Yes, I suppose you're right. Of course, you know we could all play shell games with each other on the issue. I might say that aperture increases light. More light equals more detail. More detail takes place because there is more aperture. Saying that little tidbit, I might also mention that you are in fact correct also. Magnification is a function of focal length. Theoretically, mirror size is irrelevent. If one could collimate a mirror the size of a 20 cent piece to the secondary mirror and eyepiece, then it is possible to create magnification as large as one chooses within practical limits.
The reason telescope makers use such large mirrors is because they cannot as yet collimate very small mirrors to the level of precision that would be required. What I am saying is that it is possible to make lens as small as microscope lens for celestial viewing but they are impractical because of vibration considerations and heat shrinkage for example.
So putting that all to one side for the moment, I must say that it is very impressive to think that an extra 2 inches of aperture can create such an incredible difference in
detail
; not magnification.
Thank you for correcting my word choice.
Yeah anyway, so I did have a look last night up in the sky. I just moved to a country town in Tasmania, so the sky is really black and it is difficult to get ones bearings. The stars are so bright I mistake many of them for planets, and I find myself attempting to rediscover the known planets. While looking for the known planets I spy a bright star I confuse with a planet. Closer examination in a telescope reveals that it is not a planet. It is a double star.
The brightness of the double star is intense when viewed with the naked eye. Closer examination however reveals that it is in fact two stars closely bound together in orbit.
I think I will look for it again tonight and see if there is any change in position between the two double stars. I hear that sometimes they can change orbital position a little bit over time if the orbit is erratic (?)
