I’ve been reading this thread from top to bottom and I find it quite entertaining and amusing. I think these are the best threads of them all
. The funniest thing of all is that there never seems to be a definitive conclusion reached through the use of an argument with any kind of scientific validity. The whole thing just breeds more and more confusion - all of this in light of the fact that it should be relatively simple to use science to establish the correct answer behind this “seeing vs. aperture issue”.
I will not take a side on the issue, preferring to be entertained by all the polite verbal jousting that goes on here but I would like to offer some suggestions:
1)I once saw a movie – Spielberg if I recall – where these scientists met every day at the CDC to try to solve an epidemic. The head of the group always started the meeting by saying: “OK, what do we think, what do we know, what can we prove”. Very wise indeed. A belief is light years away from an assertion based on proven fact but it is that speculation that seeds research into the facts in the first place.
2)There should be quantitative way to measure the differences in the resolution of an image in different apertures as they relate to seeing. Hint: Both seeing and telescope resolution are measured in arc seconds.
3)Aperture is just but one attribute of optical systems that encompass complicated optical trains, which by themselves will affect the results in any attempt to quantify results. Best to leave real telescopes out of it and concentrate only on theoretical ones, and aperture as it relates to resolution.
4)The maximum resolution for a given aperture can be easily calculated in arc seconds.
5)Seeing is not a constant. It can’t be because the atmosphere isn’t. Seeing will fluctuate from one microsecond to the next.
6)Finally, another saying: “The mind’s eye will see what it wants to see” Prejudice is the worst enemy of science.
Now please carry on
Tierra Verde, Florida