Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM TOTALITY5th ed

In May of 2010
Enrico wrote:


Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
to be harder than I expected.

Yes, thanks for you help Enrico. I am not surprized at all that
astronomers never realized that the telescope and all the Physics
laws on Optics were never seen as their best and finest measure
of distance in the Cosmos.


I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest
telescope
is 400 million light years away.


So my guess is that 400 million light years is the furthest distance
in
astronomy that we can "know about."


This would mean that the surveys by Jarrett and Juric et al, are
mappings
that are all confined to 400 million light years. And not our
current
silly idea that our telescopes are peering back to 13 billion light
years.


So all the surveys and mappings of the Cosmos have to take place
within 400 million light years distance because our telescopes can
see these objects and if we can see them in the telescope, means
they are no further than 400 million light years.

http://atomic-molecular-optical-phys...ticle.cfm/can_...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
Read the section on Data Processing
Note assumptions made about Universal Expansion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope
Technical stuff, formulas.
Scroll down about 1/3 way to:


"Angular resolution
Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
(atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope,
the
angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary
mirror,
or lens.) The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit áR (in
radians) is given by"


Snipped math - not sure if it would display here


"Essentially; the larger the aperture, the better the angular
resolution"


"It should be noted that the resolution is NOT given by the maximum
magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by
giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor
images."


Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Enrico

Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or
concept
in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
concept
or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
called
"coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
to
the
Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
I
had
a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
to
resolve
my flashlight on Pluto.


Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
this
concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a telescope
can
resolve a shining light.


So, Enrico, I am not surprized at all, that the Physics community in
conjunction
with the Astronomy community never sat down and worked out, first,
what the limit
of their best telescopes are. Whether any of them can see beyond 200
million light
years of a star or galaxy, or 400 million light years of a Supernova.
For
there is a definite
upper limit of distance.


It does not surprize me that the Physics and Astronomy community have
assumed
their telescopes can see and peer to a infinite distance in Space.
And
the Big Bang
theory accepts such a ridiculous assumption.


Now it maybe that radio telescopes can see further, but here again,
there is an upper
limit. And I am guessing that it is the RING seen in Jarrett's
mapping
that tells me this
ring is the "edge of the observable horizon of the Cosmos". And that
RING is about
400 million light years away. And thus, everything beyond that RING,
is actually inside
the ring or closer to earth.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)


Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or concept
in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
concept
or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
called
"coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
to
the
Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
I
had
a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
to
resolve
my flashlight on Pluto.


Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
this
concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a
telescope
can
resolve a shining light.

It has been a very long time since I sat in a UC Optics classroom in
1970. And
never knowing that such an experience was going to come out so
fruitfull eventually.


So the question I raise is what is the maximum distance that the
Hubble Space
Telescope can see a ordinary galaxy. Maximum distance given the
physics of
how light travels and optics of the telescope. And it is a darn
shame
that
noone in the astronomy community ever thought to ask such a
question.
The biologists certainly asked the questions a long time ago about
the
smallest length their light-microscopes could attain. And that if a
biologist
proclaimed to see a virus in a light-microscope would have been
laughed
out of his profession.


But nowadays, it is commonplace for astronomers and physicists to
claim that
quasars and the Sloan Great Wall are far beyond 400 million light
years, yet the
Hubble Space Telescope sees them as red spots, yet none of these
scientists ever
worked out whether Hubble Space Telescope can see a quasar or Great
Wall
in the billions of light years.


The limit of a light microscope is that of bacteria, so where is the
limit of the
Hubble Space Telescope. Most astronomers probably have the notion
that
telescopes have no limit to observing distances. That they think the
Hubble
can see and peer into infinity distance.


To me, such notions and assumptions are repulsive.


So now, how to find out the limit of distance of the Hubble Space
Telescope?
How do we find out its limit?


Well a good way is to ask a question such as whether a flashlight
placed on
Pluto or Mars or Moon can be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope?
Have
a gradation of flashlights on the Moon and see where the Hubble
ceases
to
"see" the flashlight. Then we can extrapolate that luminosity of the
flashlight
and Moon distance to that of Supernova or regular galaxies as to
what
the
Hubble Telescope upper limit of distance is.


Now I believe the prime reason there is a upper limit is the
behaviour
of light itself,
in that it has a luminosity governed by inverse square of distance.
If
my memory
serves me from 40 years ago in school studying Optics, this is
called
candela.


And the reason that laser light can be seen so much further of a
distance is because
of the "coherent beam" that does not fall off at inverse square of
distance.


No galaxy , nor any supernova nor the quasars are laser lights, and
so
they fall off
in luminosity by inverse square of distance.


So the question of using a telescope to tell us of the distance to a
galaxy or a star or
a quasar or a Sloan Great Wall, is that we can use standard Physics
ideas, laws and
principles of Optics to tell us how far a telescope can resolve a
regular normal astro
body. My guess is that the Hubble Space Telescope has a maximum
distance range
of 200 million light years for a normal regular single galaxy and
any
such galaxies beyond
200 million light years is not detectable by Hubble. For a
Supernova,
I am guessing
400 million light years distance the Hubble can still faintly see
the
Supernova, but
beyond that distance is undetected.


Now why is this so very important? Well, obviously, since the quasars
and Great Walls
are alleged to be 13 billion and 4 billion light years away, yet
easily seen in the Hubble
Space Telescope as red spots, signifies that the redshift is all in
error. If Hubble
Telescope distance is only good to 200 to 400 million light years,
then the quasars
and Great Walls must be a smaller distance than 200 to 400 million
light years.


Funny, how it seems that a logical thinker in astronomer is as rare
to
find as a
Supernova explosion is rare to find. Because, it really does not
need
a rocketscientist
to figure out that the telescope itself is a distance measuring tool
and the most
accurate measuring tool of distance in all of astronomy. So shame on
the astronomy
community for never realizing this valuable tool. Part of the
problem
is that so
many scientists spend most of their time on thinking about equations
of math
and physics, and little time on clear logic. And so you have a 100
years of time
wasted on Doppler redshift and no time spent on the telescope itself
as a distance
tool.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies