Stupid question about magnification

On 23 Jan 2006 06:10:43 -0800, "nick" wrote:

Now, this is little unrealistic. Telescope magnification is
"independent"
of the element that actually forms the final image?...

If we are talking about optical theory, yes. There is no assumption in
the design of a telescope that an eye, or any other imaging device, is
part of the system. The magnification of that telescope has a rigorous
definition.

If you are talking about the real world, magnification is still, from a
practical standpoint, independent of the quality of the eye. Most of the
aberrations produced by the eye while viewing through the telescope are
the same as when viewing without it, so the magnification (which is a
ratio of apparent image size with and without the telescope) is
invariant.

Optically, the only important difference between viewing an object with
and without a telescope is that the entrance pupil of the eye is likely
to be different. That may slightly change the distortion of the image on
the retina. However, unless the viewer has some major eye problem such
as keratoconus, it is not going to perceptibly change the size of the
image on the retina.

In the real world, telescopic magnification is a genuinely useful and
accurate quantitative measure of how much larger the magnified image
appears compared with the unmagnified image.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006 06:10:43 -0800, "nick" wrote:

Now, this is little unrealistic. Telescope magnification is
"independent"
of the element that actually forms the final image?...

If we are talking about optical theory, yes. ...

In the real world, telescopic magnification is a genuinely useful and
accurate quantitative measure of how much larger the magnified image
appears compared with the unmagnified image.

In other words: "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the
facts". You're looking for a refuge in the "theory", which is not going

to give it to you, because: (1) it is going to tell you that any
eyepiece
will inevitably distort telescope magnification (which you conveniently

have omitted from your response), and (2) it is not going to support
that any individual eye will form identical retinal image out of given
eyepice output. You have no facts to support your "paper" view:
all you do is ignoring them when they don't suit you, and keep on
repeating, in various rhetorical forms: "I'm right".

My sister used to be like that. Once she argued with a friend of mine
about some book's content, and it got pretty heated. The friend of mine
produced the book in question, found the page, read out loud to her the

part in dispute, but it wouldn't change her stand. He offered to her to

see it for herself, no use. She wouldn't touch the book, but keept on
repeating: "Not true".

That's the kind of conversation I'm having here with you. Guess makes
it
sort of entertaining, although definitely less informative. Can't have
it all...

Vlad

On 23 Jan 2006 10:33:33 -0800, "nick" wrote:

In other words: "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the
facts"...

Vlad-

I honestly can't figure out what you are trying to say, or even arguing
about. If you have some problem with using the correct definitions of
optical systems when discussing them, I'd suggest you go have your
discussions on some ALT forum, because there is no room for such
sloppiness on a SCI forum.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006 10:33:33 -0800, "nick" wrote:


I honestly can't figure out what you are trying to say, or even arguing
about.

That may be the problem, but I don't think so..

If you have some problem with using the correct definitions of
optical systems when discussing them,

It is interesting too look at you swinging from side to side, as it
suits
your current "denial mode". When criticizing the objective/eyepiece
concept you were all proudly on the side of (narowly defined)
practical,
calling it practically "uselles". Now, when your "theoretical" fiction
doesn't fit the practice, you don't won't to see anything but "correct
definitions of optical systems", a non-existent abstraction. Guess
it don't matter to you, as long as you have where to hide from
admitting
that what you stated wasn't quite right, or not right at all.

I'd suggest you go have your
discussions on some ALT forum, because there is no room for such
sloppiness on a SCI forum.

Oh, man...time for "big" words. Are you trying to impress the
forum, or just to cheer it up?

Vlad