reply to post by wmd_2008
(How's this for a rant?) ;-)
When you say Hubble sees visible light, what is it from? You think the 508nm line is from a yellow light shining out there somewhere, that you could
see by eye if you were out in space? All the Hubble filters are chosen in order to see the photons produced by transitions of energy levels of certain
elements, and cadmium has a line at 508 nm. That light is so weak however that they need to collect photons for extended periods of time, many hours
sometimes. Your eyes can not store photons, but the CCD can store the electrons produced by the photons, and then read out how many electrons are
collected over that period to give a 'strength' to the emissions. No matter how long you stared at an object with very low spectral line intensity,
you still would not see anything.
Our eyes are practically useless in space, it will be black, except near to a planet or moon where you are in range of the transverse waves poduced by
a suns longitudinal UV waves colliding with matter (or the electrons) and only instruments will allow us to see anything, just like on the original
Star Trek, everything they saw was on the screens around the bridge, there were no windows they could see out of. With Hubble it is the aplanatic
lenses that allow for the conversion of the incoming wavefronts (from the mirror)that are guided and then filtered before reaching the CCD.
These books would be good to have if you are serious about some of the behaviours of light.
Handbook of Optics
second no comment I see on this image
The Earth is much bigger than the Moon, and has a much higher albedo, and will be visible by my estimates, by eye, out to about 4-500,000 miles. The
Moon only to about 50,000 miles. The fact that we can see the Moon from Earth is because the longitudinal UV 'waves' emitted by the moons hydrogen
shell (Lyman Alpha emissions) are turned into transverse waves of visible light by actions occuring in the Earths atmosphere/ionosphere. But, I have
only NASAs word with that image that it did not require extensive processing and tweaking to look like that, and I don't trust NASA one bit.
Similarly, the only reason we can image the distant objects is because the longitudinal wave, a Gaussian beam(*) in effect, can travel almost forever
without loss of intensity, and are then converted either by the space based instruments, or by our atmosphere if you are using a regular telescope on
Earth. Ask NASA to take a telescope out on an EVA from the ISS (I'm going to start calling it the International Earth Station as you can't see deep
space from it) and see what answers you get. I get no answer, maybe someone else can try?
I think they need one of these out at the ISS too, equiped with the very best still and video cameras, then we could get an outside tour of the IES
(ex ISS) and of course some pictures of the Moon and planets and millions of stars. I know NASA has no spare money for such, maybe we could pass a
collection hat and finance it publicly? Think NASA would like that?
Here I have illustrated what the Sun would look like from the IES. This is from the Earth facing side, which is lit by the transverse waves produced
by conversion of the longitudinal planewaves (a beam) in the atmosphere to transverse waves. The Sun will appear as a small, pinkish dot. Prove me
Another important aspect of Gaussian beams is that they don’t exist no matter how rigorous the theory is that describes them!
Search that quote to find the pdf document. Gets compicated eh?