Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.
Since this was directed to me, and I don't think it has been completely addressed yet, I'll jump into the fray.
The basic function of a telescope is to collect electromagnetic energy using an optic of some type (typically a positive lens or concave mirror) and form a real image of an object or objects at a distance. The electromagnetic energy is often visible light, but it doesn't have to be. How that image is used varies, depending on what is to be accomplished.
One use is to simply measure the energy collected, often as a function of wavelength (radio telescopes are used this way) to estimate the total energy emitted by the object(s), to estimate radial velocity by Doppler shift, or to compare with other objects.
Another is to form the image on a piece of photographic film or, more recently, imaging devices such as CCDs, for documentation, to allow detailed study, or just make pretty pictures.
The typically thought of use for a telescope is, of course, to use a small microscope called an eyepiece (or even a simple magnifying glass) to visually examine the image. Using a telescope visually can provide a number of benefits beyond making distant objects appear closer ("magnification"). Of great importance, a large primary optic can collect vastly more light than the eye's pupil will allow and concentrate it into a small exit pupil so all that light can be admitted into the eye, making dim objects much brighter.
Used visually, sometimes telescopes are useful without providing any magnification at all - a common example is the 1X Telescopic sight. Why use a 1X scope sight? The problem with "iron" gunsights is that the shooter has to line up three objects at vastly different distances from his eye - the rear sight, which is very close, the front sight at the far end of the barrel, and the much more distant target. A telescopic sight has a reticule (typically crosshairs) at exactly the plane where the image is formed, so both the target and crosshairs are in focus at the same time; if the telescope is exactly 1X, you can also use your other eye at the same time.
You can build a simple telescope using two magnifying glasses. If they have different focal lengths, the telescope can provide magnification or reduction depending on which is used as the eyepiece. A magnifying glass
can be
part of a telescope, but a telescope is not the same as a magnifying glass.
But all of this is a diversion to cover for sceptimatic's blunder (or was it intentional obfuscation) using the term "magnifying glass" here...
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian? Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up. As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.
So, back to the discussion at hand, does this mean you would be satisfied if you had direct line of sight from a distance of perhaps a couple kms and could watch the whole proceedings through binoculars?