light obviously
A refracting optical telescope uses two lenses, like magnifying glasses, to gather and focus the light carrying the images of the target that's being observed. The first lens is called the primary lens. It's the larger of two lenses. It's located at the far end of the scope away from the eyepiece where the observer will sight the target. The target's light enters the scope through the primary lens. The Yerkes Observatory in Wisconsin USA is the largest refracting telescope. It's primary lens is a tad over 1 meter in diameter. The eyepiece at the near end is the second lens. It takes that gathered light from the primary lens, and focuses and magnifies it even further. So whatever the target might be is magnified many times over. First by the larger lens and then again by the smaller eyepiece lens. So, for example, if the primary lens magnifies by 5X and the eyepiece does it by 10X, the overall magnification is 50X. The two multiply.
If you are an amateur then forget getting a telescope unless you are willing to get a very good one costing several hundreds of pounds or dollars. Cheap 'toy' telescopes are next to useless, as they claim to have great magnification, but the image is usually very poor and grainy and impossible to see properly because the optics and light gathering power are usually pretty poor. Also, the mounting of toy telescopes are usually flimsy and result in a great deal of shake. Often a good mount is as espensive as the telescope itself. A good pair of binoculars with a tripod to reduce shake should be perfectly adequate for seeing the craters on the moon, Jupiter and its moons, Venus, and large star clusters and nebulae like the Pleiades. The rings of Saturn may be too small for a small pair of binoculars, and so in this case a decent telescope is better.
Images from outer space have to go through the atmosphere in order to reach telescopes based on Earth. The atmosphere can distort and block light and thus obscure the images. Telescopes based in space, such as the Hubble, don't deal with this limitation.
Three problems come to mind: 1. Light polution -- harder and harder to find a truly dark place on the Earth's surface, and the atmosphere carries the light, so you can't really fix the problem by repositioning. 2. Atmostphere. The atmosphere absords a LOT of light. 3. Weight of the optics. Large enough mirror optics distort under their own weight. While formulation can get around this to some extent, it presents a difficult problem that doesn't occur in zero G.
If you are a junior astronomer then forget getting a telescope unless you are willing to get a very good one costing several hundreds of pounds or dollars. Cheap 'toy' telescopes are next to useless, as they claim to have great magnification, but the image is usually very poor and grainy and impossible to see properly because the optics and light gathering power are usually pretty poor. Also, the mounting of toy telescopes are usually flimsy and result in a great deal of shake. Often a good mount is as espensive as the telescope itself. A good pair of binoculars with a tripod to reduce shake should be perfectly adequate for seeing the craters on the moon, Jupiter and its moons, Venus, and large star clusters and nebulae like the Pleiades. The rings of Saturn may be too small for a small pair of binoculars, and so in this case a decent telescope is better. If you are keen on getting a telescope rather than binoculars then there are some excellent sites that will sell you one and give advice. www.telescopehouse.com a a superb UK site where you can get excellent advice and real machines that are not toys. If you are living in the UK, avoid toy 'scopes from Argos, catalogues or camera shops - they are next to useless, poorly made, shake all over the place and their optics are dreadful - and they are expensive for a pile of junk. If you wish to take up the hobby seriously, then a reflector telescope is better with a mirror of 6 inches or more, (or 8 if you live in a city - to compensate for light pollution) with a really good Equatorial mount to avoid shake. If you can afford a motor drive too to compensate for the earth's motion then that would be an advantage. To get a variety of magnifications you will need several eyepieces of different focal lengths. Choose only reputable makes like Celestron or Meade whose optics are excellent. One last point - NEVER use a telescope to look at the sun with or without a 'safety' filter. That is the surest way of you ending up permanently blind. Dark filters may cut down the light but most of the sun's heat usually passes straight through, is focussed just like light onto your retina, ad, whilst you think everthing is Ok it merrily burns a hole in your retina just like catching a piece of paper on fire using a magnifying glass. You have been warned!
Mountaintop telescopes don't have to deal with the light from the city, so they get more of a clear night sky.
A refracting optical telescope uses two lenses, like magnifying glasses, to gather and focus the light carrying the images of the target that's being observed. The first lens is called the primary lens. It's the larger of two lenses. It's located at the far end of the scope away from the eyepiece where the observer will sight the target. The target's light enters the scope through the primary lens. The Yerkes Observatory in Wisconsin USA is the largest refracting telescope. It's primary lens is a tad over 1 meter in diameter. The eyepiece at the near end is the second lens. It takes that gathered light from the primary lens, and focuses and magnifies it even further. So whatever the target might be is magnified many times over. First by the larger lens and then again by the smaller eyepiece lens. So, for example, if the primary lens magnifies by 5X and the eyepiece does it by 10X, the overall magnification is 50X. The two multiply.
They don't. All earth bound telescopes, optical or not, must deal with a number of issues. But what do you mean by "better"? A radio telescope is better suited to pick up radio waves than an optical telescope, but an optical telescope is better for visible light. They each serve their purpose better than the other.
Microscopes and telescopes that work with visible light are both devices to collect and magnify light. Id you talk about refracting telescopes, which are the most like microscopes because they use lenses in a tube, you could thing of a microscope as looking in one end and telescope as looing in the other end to deal respectively with the very small and the vary far away.
"Deal" has a long vowel sound, as in the word "feel."
They do not have to deal with the optical distortion otherwise cause by our atmosphere. Also most locations of earth could never have a major telescope because of light pollution, not an issue in space. ____________________ Some disadvantages are that they are costly to maintain and to operate.
A meteorologist deals with weather, a scientist, a dentist, a doctor or anything like that would deal with cells and a DJ would deal with sound
Sound is your eardrum detecting a pressure wave in the air, this wave takes time to get from the source to your ear (about 340 metres per second). light, however travelles a great deal quicker ( 300000000 metres per second) than sound, so you see the cause before you hear it.
Phonetics is the study of physical sounds in human speech, including their production and perception. Phonology, on the other hand, deals with how sounds function within a particular language system, including their patterns, rules, and relationships. In essence, phonetics looks at the physical aspects of speech sounds, while phonology examines how those sounds are used and interpreted in language.
No. Frequency is related to pitch, and amplitude is related to volume.
The unarguable best place to purchase great quality surround sound speakers and compounded with a fantastic deal is on this site - a must for all deal savvy people.
Sound is your eardrum detecting a pressure wave in the air, this wave takes time to get from the source to your ear (about 340 metres per second). light, however travelles a great deal quicker ( 300000000 metres per second) than sound, so you see the cause before you hear it.