Re: [ATM] mirror or lens?

[Mike Lockwood <melockwo@uiuc.edu>]

Mike,

Mike Shuken wrote:
> I said, "Well, it's not really a lens, it's a series of two mirrors, and 
> the eye piece is really the only *lens* in the telescope."
> 
> And one of the family members said, "A mirror is still a lens."  And 
> he's an astrophysicist, and who really wants to argue with an 
> astrophysicist?  So I didn't knwo what to say.

I think I would have said that lenses work according on the law of 
refraction, while mirrors work according the law of reflection.  Let 
him rebut that.  He can't tell you they're versions of the same 
phenomena, because they're not.

I know or have met a number of astronomy professors and graduate 
students.  While some know the optical sky well, the majority couldn't 
find M57 to save their life (many acknowledge this), though they could 
recite from memory the numbers of hundreds of NGC and other objects 
and their relevant information.  Most can't collimate a Newtonian. 
They are often fascinated at the objects that we view regularly, and 
would love to see them through our scopes.

Almost all are very friendly to knowledgeable amateurs, especially 
after they see you find M57 in a matter of seconds using a zero-power 
finder.  :)

	Mike Lockwood






_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/