Loving this .
To give you an example how's about you draw a ' Ray Trace ' ( us telescope makers here use these to work out the focal length ( fl) of the scope we are building to within 2mm ) and measure the apparent diameter of Jupiter at 2.2 million km's ( Jupiter at 200x as seen with our eyes ) and a scale down might work ,,,,,,,
Trust me , using any telescope at 200x it will measure the same angular diameter , yes eyepieces , fl of the given scope will give a different perspective but the actual angular diameter of Jupiter will be of the same size .
It can be tested mathematically quite easily
Ouch ! , our constellations ??? ,,, ouch man ! Jupiter at 2.2 million km would be the size of Mars at it's best , ouch and I hear about the Bi-yearly Mars flyby and it will be BIGGER than the full moon .....run away ...
100x makes Jupiter look like its only 4.4 million km away , ok .
1000x it looks like at only 440000km away , looking good by now , except our atmosphere wont allow it ( hence HUBBLE )
keep up these mathematics and tell me straight if you can get Jupiter at 1 metre ? and what would you weigh ??? AND WOULD YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THERE ?
Brian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonius
But you're surely not saying that it makes Jupiter look like it does as if it were many times closer? A simple thought experiment rules that idea out. Say I threw on an EP that made it look like Jupiter was so close it filled the entire field of view (seeing and limits of resolution aside). If Jupiter were that close in real life, entire constellations would be hidden by its disc. So I'm not sure how what you're talking about is different from magnification?
|