Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They both work the same way because the object must be in range for it to be resolved by the film or by the retina. This is why we see the same thing that a camera photographs.
|
Except when we can't and don't see the same thing a camera photographs.
 |
Not if we can't see with our naked eye. But if we had a powerful enough telescope, we would be seeing the same exact thing. |
Why can't Hubble display those galaxies on a viewing screen (like a digital camera), yet it can photograph them? |
My only response is that I thought film cameras worked the same way digital cameras worked; just a newer technology. I really don't want to discuss this, so you don't have to answer me. |
They do work the same way, according to the standard model of light and sight.
I am asking you to explain your "field of view" idea in the context of efferent visions given the fact that the same piece of equipment (The Hubble telescope) is able to photograph something it cannot "see" or display on a screen to be seen. |
The only reason we can't see something is if it's not large enough or close enough or bright enough to be seen since it would not be within our visual range. Therefore the screen (real substance) you're talking about would be empty. But a telescope's ability to magnify the objects and bring them into range would be able to detect these bits of substance because they can now be resolved. |
So, why could the image you see posted there be made by the Hubble when the same image couldn't be viewed directly through the same telescope? |
Because the magnification from Earth is too weak. I am done LadyShea. This is unimportant in the scheme of things, so I'm letting it go. |
It is not unimportant, it speaks to Lessans and your credibility. You are letting it go because you can't address it.
So you think the magnification from the Earth is too weak to see it directly, so, can you explain how we can get a digital image, like the one posted, using the same telescope?
Your field of view thing, and efferent vision as it somehow applies to cameras, cannot account for or explain that.