Well, let's see. When I'm driving through a thunderstorm or a blizzard, I can't see a thing on the
road ahead of me, but I can still listen to the radio just fine. So I'd say it's the radio telescope.
No. The gain of the antenna ... which translates directly into angular resolution ... depends on the wavelength (frequency) of operation.The 2.5 meter optical parabolic reflector (telescope) on Mt. Wilson is a titan. 2.5 meter parabolic radio antennas are routinely used in intercity microwave communication but would be quite useless for serious radio-astronomy, as they are such shrimps at radio wavelengths.
An "optical" telescope would naturally collect light from optical wavelengths, meaning visible light from ~400-800nm.
This may depend on what the lenses are to be used for. Eyeglasses can be fixed at places like Sears Optical. This can also be in reference to telescopes in which case one would have to go to the manufacturer.
As Necessity is the Mother of Invention then someone would need to invent a thing which works like a telescope but may go by a different name and might be better than any telescopes we have
The optical cable would be the best choice.
No. The Hubble Space Telescope is an optical telescope of the reflective type. A 'non optical' telescope would be one that works on different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum below or above the optical wavelengths.
They are refracting telescopes(:Large refracting telescopes are no longer built because there were too many problems with them. There was color distortion, light pollution, and when the object hits the focal point it turns upside down. Then you don't see the object for what it really is, you see it upside down and weird-ed out. They are to complicated and scientists believed they should just stick with the simple, small, original refracting telescopes!!!!-Meghan Betts (8th grader)
Optical measures visible light, Radio measures electromagnetic radiation in that part of the spectrum corresponding to radio waves. Same with X-ray telescopes and x-rays. Optical is the kind you look through.
A classic example would be the development of better lenses and of ways of using lenses together. Biologists are able to study many species without the need to get close to them, using binoculars. Microbiologists have discovered and studied an enormous number of species using microscopes. Astronomers still use optical telescopes to advance knowledge of the sky.
In principle, there's no reason why it couldn't be. But it would be prohibitively expensive, harder to operate mechanically, and tough to match the optical performance of an equal-sized reflector. That's why, bowing to pragmatism and practicality, there hasn't been a larger refractor built since the 40-incher at the Yerkes Observatory was completed in 1895.
Radio telescopes allow us to see things that can't be seen in visible light. And vice versa, optical telescopes can show things that are not visible in radio telescopes. So, the information from both kinds of telescopes really complements each other.
No, the phrase "how much is the weather" is not grammatically correct. It would be better to ask "What is the weather like?" or "How is the weather today?" for correct phrasing.