,000,000 m) / (300,000,000 m/sec) = ~1.27 sec >>>> to arrive at earth. >>>> >>>> Hardly instantaneous. >>>> >>>> Enjoy, >>>> ed >>> >>> You automatically believe that c in all forms of electromagnetic radiation, of which LIGHT is merely one identifiable description, travels at 300,000 m/s. This is what I have been trying to say- that light per se that we see of the object seen is instantaneous and does not require signaling devices which say that c always is restricted by its speed; hence, its distance. >>> >> >> It is abundantly clear that our eyes respond to light in the visible >> part of the spectrum (it's almost a tautology). We even know the >> chemistry involved. Provide light in a previously dark room, and >> suddenly you can see. Stop providing it, and you cannot. >> >> Experiments with visible light clearly show that it does not propagate >> instantaneously. >> >> What possible line of reasoning could lead you to believe that seeing is >> instantaneous? >> >> Sylvia. > > We can figure the instant thing out later. Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. If this is true, then we should be able to build a telescope which is capable of imaging the rovers we left there from the Apollo missions. If we are capable of doing this it will set the record straight to all those moon lander deniers. It certainly would make all the major news networks. I must admit that in the scientific community- too much brain matter has been spent on whether we have been to the moon or not. Images of the moon landers, the flags we planted- would go a long way to sewing the seeds of this reality. > Nothing will convince the deniers. Any evidence that contradicts their world view will be deemed to have been faked. Any former denier who recants will be assumed to have been brainwashed, bribed or threatened. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 23:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sIydnR2XEcKhzoLGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #461008 |
On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches". Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what these terms mean? Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb611c44-51bf-4925-9730-f073cb4b37c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461018 |
On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > > the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > > I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > moon's surface within a few inches". > > Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > these terms mean? > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > > Tom Roberts Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 13:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fobgkbFcq2iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461113 |
On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see >>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. >> >> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to >> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the >> moon's surface within a few inches". >> >> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all >> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what >> these terms mean? >> >> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? >> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. >> >> Tom Roberts > > Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 14:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fobm05FdmipU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461125 |
On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see >>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. >>> >>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to >>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the >>> moon's surface within a few inches". >>> >>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all >>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what >>> these terms mean? >>> >>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? >>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, >> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly >> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar >> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a >> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, >> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? >> > > > No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > Sylvia. Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7046909-3fa2-4408-b56f-e454745bf9f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461129 |
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > >>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > >>> > >>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > >>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > >>> moon's surface within a few inches". > >>> > >>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > >>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > >>> these terms mean? > >>> > >>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > >>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > >>> > >>> Tom Roberts > >> > >> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > >> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > >> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > >> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > >> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > >> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > >> > > > > > > No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > > > Sylvia. > > Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > > Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > > Sylvia. We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-13 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <540626ac-7d1e-4715-a5af-d2472743d520@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461206 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 7:59:41 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > > We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? Speak for yourself, illogical one. > No wonder we are not ready for instant light. No wonder you are such a reality-denier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 13:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <foe4qpFs17vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461206 |
On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see >>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. >>>>> >>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to >>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the >>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". >>>>> >>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all >>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what >>>>> these terms mean? >>>>> >>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? >>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. >>>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>> >>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, >>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly >>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar >>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a >>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, >>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? >>>> >>> >>> >>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. >> >> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. >> >> Sylvia. > > We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing deniers. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <206428ef-b1e2-4973-9f8a-9f0dec15e607@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461214 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > >>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > >>>>> > >>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > >>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > >>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > >>>>> > >>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > >>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > >>>>> these terms mean? > >>>>> > >>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > >>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>> > >>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > >>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > >>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > >>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > >>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > >>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > >> > >> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > > > > Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > > If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > deniers. > > Sylvia. The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-16 09:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <foivi5Fppa5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461301 |
On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what >>>>>>> these terms mean? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. >>>> >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. >>> >> >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. >> >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing >> deniers. >> >> Sylvia. > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the required size is determined by the laws of optics. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f64cd520-869c-43a2-929e-afe4d7fa906f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461418 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > >>>>>>> these terms mean? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > >>>> > >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > >>> > >> > >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > >> > >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > >> deniers. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > Sylvia. Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a891c2d3-3e6b-444e-95a5-1df2b64b486d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461433 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > > >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > > >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > > >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > > >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > > >>>>>>> these terms mean? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > > >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > > >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > > >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > > >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > > >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>> > > >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > > >>>> > > >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > > >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > > >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > > >> > > >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > > >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > > >> deniers. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > Sylvia. > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto. Since you are not willing to immediately respond, I will go ahead and tie off this idea. There is a limit to universal darkness. Wherever we are in the universe, there exists a cosmic background radiation. No matter how dark it gets, there is a maximum to darkness and a minimum to light in nature. Now, man should be able to play tricks on nature- to produce DARKNESS or LIGHT- that is accentuated. This is what man does- to learn from nature- and take advantage of what it does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-15 19:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5820eb69-b21e-4e1b-9237-cdfb02f83f53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461436 |
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:24:27 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:14:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 15/06/2018 11:55 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 10:13:32 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> On 14/06/2018 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:48:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>> On 13/06/2018 1:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>>> On 13/06/2018 11:39 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>>>>> On Monday, June 11, 2018 at 11:59:46 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On 6/11/18 7:14 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> Tom Roberts said that we now can produce a telescope which can see > > > >>>>>>>> the detail of the moon's surface within a few inches. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I did NOT say that at all, and it is far from true. A telescope able to > > > >>>>>>> see an LED on the moon is NOT AT ALL able to "see the detail of the > > > >>>>>>> moon's surface within a few inches". > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Do you understand that light-gathering power is not at all > > > >>>>>>> the same as angular resolution? Do you even know what > > > >>>>>>> these terms mean? > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? What's the point? > > > >>>>>>> Lying about what somebody else said is downright unfriendly. And STUPID. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Tom Roberts > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Tom, you also said that an ordinary LED a few millimeters in diameter, > > > >>>>>> pointed in the direction of the Keck telescope, would be significantly > > > >>>>>> brighter there than a candle. You also said it would require solar > > > >>>>>> darkness. C'mon Tom throw me a bone. Can or cannot we build a > > > >>>>>> telescope powerful and special enough to literally SEE the rovers, > > > >>>>>> mirrors, flags, and the like to be observed by any human here on Earth? > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> No, we cannot. It would have to be bigger than the Earth itself. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Oops - lost a factor of a 1000. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Still, an optical telescope 19km across is hardly practical. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> We are so limited and short-sighted aren't we? No wonder we are not ready for instant light. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Not sure what you mean by that. The required size arises from a > > > >> fundamental aspect of optics, or, equivalently, quantum mechanics. No > > > >> smaller telescope can have sufficient resolution. > > > >> > > > >> If someone contrived to pay for and build a functional optical telescope > > > >> that big, it would not be for the purpose of convincing moon-landing > > > >> deniers. > > > >> > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > The theory is simple. A self emitting object such as a star, or a self illuminating object such as the Earth do not change in size. But, as a powerful telescope travels farther and farther toward absolute darkness, the same objects (sun and Earth) become brighter. > > > > > > > > > > If you just want to know whether something is there, then it clearly > > > helps if it is brighter. But if you want to see it in detail with some > > > level of resolution, then making brighter doesn't help. You need a > > > telescope that is large enough to achieve that resolution, and the > > > required size is determined by the laws of optics. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > Brighter is the idea. What kind of universe would we see if Hubble was rotating around Pluto as compared to the Earth? Pluto is so DARK and far away that we have never seen a real image of Pluto. > > Since you are not willing to immediately respond, I will go ahead and tie off this idea. There is a limit to universal darkness. Wherever we are in the universe, there exists a cosmic background radiation. No matter how dark it gets, there is a maximum to darkness and a minimum to light in nature. Now, man should be able to play tricks on nature- to produce DARKNESS or LIGHT- that is accentuated. This is what man does- to learn from nature- and take advantage of what it does. I don't know why- but I am thinking about black body radiation and Brownian motion right now. I know the telescope- when it operates outside infinity is non-adjustable. Sadly I know our lenses are inadequate. But, physics-wise, our advancement will ALWAYS be precluded by some HUGE experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web