The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: finding the Translation-factor of telescopes from Voyager 1
Chapt16.12 Limits on what we can see in astronomy #1440 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 5   Last Post: Mar 31, 2013 12:10 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 141
Registered: 12/1/08
Re: finding the Translation-factor of telescopes from Voyager 1
Chapt16.12 Limits on what we can see in astronomy #1440 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Mar 28, 2013 9:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 28, 7:37 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<> wrote:
> Can any astronomer actually be honest? I mean, here we have an Oort
> Cloud that none of our telescopes has confirmed to exist and so we
> call it a
> "hypothesized Oort cloud". And if it does exist as shown in Wikipedia:

Speaking of honesty... jump to end of post for off-thread issue...

> --- quoting from Wikipedia ---
> The Oort cloud /??rt/[1] (named after Jan Oort), or Öpik?Oort cloud,
> [2] is a hypothesized spherical cloud of predominantly icy
> planetesimals that may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year,
> from the Sun.[3] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the
> distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper
> belt and the scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-
> Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth of the Oort cloud's
> distance. The outer limit of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical
> boundary of the Solar System and the region of the Sun's gravitational
> dominance.[4]
> The Oort cloud is thought to comprise two separate regions: a
> spherical outer Oort cloud and a disc-shaped inner Oort cloud, or
> Hills cloud. Objects in the Oort cloud are largely composed of ices,
> such as water, ammonia, and methane.
> --- end quoting ---
> And if it does exist as shown in Wikipedia of the Oort Cloud along
> with the Hill Cloud, they would distort any images of stars and
> galaxies that the telescopes manage to actually pick up.
> So we have Earth's atmosphere for distortion, and then we have the
> Oort Cloud distortion and then we would expect every star to have its
> own Oort Cloud.
> So repeating my question, can any astronomer be honest about the data
> and facts collected? For we have the silly situation that astronomers
> claim to see walls of galaxies and superclusters, yet they are unable
> to even see the ice planetesimals surrounding the solar system. That
> is like saying from my house on Earth, I can see a full hemisphere
> of Earth but I cannot see what is beyond my backyard.
> It is exactly these type of situations in the science of astronomy
> that gives astronomers a bad name. For what astronomy needs is a
> leader who can guide the direction of astronomy. At one time Hubble
> served as a leader, until, Hubble found objection to Doppler redshift
> as a distance measure. And although Hubble then renounced the redshift
> as a distance measure, none of the pipsqueaks that comprised the rest
> of the astronomy community had enough intelligence to renounce the
> Doppler redshift.
> What I want to know with some accuracy, is just how good is the Hubble
> telescope or any other telescope in seeing the Voyager 1? Is it fully
> out of sight from any of our most advanced telescopes? And if so, at
> what distance did it become "beyond view"?
> Why is that important?
> Because with that distance we can translate that distance to
> resolution. A shining star or galaxy is different from a Voyager 1 of
> reflected light, but with distance the star or galaxy becomes equal to
> the Voyager 1. So that if this translation-factor is 90 million light
> years, implies that nothing we have seen
> in the night sky is more than 90 million light years away.
> You see, after Hubble, there seems to have been no scientist in
> astronomy with a ability to logically think and reason clearly.
> Because, if there had been a clear thinker, he would have demanded
> this Limitation Gauge of Telescopes a long time ago, and not here in
> March of 2013.
> --
> Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair author-
> archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:
> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Hello Archimedes Plutonium, do you know who userID "genios" is? Is
someone masquerading as you==AP while being "genios" and sending rude
stalking type email messages?

Fwiw, to all and particularly some "genios", I do neither trash nor
spam the group sci.math with off-topic messages. Learn to read and
know where I do post. If you don't like my posts, and I don't blame
you==anyYou, then learn to read posts made by only other Other OTHER
authors! It's easy if you try.

Enjo(y)... Cheers...
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple"... as in Loops, Syrup, Wood.
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're just not tr(y)ing!"

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.