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/ (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: