Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson <clp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:51:47 GMT
On 18 Jan 2006 09:22:28 -0800, "nick" <svla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To an astronomer, "magnification" is useful to describe the factor by
>> which an object appears larger through an instrument compared with its
>> size to the naked eye. An objective has no such value.
>
>Interesting. And at the same time, you're stating:
>
>> The magnification of a 500mm objective and a particular EP will be one
>> fourth the magnification of a 2000mm objective with the same EP.
>
>Isn't it directly contradicting?
Not in the slightest. In the first case I'm talking about an objective,
which doesn't have magnification by the usual astronomical definition.
In the second case I am talking about a telescope, an optical system
that does.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- References:
- Stupid question about magnification
- From: Cerdic
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Stupid question about magnification
- From: nick
- Stupid question about magnification
- Prev by Date: Re: The myserious star has been located
- Next by Date: Re: The myserious star has been located
- Previous by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Next by thread: Re: Stupid question about magnification
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|