Apparent Magnitude Chapt17 Telescopes are our best distance measure-- what you see is no more than 400 million light years away #1582 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In an previous post
I spoke of a Cosmic Muck and Mire and Grime of Space. Where the muck
and
mire is a uniform hydrogen atom per a given volume of Space. I do
not
know what
that parameter is. Whether there exists at least 1 hydrogen atom per
cubic kilometer
of space or whether it is a cubic 2 kilometers of Space.


So if I were to find out what this measure is, I could thence say the
upper limit
of distance viewing in a telescope would be no matter how refined or
quality of
a telescope, it cannot see beyond a certain distance.


I believe that distance is going to be in the range of 200 to 400
million light years
away.


And that means that since the Hubble Space Telescope can see these
quasars and
the Great Walls in the billions of light years away, it means those
reports were in
error. In error because the HST sees them as images, yet the HST by
theory and
practice is not able to see beyond 200 to 400 million light years
away. It means that
the quasars and Great Walls are closer to us than what we originally
thought.


Now in this Methodology, one of the components to the upper limit is
this hydrogen
atom density in all of Space, but another component is going to be
all
the larger
objects such as stars, planets, galaxies and whatever. If we point
the
telescope
through the center of the Milky Way galaxy we are going to be
blocked
a view
beyond the center. So the galaxies themselves become a component of
the
furthest distance a telescope can see. But even when we point into
space where
we feel there is hardly any matter or objects to block or diverge
the
view, we are wrong
in that this Cosmic density of atoms of hydrogen or other elementary
particles is
going to make an upper limit to distance of the telescope.


So anyone with commonsense can agree with me so far, that no matter
what telescope
the distance it can see is dependant on the Cosmic Background of
Muck
and Mire.
But not everyone is going to agree with me, that since we see the
Great Walls and the
quasars as a image from the HST, means they must be in the millions
of
light years distance
and not the erroneous report that they are in the billions of light
years distance.


In May 2010
Craig Markwardt wrote:
> On May 10, 5:09 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Craig Markwardt wrote:
> > > On May 10, 4:37 am, Archimedes Plutonium
> > > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Enrico wrote:


> > > > > A couple of formulas here:
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence


> > > > Yes it gives a Divergence formula of 2arctan Df-Di/2L


> > > > I suspected it was linear rather than the intensity of normal light
> > > > being inverse square


> > > Huh?  The formula above describes a constant beam opening angle.  A
> > > emitting source with constant opening angle still falls off in
> > > intensity with the square of distance.  I.e. *inverse square*
still
> > > applies.  Since your conclusions are based on a faulty premise,
the
> > > conclusions are not relevant.


> > Do you know what "linear" means in mathematics as opposed to
> > inverse square? Probably not.


> You are being cavalier about the phrase "linear."  The equation
> referenced by "Enrico" describes the *diameter* of a beam spot, as
a
> function of distance - not intensity [*].  If the diameter would
grow
> linearly with distance, then the *area* A of the beam spot must
grow
> quadratically.  If a laser power P is distributed over the beam
spot
> area A, then the intensity (= P/A = Watts per square meter) would
fall
> quadratically with distance, which is basically inverse square
law.
> Thus you are in error.


> [*] in any case, the equation is not linear since it contains a
> arctangent function.


> > The reason a laser beam is used
> > to reflect off a mirror on the Moon planted by the astronauts
decades
> > ago
> > is because the laser beam is not a inverse square with distance.
> > Otherwise,
> > just use a white light flashlight for the roundtrip to the Moon.


> You are incorrect.  Beam divergence can be described as a cone with a
> given opening angle.  The area of a cone increases as the square
of
> distance. The divergence for laser ranging is small - a few
arcseconds
> [1], but it's enough to cause significant inverse-square losses
during
> the trip to the moon (and back).


> [1] - example laser divergence of McDonald observatory is up to 20
> arcseconds.
> http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stations/sitelist/MDOL_sitelog.html#5.%20%2...


> ... remainder deleted for brevity ...


> CM

So, you are saying the author of the Wikipedia article on laser beam
divergence
is wrong and that the divergence is not the 2arctan Df-Di/2L.


Now I wonder if it is Magnitude and Apparent Magnitude that I should
be looking at rather than other concepts of intensity or brightness or
luminosity, but then magnitude is dependent on intensity and
luminosity and especially distance.

So looking at Wikipedia on "apparent magnitude" I see a limit of 6 for
naked eye, and 10 for a 7x50 binoculars, and 32 for the Hubble Space
Telescope.

Alright now, on that Wikipedia page of Magnitude they say that Fenrir
a satellite of Saturn has a magnitude of 25 while the Hubble Space
Telescope has a magnitude of 32.

Now does the data make sense with the faint objects such as quasars at
10^-6 Brightness and Fenrir at 10^-10 and HST at 10^-13? The question
that I am getting at, is the data sensible if Pluto has about the same
brightness as a quasar and since we accurately know the distance of
Pluto we should expect the distance to the quasar to be no more than
400 million light years away if the quasar was a bright star like Vega
or Sirius or a bright galaxy. Do we even get a distance that takes us
beyond the stars of the Milky Way galaxy which is 120,000 light years
across. Or better yet the very faint nearby galaxies, yet to think
that quasars have the same apparent magnitude as Pluto yet billions of
light years distant, sounds highly preposterous and silly to me. Does
it you? If you were told the quasar lies billions of light years away
and has the same brightness and apparent magnitude of Pluto whose
distance is a mere 39 AU, would you not start to suspect that quasars
are far more near and closer to Earth than the hype of fictional-
astronomy.

--
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to
be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel
University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education
not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.
Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has
done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012
as seen
here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies