Don't know, but I'm sure you cannot be honest. Nor competent. GO FUCK YOURSELF.
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: > > --- quoting from Wikipedia --- > The Oort cloud /??rt/ (named after Jan Oort), or > Öpik?Oort cloud, >  is a hypothesized spherical cloud of > predominantly icy > planetesimals that may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or > nearly a light-year, > from the Sun. 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. > 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: > > 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