Re: [Phys-l] Galileo was wrong

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

I'm evidently stupid or misinformed, as I would write different parts of the object produce different sizes in the image.  Also I thought near and far field referred to the inverse square law where it fails near the object or antenna.  Generally this is within a distance of approximately the size of the antenna.

Another definition is at far field the diffraction pattern differs little w/ that at infinity.  W/ a microscope a I can envision inconstancy, but not a telescope.

bc


p.s.  Galileo coulda verified that at least on the earth his telescope had constant magnification by using objects scaled according to their distance appeared (obscured each other) equal(ly).









On 2010, Sep 25, , at 12:24, John Clement wrote:

> Looking at the article in the TPT the author is trying to
> make the case that the magnification of a lens is consistent.  But that is
> not completely true when you consider the situation of something in the near
> field where the magnification varies for different parts of a 3D object.