Chapt17 Telescope experiments as distance tool #1574 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In May of 2010
Enrico wrote:


> Finding anything at all that addresses your question about
> limitations on what a telescope can see (resolve) turned out
> to be harder than I expected.

Yes, thanks for you help Enrico. I am not surprized at all that
astronomers never realized that the telescope and all the Physics
laws on Optics were never seen as their best and finest measure
of distance in the Cosmos.


I am guessing, roughly, that no telescope on Earth is able to see a
galaxy beyond 200 million light years away. And that the furthest
possible sighting of a supernova from Earth with our finest
telescope
is 400 million light years away.


So my guess is that 400 million light years is the furthest distance
in
astronomy that we can "know about."


This would mean that the surveys by Jarrett and Juric et al, are
mappings
that are all confined to 400 million light years. And not our
current
silly idea that our telescopes are peering back to 13 billion light
years.


So all the surveys and mappings of the Cosmos have to take place
within 400 million light years distance because our telescopes can
see these objects and if we can see them in the telescope, means
they are no further than 400 million light years.

> http://atomic-molecular-optical-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/can_...


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
> Read the section on Data Processing
> Note assumptions made about Universal Expansion


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope
> Technical stuff, formulas.
> Scroll down about 1/3 way to:


> "Angular resolution
> Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere
> (atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope,
the
> angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the
> diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary
mirror,
> or lens.) The Rayleigh criterion for the resolution limit áR (in
> radians) is given by"


> <Snipped math - not sure if it would display here>


> "Essentially; the larger the aperture, the better the angular
> resolution"


> "It should be noted that the resolution is NOT given by the maximum
> magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by
> giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor
images."


>                          Enrico

Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or
concept
in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
concept
or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
called
"coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
to
the
Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
I
had
a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
to
resolve
my flashlight on Pluto.


Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
this
concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a telescope
can
resolve a shining light.


So, Enrico, I am not surprized at all, that the Physics community in
conjunction
with the Astronomy community never sat down and worked out, first,
what the limit
of their best telescopes are. Whether any of them can see beyond 200
million light
years of a star or galaxy, or 400 million light years of a Supernova.
For
there is a definite
upper limit of distance.


It does not surprize me that the Physics and Astronomy community have
assumed
their telescopes can see and peer to a infinite distance in Space.
And
the Big Bang
theory accepts such a ridiculous assumption.


Now it maybe that radio telescopes can see further, but here again,
there is an upper
limit. And I am guessing that it is the RING seen in Jarrett's
mapping
that tells me this
ring is the "edge of the observable horizon of the Cosmos". And that
RING is about
400 million light years away. And thus, everything beyond that RING,
is actually inside
the ring or closer to earth.


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)


> Yes, resolution comes back to memory. There is another idea or concept
> in Physics when I took Optics in school. I sort of forgotten the
> concept
> or it is vague to me now. It went along the lines of something
called
> "coherence of light". Meaning that the flashlight on Pluto directed
to
> the
> Hubble Space Telescope may not be resolved by the telescope, but if
I
> had
> a laser light flashlight, that Hubble telescope would then be able
to
> resolve
> my flashlight on Pluto.


> Of course the stars, galaxies and Supernova are not laser lights. And
> this
> concept of "coherence" is important in the distance that a
telescope
> can
> resolve a shining light.

It has been a very long time since I sat in a UC Optics classroom in
1970. And
never knowing that such an experience was going to come out so
fruitfull eventually.


So the question I raise is what is the maximum distance that the
Hubble Space
Telescope can see a ordinary galaxy. Maximum distance given the
physics of
how light travels and optics of the telescope. And it is a darn
shame
that
noone in the astronomy community ever thought to ask such a
question.
The biologists certainly asked the questions a long time ago about
the
smallest length their light-microscopes could attain. And that if a
biologist
proclaimed to see a virus in a light-microscope would have been
laughed
out of his profession.


But nowadays, it is commonplace for astronomers and physicists to
claim that
quasars and the Sloan Great Wall are far beyond 400 million light
years, yet the
Hubble Space Telescope sees them as red spots, yet none of these
scientists ever
worked out whether Hubble Space Telescope can see a quasar or Great
Wall
in the billions of light years.


The limit of a light microscope is that of bacteria, so where is the
limit of the
Hubble Space Telescope. Most astronomers probably have the notion
that
telescopes have no limit to observing distances. That they think the
Hubble
can see and peer into infinity distance.


To me, such notions and assumptions are repulsive.


So now, how to find out the limit of distance of the Hubble Space
Telescope?
How do we find out its limit?


Well a good way is to ask a question such as whether a flashlight
placed on
Pluto or Mars or Moon can be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope?
Have
a gradation of flashlights on the Moon and see where the Hubble
ceases
to
"see" the flashlight. Then we can extrapolate that luminosity of the
flashlight
and Moon distance to that of Supernova or regular galaxies as to
what
the
Hubble Telescope upper limit of distance is.


Now I believe the prime reason there is a upper limit is the
behaviour
of light itself,
in that it has a luminosity governed by inverse square of distance.
If
my memory
serves me from 40 years ago in school studying Optics, this is
called
candela.


And the reason that laser light can be seen so much further of a
distance is because
of the "coherent beam" that does not fall off at inverse square of
distance.


No galaxy , nor any supernova nor the quasars are laser lights, and
so
they fall off
in luminosity by inverse square of distance.


So the question of using a telescope to tell us of the distance to a
galaxy or a star or
a quasar or a Sloan Great Wall, is that we can use standard Physics
ideas, laws and
principles of Optics to tell us how far a telescope can resolve a
regular normal astro
body. My guess is that the Hubble Space Telescope has a maximum
distance range
of 200 million light years for a normal regular single galaxy and
any
such galaxies beyond
200 million light years is not detectable by Hubble. For a
Supernova,
I am guessing
400 million light years distance the Hubble can still faintly see
the
Supernova, but
beyond that distance is undetected.


Now why is this so very important? Well, obviously, since the quasars
and Great Walls
are alleged to be 13 billion and 4 billion light years away, yet
easily seen in the Hubble
Space Telescope as red spots, signifies that the redshift is all in
error. If Hubble
Telescope distance is only good to 200 to 400 million light years,
then the quasars
and Great Walls must be a smaller distance than 200 to 400 million
light years.


Funny, how it seems that a logical thinker in astronomer is as rare
to
find as a
Supernova explosion is rare to find. Because, it really does not
need
a rocketscientist
to figure out that the telescope itself is a distance measuring tool
and the most
accurate measuring tool of distance in all of astronomy. So shame on
the astronomy
community for never realizing this valuable tool. Part of the
problem
is that so
many scientists spend most of their time on thinking about equations
of math
and physics, and little time on clear logic. And so you have a 100
years of time
wasted on Doppler redshift and no time spent on the telescope itself
as a distance
tool.

--
Approximately 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

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:48:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In May of 2010
>
> Enrico wrote:

I started your bath and put the oil in it, master.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary
>
> mirror,
>

> > or lens.) The Rayleigh criteFinding anything at all that addresses your question about

> > "Angular resoFinding anything at all that addresses your question about

> > http://en.wikipedFinding anything at all that addresses your question about

ia.org/wiki/OptFinding anything at all that addresses your question about

[hbe...@gmail.com]

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:39:28 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:38:42 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:48:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
>

> > > In May of 2010 . Yes. Enrico: get me my food. Pronto!

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:48:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:40:20 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:39:28 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:42:19 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:42:19 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:48:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>

> > In May of 2010.

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:42:56 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:42:56 AM UTC-7, hbe...@gmail.com wrote:

[Brad Guth]

On May 13, 10:48 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods
of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any
K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups.

They'll also connect your words together so as to making them a whole
lot less searchable, and they've done the same thing with external
links by connecting the prior word to that link and thereby making it
unfunctional. So, there are ways of messing up your topics and
replies in ways that computer forensics can't link to the insider
perpetrators that intend to make their own stuff stick and your stuff
either fail or eventually vanish.

However, I do believe we're seeing more than 400 million ly distance
by way of extremely long time exposures and lots of computer PhotoShop-
like methods applied.

[hbe...@gmail.com]

>
>
>
> Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods
>
> of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any
>
> K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>

Do you seriously have sympathy for someone who dumps his off-topic garbage in

sci.math? Where is the _Mathematical_ content in any of this? How is this O.K,

specially considering that s/he (plutonium) has plenty of other sites where

s/he could post this on-topic? Could be sci.physics, his/her blog, 100's of

other options? I am a student, I access sci.math through my school computer,

and I cannot filter this wannabee worthless waste-of-life baboon plutonium.

How is this O.K? How about some sympathy instead, for all of us who see our

MATHEMATICS site defaced by worthless imbeciles like plutonium?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On May 14, 8:14 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 10:48 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped)

>
> Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods
> of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any
> K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>

The fact that few if any High Schoolers post should be a alarm bell
for those who look after Usenet. When Usenet started, everyone was
shouting a banner of "freedom of speech", but there is little fairness
of speech in Usenet so long as anyone can hide behind fake names and
post almost unlimited volume. When you have fake names-- BroilJAB,
HVAC, Kevin, Bacle and more than 5 posts per 24 hours by such dolts,
then the Usenet science newsgroups are tarnished so much that a High
School youngster would not feel comfortable in posting.

So that if those two rules were installed-- no fake names, only 5
posts per day we would see a science forum.

> They'll also connect your words together so as to making them a whole
> lot less searchable, and they've done the same thing with external
> links by connecting the prior word to that link and thereby making it
> unfunctional.  So, there are ways of messing up your topics and

Worse yet is this Docendi.org or Niuz.biz that collects my posts and
then when a bystander opens up that post in Niuz, Niuz attaches
malware to the bystanders computer, at least that is what the Google
warnings say about Niuz. I still want a lawyer to sue Niuz
for wrecking computers, or the threat of wrecking computers.

> replies in ways that computer forensics can't link to the insider
> perpetrators that intend to make their own stuff stick and your stuff
> either fail or eventually vanish.
>
> However, I do believe we're seeing more than 400 million ly distance
> by way of extremely long time exposures and lots of computer PhotoShop-
> like methods applied.

I am still looking to see if 400 million light years is the upper
limit. It appears so, since that Ring in the 3rd layer of Jarrett's
galaxy mapping is 400 m l y distance. It is not final, but a good
rough guess.

AP

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On May 14, 8:14 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 10:48 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> (snipped)
>
> >
>
> > Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods
>
> > of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any
>
> > K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The fact that few if any High Schoolers post should be a alarm bell
>
> for those who look after Usenet. When Usenet started, everyone was
>
> shouting a banner of "freedom of speech",

Freedom of speech DOES NOT mean making repeated off-topic posts. This is a

MATHEMATICS site; see the self-description:

"An unmoderated newsgroup on general and advanced mathematics."

You are trashing this site and seriously diluting the mathematical

content with your off-topic material, which you could post in many

other places. So stop hiding under the banner of free speech.

post

but there is little fairness
>
> of speech in Usenet so long as anyone can hide behind fake names and
>
> post almost unlimited volume. When you have fake names-- BroilJAB,
>
> HVAC, Kevin, Bacle and more than 5 posts per 24 hours by such dolts,
>
> then the Usenet science newsgroups are tarnished so much that a High
>
> School youngster would not feel comfortable in posting.

Why are _YOU_ able to post off-topic but others can't? Why do you have

a special right to post whatever you feel like in here, but others do not?

Why can you make 1000's of OFF_TOPIC posts in a MATHEMATICS site over the

years and others cannot? You are a self-righteous hypocrit. Your double-

standard where you are free to do whatever you feel like in here yet you

condemn others when they do the same is very transparent.

Maybe some day you will grow some testicles to seriously put your theories

to the test. Until then, keep making a fool of yourself by talking tough and

hiding behind your bubble of self-delusion with your transparently-ridiculous

posts. In case you're interested, everyone here thinks you are an unwitting

clown, a running joke.

LOSER.

test

>
>
>
> So that if those two rules were installed-- no fake names, only 5
>
> posts per day we would see a science forum.

FALSE: We want this site to be a MATHEMATICS site, and your posts make it

really hard to do so. Would you like it if everyone here decided to post

on whatever they feel like? Me neither. We all decide to stay on-topic most

of the time, but you believe yourself to have a specialn right to do whatever

you feel like in here. It shows you to be an inconsiderate scumbag, and

furthermore, your ideas are as absurd as one can find; not one of your ideas

has been independently-tested by _any_ third party, so all your writing is

just fiction-- not even science fiction.

[Phony MacNymster]

Wrong newsgroup(s), you horrible pile of shit.

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
news:02435f89-4877-4556...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

"I, Archimedes Plutonium, have posted something to a newsgroup"

[Brad Guth]

On May 14, 2:51 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

If the current generations of K-12s were even half as smart as our era
of 5th graders, there wouldn't be a problem with Usenet/newsgroups as
having been run into the nearest toilet by ZNR oligarchs and redneck
mafia types, that are mostly public funded and the rest faith-based
funded as to keeping as many K-12s from showing up or staying for
long.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I see it more as a general laziness and apathy of subscribers with the
idea, the muddled idea of freedom of speech with no rules attached.

So the two rules that I deem necessary for a Science Forum-- no fake
names and 5 posts limit per 24 hours are necessary rules to even have
a science forum.

If we analogize to a grocery store where you buy food and you pay by
leaving a true name so the bill is sent and you pay at the end of the
month. So in comes shopping BroilJAB and buys every day a huge cart of
groceries but never pays for anything because he never leaves a true
name of accountability. And in comes Sam Wormley who clears out the
entire aisle of food every day, sometimes twice a day so that others
cannot buy any food of that aisle in that day.

Google wanted to improve the newsgroups, but went about it all
contorted. They have hired unpaid moderators in sci.math. Those poor
moderators who have to give so much of their time, when all Google had
to do was impose the two rules-- no fake names and no more than 5
posts/24 hours. BroilJAB would never post his crap with his real name
and if he did, we would quickly learn of his employer or where he
works and the complaints would drive him away. And Sam Wormley would
be restricted to 5 posts a day not able to hog the front pages of
sci.physics.

So Google missed the boat with its New Newsgroups. It is easy for them
to engineer those two rules and besides, having posters with true real
names only is of benefit to Internet companies because commerce does
not make money from people masquerading behind fake names. Do you
think Amazon or Ebay are happy to see someone with a fake name?

So think of the High Schooler who opens up sci.physics today and sees
a swarm of political manure by BroilJAB and not physics and then
another swarm of one liner airhead parroting of physics topics by Sam
Wormley. Not much benefit of science physics when you have tons of
fake name posters, none of which can be relied on for any information.

If you want to do serious science, you have to have a real name to
take responsibility of your posting interaction.

AP

[hbe...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:41:33 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On May 17, 1:33 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 2:51 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 8:14 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On May 13, 10:48 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> > > (snipped)
>
> >
>
> > > > Nice enough topic, and you are right about the kinds of index methods
>
> > > > of censorship that takes place, and otherwise notice how few if any
>
> > > > K-12s are anywhere to be seen within these public Usenet/newsgroups.
>
> >
>
> > > The fact that few if any High Schoolers post should be a alarm bell
>
> > > for those who look after Usenet. When Usenet started, everyone was
>
> > > shouting a banner of "freedom of speech", but there is little fairness
>
> > > of speech in Usenet so long as anyone can hide behind fake names and
>
> > > post almost unlimited volume. When you have fake names-- BroilJAB,
>
> > > HVAC, Kevin, Bacle and more than 5 posts per 24 hours by such dolts,
>
> > > then the Usenet science newsgroups are tarnished so much

Asshole:

First of all, notice how, as usual, no one gives a damn about anything you
have to say, because you are a joke to everyone.

The lies and trash you repeatedly post hurt Usenet more than anything
anyone else ever does. Do you not understand, you and guth imbeciles that
we don't want your non-mathematical content IN A MATHEMATICS WEBSITE.
Do you get that Guth, you two-bit fuck?
Maybe, plutonium, some day you will grow a pair of testicles
and submit your theories to be tested. Until then, keep fooling yourself into
believing you're a scientist; keep living in your bubble.

that a High
>
> > > School youngster would not feel comfortable in posting.
>
> >
>
> > > So that if those two rules were installed-- no fake names, only 5
>
> > > posts per day we would see a science forum.
>
> >
>
> > > > They'll also connect your words together so as to making them a whole
>
> > > > lot less searchable, and they've done the same thing with external
>
> > > > links by connecting the prior word to that link and thereby making it
>
> > > > unfunctional.  So, there are ways of messing up your topics and
>
> >
>
> > > Worse yet is this Docendi.org or Niuz.biz that collects my posts and
>
> > > then when a bystander opens up that post in Niuz, Niuz attaches
>
> > > malware to the bystanders computer, at least that is what the Google
>
> > > warnings say about Niuz. I still want a lawyer to sue Niuz
>
> > > for wrecking computers, or the threat of wrecking computers.

Look up some organization catering to imbeciles see if they can hook
you up with a lawyer. And then tell the lawyer how you're trashing this site,
and have him laugh in your face --the way anyone who reads your garbage
laughs at you.

>
> >
>
> > > > replies in ways that computer forensics can't link to the insider
>
> > > > perpetrators that intend to make their own stuff stick and your stuff
>
> > > > either fail or eventually vanish.
>
> >
>
> > > > However, I do believe we're seeing more than 400 million ly distance
>
> > > > by way of extremely long time exposures and lots of computer PhotoShop-
>

> > > > like methods applied.\

And, again, you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about.

>
> >
>
> > > I am still looking to see if 400 million light years is the upper
>
> > > limit. It appears so, since that Ring in the 3rd layer of Jarrett's
>
> > > galaxy mapping is 400 m l y distance. It is not final, but a good
>
> > > rough guess.
>
> >
>
> > > AP
>
> >
>
> > If the current generations of K-12s were even half as smart as our era
>
> > of 5th graders, there wouldn't be a problem with Usenet/newsgroups as
>
> > having been run into the nearest toilet by ZNR oligarchs and redneck
>
> > mafia types, that are mostly public funded and the rest faith-based
>
> > funded as to keeping as many K-12s from showing up or staying for
>
> > long.
>
>
>
> I see it more as a general laziness and apathy of subscribers with the
>
> idea, the muddled idea of freedom of speech with no rules attached.

HYPOCRITES; You're both not just complete morons, but HYPOCRITES.

Free speech does not mean you get to post whatever you want in a MATHEMATICS

website; you get to post MATHEMTICAL CONTENT.

>
>
>
> So the two rules that I deem necessary for a Science Forum-- no fake
>
> names and 5 posts limit per 24 hours are necessary rules to even have
>
> a science forum.
>

And no one pays attention, because you are seen as a buffoon, a liar and

an overall imbecile. So you're not considered to have any moral or otherwise

authority.

>
>
> If we analogize to a grocery store where you buy food and you pay by
>
> leaving a true name so the bill is sent and you pay at the end of the
>
> month. So in comes shopping BroilJAB and buys every day a huge cart of
>
> groceries but never pays for anything because he never leaves a true
>
> name of accountability. And in comes Sam Wormley who clears out the
>
> entire aisle of food every day, sometimes twice a day so that others
>
> cannot buy any food of that aisle in that day.

Stop posting OFF_TOPIC in a MATHEMATICS website, you worthless fucking

babboons.

[Brad Guth]

On May 14, 2:51 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

There's no requirement that K12s or anyone else has to read/review
through each and every Usenet/newsgroup topic or reply, however with
the usual gauntlet of reuse-masters and FUD-masters clowning around,
it's a wonder that anyone seriously bothers with the public free-
speech context of Usenet where topic/author stalking and bashing is
mainstream status-quo (meaning unpoliced by most of their kind),
imposing their mainstream damage control that would make Hitler a very
proud and happy camper, because the only ones actively looking after
Usenet are those of the ZNR oligarch kind.

Your interpretation that 400 million light years is the optical limit
of seeing other more distant stuff is perhaps not taking into account
those extremely long time exposures of extremely sensitive CCDs
gathering photons and thousands of frame stacking methods applied.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On May 18, 4:37 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped)

>
> Your interpretation that 400 million light years is the optical limit
> of seeing other more distant stuff is perhaps not taking into account
> those extremely long time exposures of extremely sensitive CCDs
> gathering photons and thousands of frame stacking methods applied.

Well thanks for keep pushing me to make more clear.

One of the nasty problems of astronomy is a blizzard of terms for
which seem like appropriate but not actually the concept involved. For
example astronomy has these terms:

intensity

brightness

magnitude

luminosity

coherence

etc etc

What I am after, is the concept that says that light turned on at
distance x, can only travel so far before it is too attenuated that it
cannot be seen anymore. Even a supernova that goes off, has a distance
limit to where it is no longer able to be seen.

So let me put out an analogy. A shotgun with its thousand pellets. As
you shoot the gun the pellets are together closely and as they travel
meters they start to widen out and not so together and nearby. With
increasing distance of travel there is only 3 pellets per cubic meter.
With further distance, there is 1 pellet per cubic meter.

Light from a star, from a galaxy, from a supernova is much the same as
those pellets of a shotgun. At some distance, there are so few light
waves of that star, or galaxy or supernova so that the observer can no
longer see the object. I believe this upper limit is 400 million light
years, whereas astronomers mostly believe it is infinity.

Now I am looking at some old supernovae in human history-- such as the
1604 Kepler's supernova which was 20,000 (alleged) light years away.
So comparing the light of that supernova with its distance we can sort
of arrive at a upper limit of light travelling before a supernova is
no longer able to be seen due to sheer distance.

--
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
missing Google posts can be seen here: