Hubble: Why It Can See Galaxies But Not That Moon Rock.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Way cool pics of the moon ty. Too bad I don't see any space ships, power plants ect I keep hearing about !!!

That's some long explanation. . . anyone got cliffs?

originally posted by: igor_ats
That's some long explanation. . . anyone got cliffs?

TLDR (for the attention span deficient) The bigger the telescope, the more detail that can be resolved.

originally posted by: MysterX

OP...thanks for your thread...i found it to be quite refreshing, non-patronising and written in a friendly prose..i don't necessarily agree with all you've said, but i appreciate the way you wrote it.

What don't you agree with and why

This is about physics & optics if you don't agree something say what it is and give us your reasons.

This should be interesting

originally posted by: Wolfenz

And if So why cant we see a little more clearly as to Filter that Star and Zoom in !

from Hubble or a X-ray telescope

Andromeda Galaxy's Exotic X-Ray Signal Actually a Bright Black Hole
www.space.com...

Why cant we see stars like this !


Ohh we can ,, just not Our Own Galaxy Apparently

yup Distortion, Distance , Perspective,


What I like to Know is why isn't the government,,

making anything so it can see Great detail on other planets for near by stars and their planets at least ...,


Well it would be nice to see something like what Spy Satellites did during the cold war ...


HISTORY OF REMOTE SENSING, SATELLITE IMAGERY,
PART II

Professor Paul R. Baumann
Department of Geography
State University of New York
College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820
www.oneonta.edu...

the Slight Problem is Light Years to Capturing those images on the lens

Has it not occurred to you that may be at maximum zoom as you put it, you are now comparing x-ray sources with visible light .

This from your own link which it looks like you didn't read!

A Hubble Space Telescope optical image of our nearest neighbor galaxy, Andromeda (M31), with an inset X-ray image of the active center made with the XMM-Newton observatory.

PLEASE post an example of what spy satellites did during the cold war because I bet you didn't read up on what you saw !

Angular Size of Astronomical objects

From that

Stars

The largest stars appear smaller still. The two largest below are red giants at some distance, whereas the last two are sun-sized stars at very close distance.

R Doradus: 0.057″
Betelgeuse: 0.049″ – 0.060″
Antares : 0.0413″
Aldebaran : 0.020″
Alpha Centauri A: ca. 0.007″
Sirius: ca. 0.007″

If you UNDERSTAND the numbers above you will then work out why the Hubble cant show detail in stars!!!

The estimated diameter of R Doradus is 515 ± 70 million km the sun 1.392 million km

I did this thread to show how large M31 Andromeda would look in our night sky if it was BRIGHT enough.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yes that's the Moon in the picture


Lets see if some of this information is understood.

If you really want to see what Hubble is capable of use this link

Hubble PHAT mosaic


Then down load the 349mb tiff file which is an image of 17384 x 5558 pixels.

Low resolution version

Small Mosaic

originally posted by: tanka418
However, I find it rather remarkable that Hubble is able to resolve an exoplanet at all.

For all your expertise in imaging (as you claim), you still don't understand the difference between detecting and resolving.

The Hubble can detect exoplanets. It cannot resolve them, due to not having enough angular resolution for that.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Read readership, had to come back to add a flag and my thanks for the great, highly informative and easy to understand post. Well done!

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: tanka418
However, I find it rather remarkable that Hubble is able to resolve an exoplanet at all.

For all your expertise in imaging (as you claim), you still don't understand the difference between detecting and resolving.

The Hubble can detect exoplanets. It cannot resolve them, due to not having enough angular resolution for that.

lol...you're quite funny...have it your way.

Afterthought:

By the way; y'all may want to check your definition of "resolving". You seem to be giving it a bit more than it is actually due.

•(of optical or photographic equipment) separate or distinguish between (closely adjacent objects):

"Hubble was able to resolve six variable stars in M31"

-- Bing search result.

Seems to me that those images I posted show exactly that...the resolution of an exoplanet. I know you don't have the surface detail you want, but, again it is 25 ly away.

a reply to: tanka418

How about you stay on topic?

This thread is about Hubble's limitations on what it can or can not see as far as featured details are concerned.

Dawes Limit is used to determine this, and involves light at 562 nm, which is visible light.

This thread is not about Hubble or any other telescope being able to simply detect something, and especially not in other wavelengths of non-visible light.

If you want to continue that discussion, start your own thread on it. It's a completely different discussion, and is like comparing apples and oranges.

sry

Dawes' limit.
R = 4.56/D
D is diameter in inches
R is resolution in arcseconds
Hubble = 94.5 in
R = 0.048253968 arcseconds or 0.000013404 degrees
Moon distance = 384,400 km
Tan(0.000013404 degrees) = 0.000000234
Therefore, the limit of Hubble's resolution at the distance of the moon translates to about 90 meters. None of the equipment left on the moon by Apollo is even close to being that large.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: tanka418

How about you stay on topic?

This thread is about Hubble's limitations on what it can or can not see as far as featured details are concerned.

Dawes Limit is used to determine this, and involves light at 562 nm, which is visible light.

This thread is not about Hubble or any other telescope being able to simply detect something, and especially not in other wavelengths of non-visible light.

If you want to continue that discussion, start your own thread on it. It's a completely different discussion, and is like comparing apples and oranges.

Now that I'm not P***** at you...
My comments have been on topic, wavelengths not withstanding.

I'm not talking about the ability to detect an exoplanet, but the ability to actually "resolve" it. As is nicely evidenced by the images I posted.

Detection is done by acquiring the effects of the planet on its parent star; you know the "dimming" of the transit. The change in wavelength due to Doppler effects...these are detection.

Acquiring the spectra of an exoplanet atmosphere, imaging the "disk" of the planet...those are only done when we can actually resolve the planet...not just it effects on its environment.

a reply to: tanka418

Ok we get that, but again what is the title of this thread.

The thread was to show why even the Hubble can't give us the ability to see in detail small objects on the Moon a question often asked on here in Moon hoax threads.

Start a thread with your stuff many of us would like to know more , I have seen a video on youtube confirming an exoplanet with a DSLR and a 300mm lens.

originally posted by: tanka418
I'm not talking about the ability to detect an exoplanet, but the ability to actually "resolve" it. As is nicely evidenced by the images I posted.

Detection is done by acquiring the effects of the planet on its parent star; you know the "dimming" of the transit. The change in wavelength due to Doppler effects...these are detection.

Acquiring the spectra of an exoplanet atmosphere, imaging the "disk" of the planet...those are only done when we can actually resolve the planet...not just it effects on its environment.

Ah, now I see that there was a misunderstanding of sorts.

When I said "detect" I meant that the Hubble can capture light from an exopanet, creating a dot of light on its sensor. Since the dot of light was registered by the sensor, it means the Hubble can detect an exoplanet. But the Hubble's angular resolution is not enough to see exoplanets as anything more than a dot.

And actually, acquiring spectra can be done from a dot of light too (this has been done to every star that had been studied in astronomy), you simply use a prism to spread the dot of light into its spectum.

If there are any images that show an exoplanet as anything more than a dot of light, we and the scientific community would very much like to see them.

Great thread, great job. Of course you know full well that even though you took the time to use very clear science and to hang around answering questions and making clarifications. . . you will see this issue raised over and over in certain threads, lol.

Awesome. I learned something here today. Thank you!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tanka418

Ok we get that, but again what is the title of this thread.

Yes...and?

The thread was to show why even the Hubble can't give us the ability to see in detail small objects on the Moon a question often asked on here in Moon hoax threads.

Start a thread with your stuff many of us would like to know more , I have seen a video on youtube confirming an exoplanet with a DSLR and a 300mm lens.

I thought we were discussing what Hubble could resolve...am I wrong?

And on that exoplanet thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Started a short while age...guess you didn't notice. It starts with a short whitepaper...go read, ask...

As for why Hubble can't see that 50 meter rock, that been addressed, and, I thought we were discussing what it could resolve. and it seems that while it won't see your 50 meter rock...it will see a planet at 25 ly.

originally posted by: wildespace
Ah, now I see that there was a misunderstanding of sorts.

When I said "detect" I meant that the Hubble can capture light from an exopanet, creating a dot of light on its sensor. Since the dot of light was registered by the sensor, it means the Hubble can detect an exoplanet. But the Hubble's angular resolution is not enough to see exoplanets as anything more than a dot.

And, when Hubble sees that "dot of light" it is in fact, by definition, resolving that planet! A fact you seem to be a bit resistant to.

And actually, acquiring spectra can be done from a dot of light too (this has been done to every star that had been studied in astronomy), you simply use a prism to spread the dot of light into its spectum.

If there are any images that show an exoplanet as anything more than a dot of light, we and the scientific community would very much like to see them.

Actually, the scientific community isn't waiting, so I'm afraid you will wait all by yourself...the scientific community isn't resistant to facts as you are...

Again; you seriously need to update your definition of "resolve"...it is rather "out of synch" with the "scientific community".

a reply to: tanka418

A telescope's ability to detect a dot of light, is not the same as being able to resolve that light into details that contain features we can see: IE craters, landmasses, oceans, clouds, etc.

This has been explained to you many times over in this thread. The ability of a telescope to do this is call Angular Resolution.

That is the topic of this thread and the OP.

Not whether or not a CCD chip can sense a point of light that is a star or a exoplanet.

You have been trying to argue over and over that detecting a point of light, and angular resolution is the same thing.

It is NOT.

A person with 20/300 vision can detect light.....they can NOT see clear details without glasses.

A person can see the moon with just their eyes and even make out very large surface features. A 4 inch telescope has a much higher angular resolution than a person's eye, and is able to see much smaller surface details.

BOTH the eye and the telescope can see light. Only one is able to see more detail because of the higher angular resolution.

THAT is the topic of this thread. Nothing else.

Understand?