Pictures taken at Sea

  • 68 Replies
  • 25284 Views
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2008, 07:05:40 AM »
I don't guess he has compared them side by side.  I have.  I would love to sit Tom down with a telescope from even the 1970's and my binoculars from today and let him see the difference.  I think he would be suprised how much better the glass is nowdays.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2008, 07:06:14 AM »
Quote
Rowbowtham doesn't actually state any information about the telescope in the bedford experiments. What is a ""good telescope"?
Nowhere does he mention the magnification or resolving power of the telescope he used.
Reading the literature doesn't help if the information isn't there to begin with.

It's all right there in the literature. Read it.

Where? Help us poor confused RE'ers out.

Quote
Tom, get a clue!!  Today's optics, including the cheap ones, are much better than any telescope from over 100 years ago. 

Nope. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes, when glass and lens manufacturing was perfected.

Perfected? Are you mad? Telescopes are now polished by machines that are far more accurate than any human. Manufacturing takes advantage of modern chemistry to produce better optics.

Where were the 1800s telescopes that were better than Hubble? Or Hale? Did we just lose all the knowledge that was gained during the 1800s? Of course not! Telescopes today are far, far better than 200 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_telescopes,_observatories,_and_observing_technology

Show me photos taken in the 1800s and compare them with photos taken in the 2000s.

Btw, I've bolded the word "glass" and "lens" because they show your ignorance. Telescopes very rarely use lenses because they are heavy and prone to distortion. They almost always use mirrors.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2008, 07:06:21 AM »
Quote
What makes you believe this?

It's common knowledge.

Quote
Not description of the telescope.  What does good mean?

A good telescope means better than a pair of binoculars.

Quote
So in the 1800s they were making micro accurate lenses that were affordable for the common person, and portable?  Can you please provide some evidence of that?

Open a history book.

Quote
I don't guess he has compared them side by side.  I have.  I would love to sit Tom down with a telescope from even the 1970's and my binoculars from today and let him see the difference.  I think he would be suprised how much better the glass is nowdays.

Glass making was perfected in the 1800's. Read more.

Quote
Where? Help us poor confused RE'ers out.

Check the references in my signature link.

Quote
Perfected? Are you mad? Telescopes are now polished by machines that are far more accurate than any human. Manufacturing takes advantage of modern chemistry to produce better optics.

Hardly. Glass making reached its peak of resolution and variability in the 1800's. Current glass which is automatically polished by machines just makes the manufacturing process cheaper, not better.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 07:10:44 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2008, 07:07:37 AM »
LOL!!!  Now I know you are a fake!!

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2008, 07:12:24 AM »
Quote
What makes you believe this?

It's common knowledge.


Apparently not. You are the only individual I have ever heard state this. This is your belief, not fact.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2008, 07:22:22 AM »
Quote
What makes you believe this?
It's common knowledge.

Hardly. It seems common knowledge that telescope technology has improved in 200 years.

Quote
Not description of the telescope.  What does good mean?
A good telescope means better than a pair of binoculars.

Binoculars in the 1800s were also far inferior to binoculars of today.

Quote
I don't guess he has compared them side by side.  I have.  I would love to sit Tom down with a telescope from even the 1970's and my binoculars from today and let him see the difference.  I think he would be suprised how much better the glass is nowdays.
Glass making was perfected in the 1800's. Read more.

Read what?

Quote
Perfected? Are you mad? Telescopes are now polished by machines that are far more accurate than any human. Manufacturing takes advantage of modern chemistry to produce better optics.
Hardly. Glass making reached its peak of resolution and variability in the 1800's. Current glass which is automatically polished by machines just makes the manufacturing process cheaper, not better.

No, it makes it better. Machines have a far greater accuracy than the human hand.

For example, if the Hubble space telescope mirror was scaled up to the size of the continental US, no hill or valley would be bigger than 2.5 inches1.

NB: Due to incorrect assembly of a measuring device, the mirror was ground to the wrong shape. But it was ground very accurately to the wrong shape, which is why it was fixeable.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2008, 07:51:29 AM »
Quote
What makes you believe this?

It's common knowledge.
So is RE.   FAIL
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2008, 08:13:54 AM »
Quote
What makes you believe this?

It's common knowledge.
So is RE.   FAIL
I agree. Astronomic fail on Tom's part. I hearby declare this thread a victory for RE. *plants flag*

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2008, 08:19:13 AM »
Well we can for sure say that his eyes have problems anyway.  Maybe that is why when he looks out of his window, all he sees is...........

*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2008, 08:42:51 AM »
Just to support the points made by my fellow RE'ers above, I've whipped up some comparison pics of the two rigs:

Discoverer Enterprise:


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified

Thunder Horse:


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2008, 12:54:44 PM »
Apparently not. You are the only individual I have ever heard state this. This is your belief, not fact.

You are probably unaware of it because of a poor astronomy education.

The largest refracting telescope was built in the late 1800's. It sits in the Yerks Observatory. To this day the telescopes remains the most state-of-the-art refracting telescope built by man.

Quote
Hardly. It seems common knowledge that telescope technology has improved in 200 years.

It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.

Quote
Just to support the points made by my fellow RE'ers above, I've whipped up some comparison pics of the two rigs:

The photographer would have been able to see more of the rig if he had FOLLOWED THE BASIC GUIDELINES in the literature. A pair of binoculars is not a telescope. Under no pretense are they the same. The photographer FAILS to provide a test comparable to the accounts and methodology in the Flat Earth Literature.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 12:59:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2008, 01:00:31 PM »
Let me know when you guys manage to use the correct materials in your observations so we can continue this conversation.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 01:04:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2008, 01:01:52 PM »
Let me know when you guys manage to use the correct materials in your observations so we can continue this conversation.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 01:04:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2008, 01:24:20 PM »
The photographer would have been able to see more of the rig if he had FOLLOWED THE BASIC GUIDELINES in the literature. A pair of binoculars is not a telescope. Under no pretense are they the same. The photographer FAILS to provide a test comparable to the accounts and methodology in the Flat Earth Literature.


(image constract boosted slightly)

Tom:  Please answer the following questions:
         1. Exactly how much more of the rig would I see with a "good telescope"?
         2. What is a "good telescope"?
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 01:26:17 PM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2008, 01:48:45 PM »
So, you are telling me that the telescopes of old are better than the computer ground glass and micro-coated glass of today?

They're nearly exactly the same.

"Nearly exactly"?! More comedy gold. Thanks Tom.
Instead of mocking peoples english why don't you contribute to actual discussion instead of making posts like "its not possible"

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2008, 05:31:04 PM »
Apparently not. You are the only individual I have ever heard state this. This is your belief, not fact.

You are probably unaware of it because of a poor astronomy education.

The largest refracting telescope was built in the late 1800's. It sits in the Yerks Observatory. To this day the telescopes remains the most state-of-the-art refracting telescope built by man.

Quote
Hardly. It seems common knowledge that telescope technology has improved in 200 years.

It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.

Quote
Just to support the points made by my fellow RE'ers above, I've whipped up some comparison pics of the two rigs:

The photographer would have been able to see more of the rig if he had FOLLOWED THE BASIC GUIDELINES in the literature. A pair of binoculars is not a telescope. Under no pretense are they the same. The photographer FAILS to provide a test comparable to the accounts and methodology in the Flat Earth Literature.

That telescope was built in 1897. Rowbowtham lived from 1816-1885. Assuming he performed the work during the middle of his life that is 5 decades before this telescope was constructed.
You actually have no idea what telescope rowbowtham was using. You have no idea of the resolving power or the construction method. You have no idea about anything except that he called it a telescope. Don't tell us to read the texts again because there is nothing in there. You have read vague descriptions and constructed your own details.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2008, 07:46:14 PM »
B
Quote
In the magnified picture, those legs are not visible.  According to FE, I would have been able to restore the upper hull and the legs of the platform through magnification.

Through proper magnification. You failed to use a telescope like the authors did in the literature.

What is proper magnification? Explain.

What actual differences, besides magnification, does a telescope have over binoculars or zoom lenses?

According to the link:
Quote
...but with a telescope of about 50 powers, the hull of each vessel was brought into view with remarkable clearness.

Of course he doesn't mention focal length, so 50x may be difficult to properly quantify.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2008, 07:58:01 PM »
Apparently not. You are the only individual I have ever heard state this. This is your belief, not fact.

You are probably unaware of it because of a poor astronomy education.

The largest refracting telescope was built in the late 1800's. It sits in the Yerks Observatory. To this day the telescopes remains the most state-of-the-art refracting telescope built by man.
Tom, I think that these guys may disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Solar_Telescope

Quote
Quote
Hardly. It seems common knowledge that telescope technology has improved in 200 years.

It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.

Um Tom, are you saying that a 40" refracting telescope is superior to a 400" reflecting telescope?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescope
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2008, 08:24:30 PM »
Quote
Tom, I think that these guys may disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Solar_Telescope

That would be the second largest refracting telescope on earth.

Quote
Um Tom, are you saying that a 40" refracting telescope is superior to a 400" reflecting telescope?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescope

I didn't say anything about reflecting telescopes. That's an entirely different technology which requires more diameter than length.

I said that the telescope at the Yerks Observatory built in the 1800's by master optician Alvan Clark is the world's largest refracting telescope and remains state-of-the-art to this very day. It is presently the worlds most advanced refracting telescope.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 08:35:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #49 on: October 04, 2008, 08:44:11 PM »
Quote
Tom, I think that these guys may disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Solar_Telescope

You mean the second largest refracting telescope on earth?
I see no evidence that the 110 year old Yerkes refracting telescope is any more "state-of-the-art" than the slightly smaller 6 year old Swedish Solar Telescope.  That is unless the Yerkes telescope has been upgraded with adaptive optics like the Swedish telescope.

Quote
Quote
Um Tom, are you saying that a 40" refracting telescope is superior to a 400" reflecting telescope?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescope

I didn't say anything about reflecting telescopes. That's an entirely different technology which requires more diameter than length.

I said that the telescope at the Yerks Observatory built in the 1800's is the world's largest refracting telescope and remains state-of-the-art to this very day. It's presently the worlds most advanced refracting telescope.

Actually, you said:
It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.
 

BTW, largest ≠ most advanced.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #50 on: October 04, 2008, 09:00:55 PM »
Quote
I see no evidence that the 110 year old Yerkes refracting telescope is any more "state-of-the-art" than the slightly smaller 6 year old Swedish Solar Telescope.  That is unless the Yerkes telescope has been upgraded with adaptive optics like the Swedish telescope.

What evidence do you have to conclude that that smaller Swedish telescope is any better than the larger Yerks telescope? A "gut-feeling"?

The Yerks Telescope has been heralded as the world's most advanced refracting telescope for well over a century now. It was built to the limits and is ranked among the worlds's top telescopes.

Quote
Actually, you said:

It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.

They do. The quality of glass hasn't increased much since the 1800's, the golden age of telescopes. A piece of glass is no better polished by a machine than hand polished by a master optician. Machinery merely allows for the production of glass to be faster and cheaper.

Quote
BTW, largest ≠ most advanced.

But I thought you were trying to tell me just a couple posts ago that the Keck Reflecting Telescope was better because it had a larger diameter?  ???
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 09:07:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #51 on: October 04, 2008, 09:41:46 PM »
Quote
I see no evidence that the 110 year old Yerkes refracting telescope is any more "state-of-the-art" than the slightly smaller 6 year old Swedish Solar Telescope.  That is unless the Yerkes telescope has been upgraded with adaptive optics like the Swedish telescope.

What evidence do you have to conclude that that smaller Swedish telescope is any better than the larger Yerks telescope? A "gut-feeling"?

The Yerks Telescope has been heralded as the world's most advanced refracting telescope for well over a century now. It was built to the limits and is ranked among the worlds's top telescopes.
The SST:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Solar_Telescope
The SST is a vacuum telescope - meaning that it is evacuated internally to avoid disruption of the image from air inside. This is a particular problem with solar telescopes because of the heating from the large amounts of light collected being passed on to any air causing image degradation. As of 2005 it has produced the highest resolution images on the Sun of any telescope, using its adaptive optics system.

The Yerkes telescope:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes_Observatory
A 102 cm (40 inch) refracting telescope built by the master optician Alvan Clark is located inside. It is the largest refracting telescope used for scientific research (a larger demonstration refractor, the Great Paris Exhibition Telescope of 1900, was exhibited at the Paris Universal Exhibition of 1900.

I'm sorry, Wikipedia must have neglected to highlight Yerkes' "state of the art" features (other than its size).

BTW, who ranked Yerkes as one of the world's top telescopes?  Source please.

Quote
Actually, you said:
Quote
It hasn't. There are now Radio Telescopes, but the optical telescope remains much the same.
They do. The quality of glass hasn't increased much since the 1800's, the golden age of telescopes. A piece of glass is no better polished by a machine than hand polished by a master optician. Machinery merely allows for the production of glass to be faster and cheaper.
To say that optical glass has not gotten better in the last 100 years is such an absurd statement that it boggles my mind.  You need look no further than the glasses on your nose to realize that (even if you have plastic lenses).


Quote
Quote
BTW, largest ≠ most advanced.
But I thought you were trying to tell me just a couple posts ago that the Keck Reflecting Telescope was better because it had a larger diameter?  ???
Bigger mirror = more light = better telescope.  There is a reason that they don't build many refracting telescopes any more.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2008, 10:00:17 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry, Wikipedia must have neglected to highlight Yerkes' "state of the art" features (other than its size).

Bigger = More Light = Better Telescope, exactly as you say.

The Yerkkes' telescope is the biggest refracting telescope on the face of the earth. Of that specific telescope technology, it is the best.

Quote
BTW, who ranked Yerkes as one of the world's top telescopes?  Source please.

The University of Chicago Chronicle does. Here's a quote from an article titled "Yerkes Observatory: A century of stellar science"

"The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.

The 40-inch refractor is also still actively used in research. Its nearly century-long history of photographic plates of stars allows astronomer Kyle Cudworth, Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics, to compare photographic plates taken decades ago with ones taken today, to study the motions of stars relative to each other. These studies will help pin down the amount of dark matter in our galaxy, the non-luminous "glue" that gravitationally holds the Milky Way together.

The Astronomy & Astrophysics Department at Yerkes is (sic) one of the leading astronomy departments in the world, with a diverse faculty of observers and theorists."

Quote
To say that optical glass has not gotten better in the last 100 years is such an absurd statement that it boggles my mind.  You need look no further than the glasses on your nose to realize that (even if you have plastic lenses).

Nope. The lenses in reading glasses haven't advanced much since the 1800's either.

Quote
Bigger mirror = more light = better telescope. 

Glad you agree that bigger is better. Making the Yerks Telescope the most advanced refracting telescope on the face of the earth.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 10:11:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2008, 10:20:21 PM »
Quotes from the same article:

"Although Yerkes' great telescope would be surpassed within 10 years by Hale's burning desire to build bigger and better instruments -- he went on to build a succession of "world's largest" telescopes: the 60-inch at Mount Wilson, then the 100-inch and finally the 200-inch at Palomar -- the observatory is certainly one of the most famous in the world for the collection of people who passed through its portals (see sidebar). And the 40-inch refractor is the largest of its kind ever used -- a lens larger than 40 inches in diameter begins to distort under the pull of gravity, and larger telescopes must be built using mirrors to focus the light."

Your source just proved that the new telescopes are better. Thanks!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2008, 10:29:02 PM »
Your source just proved that the new telescopes are better. Thanks!

Those "bigger" telescopes are reflecting telescopes, an entirely different technology which has a wider diameter, but shorter length. The Yurks Telescope remains the worlds largest refracting telescope. For over a century it has remained the world's most advances reflecting telescope. The Yerk is presently used for bleeding edge astronomical research.

Those later telescopes mentioned with a wider base were still built by the same person who built the Yurk, as your quote shows.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 10:34:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2008, 10:37:14 PM »
So, from what I understand, your saying that the refracting telescope is still better than the reflecting telescopes?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2008, 10:37:32 PM »
Quote
BTW, who ranked Yerkes as one of the world's top telescopes?  Source please.

The University of Chicago Chronicle does. Here's a quote from an article titled "Yerkes Observatory: A century of stellar science"

"The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.
Tom, please quote in context:
Quote
A 41-inch reflecting telescope at Yerkes serves as the testbed for a high-tech optical device that takes the twinkle out of starlight. A Defense Department castoff, the Wavefront Control Experiment is helping astronomers design an affordable adaptive optics system. The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.
See Tom, the deformable mirror is not on the 40" refracting telescope, but on a 41" reflecting telescope.  It helps if you know which telescope you're talking about.

Quote
The 40-inch refractor is also still actively used in research. Its nearly century-long history of photographic plates of stars allows astronomer Kyle Cudworth, Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics, to compare photographic plates taken decades ago with ones taken today, to study the motions of stars relative to each other. These studies will help pin down the amount of dark matter in our galaxy, the non-luminous "glue" that gravitationally holds the Milky Way together.

The Astronomy & Astrophysics Department at Yerkes is (sic) one of the leading astronomy departments in the world, with a diverse faculty of observers and theorists."
Fine, the 40" refractor is still in use.  Good for them.  By the way, if you would actually read what you highlighted, you would know that the astronomy department was highly rated.  The 40" refracting telescope was not singled out in that highlighted statement.

Quote
Quote
To say that optical glass has not gotten better in the last 100 years is such an absurd statement that it boggles my mind.  You need look no further than the glasses on your nose to realize that (even if you have plastic lenses).

Nope. The lenses in reading glasses haven't advanced much since the 1800's either.
It's good to know that your expertise extends to optical glass a well.  Sorry, but I'm too tired to play any more.

Quote
Quote
Bigger mirror = more light = better telescope.

Glad you agree that bigger is better. Making the Yerks Telescope the most advanced refracting telescope on the face of the earth.

No, it's the largest refracting telescope on the face of the earth.  Biggest still doesn't necessarily mean most advanced.  A modern laptop computer is far more advanced than a UNIVAC computer from the 1950's.  And optical glass today is much better than it was 100 years ago.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2008, 10:54:19 PM »
So, the orginal argument began with Tom saying a proper telescope should have been used. A telescope works the same way binoculars do. Binoculars use refracting technology but give the viewer 3d vision. A larger telescope would work only slightly better. A relecting telescope is techincally more advance and accurate than a refracting telescope, especially one created a couple decades ago.

The orignal poster has show several images where the legs of the oil rig were not visible even after magnification. Thus this experiment shows that "something" is causing the legs to disappear.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 10:56:38 PM by Daybreak »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2008, 05:19:00 AM »
There are two main criteria for judging telescopes. Angular resolution is how sharp the image is (smaller is better), and diameter affects how much light it can collect (bigger is better). The Yerke's observatory has long-since been surpassed on both counts.

Those "bigger" telescopes are reflecting telescopes, an entirely different technology which has a wider diameter, but shorter length. The Yurks Telescope remains the worlds largest refracting telescope. For over a century it has remained the world's most advances reflecting telescope. The Yerk is presently used for bleeding edge astronomical research.

Wtf? Reflecting telescopes do not need a wider diameter than refracting 'scopes (but they can be shorter for the same power). They usually have a wider diameter because it is possible to build bigger mirrors than lenses. This is an advantage with reflecting telescopes. The bigger collecting area (whether it be mirror or lens), the more light you can collect.

In this respect, the Yerkes telescope has long since been superseded by reflecting telescopes such as the Large Binocular Telescope (8.4m mirror).

You might also want to take a look the source you posted:
Quote from: Chicago Chronicle
Although the low-altitude observatory and great refracting telescope have long been surpassed by mountain-top observatories with ever-larger reflecting telescopes

Also, a wiki quote about the Large Binocular Telescope:
Quote from: Wikipedia
As of 2008, the LBT is the world's highest resolution and most technologically advanced optical telescope

Next point:

"The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.

The Yerkes telescope was a refracting telescope. Good show, Tom. Also, adaptive optics have only been used since the 1990s. This means that before the 1990s, ground based telescopes were limited in their resolution by atmospheric turbulence.

Without adaptive optics, telescopes are limited to ~1 arcsecond of resolution. With adaptive optics, telescopes such as the VLT or Keck achive resolutions of 0.03-0.06 arcseconds (17 - 33 times better).

Bigger = More Light = Better Telescope, exactly as you say.

The Yerkes' telescope is the biggest refracting telescope on the face of the earth. Of that specific telescope technology, it is the best.

It's the biggest refracting telescope, yes. But as I've said, refracting telescopes are rarely used because reflecting telescopes can be built much, much bigger (check out the plans for the OWL or E-ELT).

What evidence do you have to conclude that that smaller Swedish telescope is any better than the larger Yerks telescope? A "gut-feeling"?

Like I said, the Yerke's telescope didn't have adative optics, so was at best limited to 1 arcsecond of resolution. The Swedish telescope was producing diffraction limited images, i.e. had a resolution of 0.8 arcseconds.

The Yerks Telescope has been heralded as the world's most advanced refracting telescope for well over a century now. It was built to the limits and is ranked among the worlds's top telescopes.

As I've pointed out, this is incorrect.

Conclusion: The Yerke's refracting telescope (and, by extension, all telescopes of the 1800s) have long since been surpassed in quality by larger, sharper, cleverer modern telescopes.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2008, 07:29:04 AM by ghazwozza »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42610
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #59 on: October 05, 2008, 07:08:38 AM »
Next point:

"The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.

The Yerkes telescope was a refracting telescope. Good show, Tom.

Actually, Yerkes is the observatory.  They have (at least) two different telescopes there.  A 40" refracting telescope and a 41" mirror telescope with adaptive optics.  Tom doesn't seem to know that bit of trivia.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.