Comments on: Viewing the light of stars through a telescope as opposed to the naked eye? http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/ Thu, 17 May 2012 21:13:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ottawa Mike http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/comment-page-1/#comment-2258 Ottawa Mike Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:15:34 +0000 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/#comment-2258 Just as an off topic correction, our galaxy is only about 100,000 light years across and we can only see stars with the naked eye in our galaxy. At 200 million light years, a star would be in another galaxy and at that distance we would be lucky to even see the whole galaxy (with the naked eye).<a href="http://www.supersportsstore.com/climbing-accessories-and-training-7780"> Ottawa Mike</a> Just as an off topic correction, our galaxy is only about 100,000 light years across and we can only see stars with the naked eye in our galaxy. At 200 million light years, a star would be in another galaxy and at that distance we would be lucky to even see the whole galaxy (with the naked eye). Ottawa Mike

]]> By: tastofhevn http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/comment-page-1/#comment-2257 tastofhevn Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:50:44 +0000 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/#comment-2257 You have to think about it from the perspective of the light. Regardless of how we're looking at it, the light still took the same amount of time to reach us. All the telescope does is capture more of the light than we can with our naked eye.<a href="http://www.healthstorebargains.com/srch/srch.php?q=Conditioner"> tastofhevn</a> You have to think about it from the perspective of the light. Regardless of how we’re looking at it, the light still took the same amount of time to reach us. All the telescope does is capture more of the light than we can with our naked eye. tastofhevn

]]> By: Larry454 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/comment-page-1/#comment-2256 Larry454 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:19:12 +0000 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/#comment-2256 You are wrestling with what I have found to be a common misconception. A telescope has no way of "reaching out" to grasp photons that are proceeding toward Earth. The scope sees the same light that you see with your eye, it just: 1. Collects more photons because it is bigger than your eye (so it can see dimmer objects). 2. Focuses all those photons at your eye so that you can see a sharp image. 3. Magnifies the image. Therefore, the time lag that is occurring on the way to your eye is that same one that occurs on the way to the telescope. The light still travels the same distance, it is what you do with that light once it gets here that makes the difference between seeing Hubble photos and seeing a typical night sky.<a href="http://www.prohomeschool.com/homeschool-preschool.htm"> Larry454</a> You are wrestling with what I have found to be a common misconception. A telescope has no way of “reaching out” to grasp photons that are proceeding toward Earth. The scope sees the same light that you see with your eye, it just:

1. Collects more photons because it is bigger than your eye (so it can see dimmer objects).
2. Focuses all those photons at your eye so that you can see a sharp image.
3. Magnifies the image.

Therefore, the time lag that is occurring on the way to your eye is that same one that occurs on the way to the telescope. The light still travels the same distance, it is what you do with that light once it gets here that makes the difference between seeing Hubble photos and seeing a typical night sky. Larry454

]]> By: Nomadd http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/comment-page-1/#comment-2255 Nomadd Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:39 +0000 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/#comment-2255 Hubble just gathers a lot more light. It all left the star at the same time. It just sees stars farther back in time because it can see fainter, or more distant stars.<a href="http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/telescope-review.htm"> Nomadd</a> Hubble just gathers a lot more light. It all left the star at the same time. It just sees stars farther back in time because it can see fainter, or more distant stars. Nomadd

]]> By: Raymond http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/comment-page-1/#comment-2254 Raymond Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:09:37 +0000 http://www.telescopebuyingguide.com/blog/viewing-the-light-of-stars-through-a-telescope-as-opposed-to-the-naked-eye/#comment-2254 The light takes the same time to travel here, regardless of the instrument used to "see" it (eye, telescope, photography...)<a href="http://www.promusicmall.com/electric-12865"> Raymond</a> The light takes the same time to travel here, regardless of the instrument used to “see” it (eye, telescope, photography…) Raymond

]]>