Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
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 tois
make the case that the magnification of a lens is consistent. But that
not completely true when you consider the situation of something in thenear
field where the magnification varies for different parts of a 3D object.