In my opinion we should all keep in mind that reality always remains the same, equal to itself, regardless of how you or someone else describe it. Thus, it is better to stick to reality.
Observed reality? Yes! That is how Science keeps from turning into foloklore.
It is always equal to itself, not bending as minds bend....it is what is.
But beliefs are stretched to try and cover the unexpected,....and they break.
I believed that power was the dominant range-eater.
Experiments proved me wrong, other that that little pip of length of the
EP fl...that produces a shadow of effect....not enough at all.
I myself believed that f-ratio alone altered range, on a few occaisions....
I mean, look at the cameras.
Well, it didn't seem to, at all, dark or light day or time of day.
Then I pushed it, and it suddenly made a difference, albeit at extreme f-ratios.
Useless? Not really. Barlowing an eyepiece on a long barrel is not
uncommon. A dimmer image with more perfect edges at high power
is just what you want for the Moon and some planetary.
Reality is not simple....but reality will not be ignored.
Reality will crush doctrines and folklore that grow without testing.
And reality needs to be real: real conditions the inference is needed for,
real object, not artificial stars. Not just what happens to one point
but how points actually combine to make a woodpecker.
I went back to first principles, as Marcus Aurelius would say:
"Of each thing ask, what is it in itself; what is its nature?"
Well...it....first and foremost..It is a LENS.
Then another lens.
What is the nature of each?
What is its nature?
Of course, I forget in the mumbo-jumbo:
Its nature is: THE LENS EQUATION Book of Lens Optics, Chap.1
Anything else is a smaller 2nd-order effect.
So...I coded it up, programmed it
so as to try different combinations easily.
And lo and behold: it predicted the range for common binoculars
And then I tried odd combinations...and then I realized:
length was the key, more than other factors, clearly.
But why did almost everyone say power?
Then I saw: most popular binocular powers are achieved by
scaling the power, aperture and the focal length simultaneously.
Makes sense....maintain brightness, avoid tiny EPs and eye reliefs.
That fit the hundreds of eyepieces I have pillaged from binoculars.
The 6x30 , 7x35 , 8x40 , 10x50 , 12x60 .....most have the same size eyepiece.
And why all the talk about the amazing changes brought about by the eye's iris?
Well, I almost never noticed that, through bright and dim, theough there is that
ultra-small mask result...but guess what?
I never look through binocs that way in the daytime. And at night....to the sky?
It doesn't matter.
So the eye's sizes seemed mostly like a long string of red herring..
..if one bothers to experiment with real targets.
And then, someone else would believe, without careful testing and observation, that power
was everything. And that became folklore. And that developed a strange Canon
and special things to measure that even avoided images. And then it hardened
into doctrine. This is when a single concept happens.
People need one answer..just one.
And then things are said to be this magic word, like "afocal", in cases where they
are obviously not at all. Hints of religion.
Like water is wine is blood, crackers are flesh, meat.
But reality goes on, and real experience and evidence chafes, and the defense of doctrine
never ends, because the wrong turn is never fixed, because "the turn was never wrong"
says the driver. And the driver goes round and round (just as he said), telling people
in strange destinations they don't live in this right town, they are mistaken about where they are.
I am happy by myself, but I had to abandon a lot of misconception.
I have tools that predict accurately and I know how
to navigate my resources. If I admit to certain exceptions, trends, and how they really
apply, like how aperture really creeps into this.....I will discover new and cool things to try and do.
I am an explorer, and a Physicist trained with a few Optics courses. I am not a priest.
Thank you Karl Popper.
Thank you Marcus Aurelius (and Hannibal Lecter, heh).
And for the Sociology I am learning in this, (quite by surprise), Thanks to
Galileo, and Henri Bergson.
Columbus set out to find a short-cut to India: he learned a few surprises.
You never know what you'll find in the world of souls.
They alter even ordinary things.
Edited by MartinPond, 22 May 2021 - 07:26 PM.