Date: Mar 28, 2013 7:37 PM
Subject: finding the Translation-factor of telescopes from Voyager 1<br> Chapt16.12 Limits on what we can see in astronomy #1440 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

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:

--- 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
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