Telescope with 140+km zoom?

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, babadoctor said:

Let me just put some comparisons up if you don't mind:

Not sure if this is fake or not, but I am guessing it is accurate.

 

One last question; Did you put in 11 inches & 25 inces into that calculator? wouldn't you need to find out how much of a km 11 inches is? I thought it used KM as the base measurement... 

Anyways, why are we using the length of an arm again?

Sorry if that was a stupid question  

 

Thank you so much for helping me through this  

 

I used 11 inches object size and 25 inches distance because the calculator just uses ratio differences. The unit of measurement doesn't really matter, since the ratio of the object size vs distance will be the same, regardless of what unit of measurement, as long as the metric is the same throughout. It even says right on the site you can use inches or km (No idea why they're switching between imperial and metric measurements though).

 

We are using length of an arm because you're trying to find relative size. So we need a base unit to work with. So you take a piece of paper, and hold it out at arm's length (hold it straight out in front of you with your arm fully extended, and the paper should be easily legible).

 

You could pick whatever distance you wanted, really, as long as you got the relative size you wanted. Eg, if you wanted the building to appear the "same size" as a piece of paper 6 inches away from your face, then use that instead for your calculations.

 

That video is probably real. Of course, it's also near useless, because:

1. We have no idea how far they are away (line of sight distance) from that cross on that mountain top.

2. They weren't able to zoom in enough to read any words (if there were any) on the cross

 

I would probably guess that the mountain top was probably a few thousand feet away, but that's a totally arbitrary guess.

[babadoctor]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I used 11 inches object size and 25 inches distance because the calculator just uses ratio differences. The unit of measurement doesn't really matter, since the ratio of the object size vs distance will be the same, regardless of what unit of measurement, as long as the metric is the same throughout. It even says right on the site you can use inches or km (No idea why they're switching between imperial and metric measurements though).

 

We are using length of an arm because you're trying to find relative size. So we need a base unit to work with. So you take a piece of paper, and hold it out at arm's length (hold it straight out in front of you with your arm fully extended, and the paper should be easily legible).

 

You could pick whatever distance you wanted, really, as long as you got the relative size you wanted. Eg, if you wanted the building to appear the "same size" as a piece of paper 6 inches away from your face, then use that instead for your calculations.

 

That video is probably real. Of course, it's also near useless, because:

1. We have no idea how far they are away (line of sight distance) from that cross on that mountain top.

2. They weren't able to zoom in enough to read any words (if there were any) on the cross

 

I would probably guess that the mountain top was probably a few thousand feet away, but that's a totally arbitrary guess.

If that is a few thousand feet away, and this is a 2,000x magnification factor, then how is it possible that the 2,000 magnification factor could see something relative in size from the distance of 85 miles (140km)?

[dalekphalm]

33 minutes ago, babadoctor said:

If that is a few thousand feet away, and this is a 2,000x magnification factor, then how is it possible that the 2,000 magnification factor could see something relative in size from the distance of 85 miles (140km)?

Simple. It can't. As you see from my earlier post, you'd need a 4200x or higher magnification factor to really even see the piece of paper, let alone read it. Sure you could see something through a 2000x lens, but that sure won't be a legible piece of paper at 85 miles away.

[babadoctor]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Simple. It can't. As you see from my earlier post, you'd need a 4200x or higher magnification factor to really even see the piece of paper, let alone read it. Sure you could see something through a 2000x lens, but that sure won't be a legible piece of paper at 85 miles away.

Okay,

Do you know what the specifications of such a microscope would have to be?

(thank you)

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, babadoctor said:

Okay,

Do you know what the specifications of such a microscope would have to be?

(thank you)

A Microscope? To see what?

[babadoctor]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

A Microscope? To see what?

Telescope,

sorry

[dalekphalm]

Just now, babadoctor said:

Telescope,

sorry

Well, you need to figure out what magnification factor you want. (Eg: 5000x)

 

And then you need to see if you can even buy something like that.

 

Realistically, I'm highly skeptical you can do what you want, unless you plan on building a scientific telescope installation for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

[babadoctor]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Well, you need to figure out what magnification factor you want. (Eg: 5000x)

 

And then you need to see if you can even buy something like that.

 

Realistically, I'm highly skeptical you can do what you want, unless you plan on building a scientific telescope installation for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

Okay then;

Would there exist a commercially viable telescope with a 1,000x magnification factor?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, babadoctor said:

Okay then;

Would there exist a commercially viable telescope with a 1,000x magnification factor?

No idea (Probably)

 

Look on some Telescope/Astronomy forums, and look at telescope enthusiast online stores if you can find any.

[babadoctor]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

No idea (Probably)

 

Look on some Telescope/Astronomy forums, and look at telescope enthusiast online stores if you can find any.

Alright then;

Thank you for all the help!