The article throws numbers, it explains nothing about the Dawes number, which it explicitly describes as being discovered "A long time ago".
Asking if things discovered "a long time ago" have changed in light of modern development isn't un-called for. Especially given the vague statements.
>And, it would only be just visible as a small dot, it would not "look" like a flag at all.
Is similarly vague, and probably part of the reason for the question. We can build optical hardware with resolutions far in excess of our eyes per square unit. What we can see by looking through the scope directly has little to do with how we use more powerful modern telescopes, which appears to be how this is calculated. 20 years ago it would've been hard to predict high-density CCDs, how much more unlikely is it that something "A long time ago" took such things into account?
Lets ask another:
>The only method that could be used to (in theory) see something as small as the Flag on the Moon would be to use two optical telescopes set (for example) 1000 miles apart. This would easily provide the required resolution...
How does this help? Are they talking two Hubbles? Two 1.75 mile wide telescopes? There's zero explanation, despite such an absolute claim.
I didn't realize you didn't understand the article, and I thought you were just posting without reading it first.
There is an upper limit to how much detail you can see. It doesn't matter what you use to do the viewing, the eye, a ccd, anything. The information is simply not there, no matter how you magnify it.
That limit is called the diffraction limit, and it's related to the size of the lens used to collect the light. It sort of has to do with the fact that photons passing near the edge of the lens get distorted.
Dawes number is simply a calculation of the diffraction limit.
So that "small dot" that is really a flag, no matter how well you magnify it, will just look like a blur. The photons that used to show details about it have been scrambled enough that those details are lost.
Regarding the two collectors.
They are talking about two small telescopes placed far apart. They compare the image collected by both telescopes and using that they are able to synthesize information about the object that is not visible using just one telescope. But it's no longer a matter of just looking at it.
I'm sorry that I don't understand it well enough to give a simpler explanation of how that works.
I don't know if you read lord of the rings, but there is a scene where Legolas looks at riders at a great distance and can see details that the humans can't. Supposedly because of his keen eyesight. But actually it's impossible. Assuming that his eyes were about the same size as human eyes, he simply can not see those details, no matter how good of a retina he had. Here's the link: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2009/06/the_limits_of_elv...
Asking if things discovered "a long time ago" have changed in light of modern development isn't un-called for. Especially given the vague statements.
>And, it would only be just visible as a small dot, it would not "look" like a flag at all.
Is similarly vague, and probably part of the reason for the question. We can build optical hardware with resolutions far in excess of our eyes per square unit. What we can see by looking through the scope directly has little to do with how we use more powerful modern telescopes, which appears to be how this is calculated. 20 years ago it would've been hard to predict high-density CCDs, how much more unlikely is it that something "A long time ago" took such things into account?
Lets ask another:
>The only method that could be used to (in theory) see something as small as the Flag on the Moon would be to use two optical telescopes set (for example) 1000 miles apart. This would easily provide the required resolution...
How does this help? Are they talking two Hubbles? Two 1.75 mile wide telescopes? There's zero explanation, despite such an absolute claim.