It is a glass telescope, it can break. That is, now, of course, there are telescopes without faceted glasses inside, which catch light on the matrix, like a video camera or a phone for selfies, but our equipment is ancient, therefore it is made of glass.
And this is also a telescope !!!
So, first there was a refractor telescope. Right away from Galileo in 1605-6-7. The dates are unclear, because this device began to be invented simultaneously in different countries and there was a stir with patents. We will not dwell on this, anyway there is hardly much truth there.
But in terms of refraction of rays from stars, everything is within the framework of modern canons. The lens magnifies and diffuses. One scatters, the second collects in your eye.
This is not difficult. the light from the stars, although it is distant, but the resolution is much higher than the usual JPG, so it can be driven back and forth. Diffuse (stretch) and collect (shrink) and it will not turn into a blur after five attempts to fit it into the corner of the picture in Photoshop. All problems of the magnification limit in a refractor telescope from lenses, eyepieces and greasy fingers.
Where until the end of the 19th century astronomers and engineers took high-quality lenses and eyepieces, that is, optics, we will leave to historians. With them, when necessary, everything materializes in the right place. If suddenly there is a slight hitch - it doesn't matter. You can always call another million slaves or serfs. They certainly won't let you down.
But a refractor telescope is not our case. Ours belongs to the family of reflector telescopes. They do not use lenses, but mirrors. Although also concave-curved.
Mr. Newton, having eaten another apple and holding the philosopher's stone for the hundredth time while stewing in the pressure cooker, which made it turn into a toad, looked sadly at the stars. He could do it for hours.
Promotional video:
Well, more precisely it could. If I was Schwarzenegger. In addition to cloudy lenses, refractors have another weak point - this is the focal length. If you want to see a smaller star, increase the length. The telescope, which gave a magnification of 100 times, was already 7 meters long and it was not possible to look into it for a long time alone even with a tripod.
By the way, historians once again did not betray themselves and according to their stories, the most desperate astronomer, in an attempt to look deeper into the soul of God, made himself a fool 70 meters long. Hello to another million slaves who have died.
Newton did not like crowds of slaves around him, so he decided to invent a smaller device that would have all the advantages of long refractors, but would be compact and convenient.
Just as he succeeded in doing everything Newton did, except the Philosopher's Stone, once or twice, he immediately came up with a new kind of telescope. The letter "R" irritated him even in the name of the previous models, diction defects affected. Newton's maternal grandmother was a tax inspector and the letter "R" was not given to Isaac since childhood. Therefore, the new telescope became a Reflector.
Newton's invention, as always, was ahead of its time. Humanity now had a telescope based on specular reflection, but unfortunately there were no mirrors yet. The prototype was assembled by the inventor in 1705, using an alloy of copper, tin and arsenic instead of mirrors. What he saw there and who polished them to him to a mirror shine and reflection, ask the historians.
By 1720, the English had somehow learned to make acceptable mirrors (albeit still from rubbed metal) and the process began. Short, blunt reflectors began to conquer the astronomical markets.
Personal Newtonian.
But then a misfortune happened and another Englishman, pushing himself up on the occasion of a hearty dinner, gave birth to a two-lens refractor. Why he was waiting for this until 1756, although it should have logically occurred to everyone who at least once heard about a 70-meter telescope, I do not know, ask the historians.
Everyone, as if on command, immediately forgot about reflectors. All again moved to stare into the refractor. Only a hundred years later, in 1856, the notorious Foucault inserted our modern silver-plated mirror into the reflector and the device sparkled with new colors.
But refractors, too, have moved somewhere and also started playing. As a result, the reflectors could not win back even parts of the market and died again without being born. Everyone continued to stare at the refractors.
And only at the end of the 19th century, when the production mastered normal mirrors with curved and concave sides, the reflector woke up and ran after him.
But in reality they began to build them only from the 20th century. And in the USSR, the first own reflector appeared only in 1974.
So, following the official history, we get that Newton's idea of catching residual light from stars and other nebulae with mirrors could not function normally, not just before the invention of a normal mirror with an amalgam, silver or, as is now, aluminum coating, but in reality before that how these mirrors have learned to make concave or convex (scientifically parabolic), which can collect or scatter rays of light, like lenses.
The German chemist, Justus von Liebig, revolutionized the production of mirrors, starting to use silver in 1835 for silvering mirrors and obtaining a clearer image.
Justus.
In other sources, he had already done chemistry together with a Frenchman and somewhat later.
In general, thanks for not the Chinese with the dinosaurs a million years ago.
Now for our Australian facility, code-named Strainer.
It feels good. Historically, they succeeded in the appearance of normal mirrors. Moreover, it was officially the last reflex telescope made with a filling of metal reflectors (mirrors).
Another thing is that the time of production is not written on his forehead, but this does not matter if he is an ordinary normal telescope for idle consideration of the spiral motion of the Universe.
There are a couple of oddities, but in my opinion they are not critical.
To begin with, they always portray him in different ways. It is especially interesting what he does in an open field, on the obvious remains of a destroyed structure, if it was built specifically for the Australian observatory?
There are some differences in the design of the device itself.
But they write that the building was rebuilt around later.
Or maybe the strange pictures were made in Ireland, where, as they say, it was built. Although the construction in an open field, and indeed, distant lands, to the destination, of course, may cause some suspicion.
I don't see Grubb Factory. I see that a healthy string bag is being dismantled in the field.
Here, by the way, I have more questions for Ireland, where in the 19th century all the largest, technologically complex and well-known objects are being built (the Titanic), and the Irish are massacred and sold into slavery along with blacks!
Now, further. About making the telescope itself. It turns out that he is not an Australian miracle at all, but an English, or even a common European one.
Its construction was approved by the British Academy of Sciences, but for some reason the Frenchman Foucault (the one with the pendulum) was running around and actively objected. By the way, I objected correctly. He said that only morons would build a telescope with metal mirrors when there is already a technology for making normal glass mirrors with silver plating.
Perhaps he just wanted to get a construction contract. The decision of the commission in favor of glands was really strange, especially considering that silver is one of the most reflective metals (93 percent) and therefore mirrors with its participation would be more effective.
It is even more funny that this is not mentioned anywhere in Foucault's project, or during the work of the commission for the selection of the project. One gets the impression that they were not in the know yet.
All of the above, of course, is funny, fun and can complement some kind of hypothesis, but in itself it does not speak of any secret.
And now, let's talk about the terrible!
During the entire operation of the telescope, almost no results of its work remained. But the reviews of those who tried, that nothing can be seen in it, is full. I'll attach a document with actual links to the complaints and suggestions book.
The President of the British Royal Astronomical Society, Robert Ellery, could not see into it, even the satellites of Mars.
With the wildest difficulty, one hundred and thirty-fifth times, tuned to the moon. The results turned out to be worse than when filming with a conventional camera.
Here you can howl with the official scientific and even historical howl that reflex telescopes are not designed for close-range observation of close objects.
And you can parry - and on x … I then looked? Didn't they know what they had built?
Observations of distant objects also failed. Wherever the muzzle was turned, only the Herschel nebulae could normally be seen through the telescope.
Howard Grubb and John Herschel.
Actually, they became Herschel's nebulae after Herschel managed to find a point in the sky, which the telescope enlarged, and did not blur.
To justify the epic fail, they now write that the Melbourne Telescope was built for the research of the Herschel Nebula. It makes no sense to ask questions to historians, cause-and-effect relationships, in general, are not their strong point.
Now about the muzzle. I have not yet found a justification for just such a construction. This does not mean that it does not exist. They just haven't figured it out yet.
The point is that reflex telescopes do not require a muzzle at all. It only hinders them - it limits the area of collection of light.
If desired, it can be not just without a barrel, but also without a main box.
The muzzle is sometimes attached to them to protect the mirror system from external influences (sun, wind, sand, dust, a drunk laboratory assistant, etc.), but only if the telescope is tuned to some one very limited point …
And when the muzzle is there, but it does not protect anything, you have to pull a condom on it, so that at least it will do for something !!!
This is another, similar thing, about the same time. In America. More about it.
That which still works, lives on with the condom.
As for the string bag on the Melbourne Telescope, from the point of view of modern telescopic science, it cannot carry any useful function. It does not protect against external influences, but blocks the road to the rays everywhere.
In none of the places where the Melbourne Telescope was mentioned, I did not find anything about its functionality.
Such a construction can only make sense if working on wave objects. Light, of course, is also a wave, but telescopes use ONLY the laws of geometric optics and wave properties of light, they are ignored there.
Jump - gallop.
Based on all of the above, you can draw your own conclusions. Those who have already decided that there is nothing unusual in human stupidity (to build an outdated structure, not believing in new technologies) or commercialism (choose a bad project for a rollback), due to which, then, you need to diligently cut out the evidence and mask it (moving to Australia, specialization on one nebula), so as not to be caught by the hand and made a "bo-bo", I, of course, cannot blame anything. On such people with a lack of fantasy, sober-minded, firmly standing on the side of objective (obvious) reality, the modern world is supported.
For the rest, I propose to fantasize and delve into the abyss of conspiracy theory. In our kingdom of crooked mirrors (how consonant with a reflex telescope!), All stupidity immediately disappears and a completely different picture emerges.
One more incomprehensible device was found on the remains of a destroyed civilization. It seems similar to other similar ones, in which we now look at the sky and they enlarge the stars for us. But this one for some reason does not focus.
Scratching turnips - what to do? When you don't understand the principles of work, you act like in a joke - you open and close, turn on and off, sometimes it helps to slam the door harder.
Here we have chosen to move. The device does not show, but it worked before. Otherwise, why did the Gods (Atlanteans, giants, Tartars, Hyperboreans) put it here? Like, maybe after the Earth coup, it will work on the opposite side? Maybe there now, like here before?
So they called a taxi to rearrange. And with an indication that everything should be assembled on the spot exactly as it was here! Otherwise, I cannot explain for any other reason why it had to be built at the other end of the world, and most importantly, why then take it to the other end of the world TOGETHER WITH A STAND? They could have collected stones in Australia for sure !!!
After the failure with the Australian "string bag", they realized that it was not a stand, and at the beginning of the 20th century in America they had already dragged Mount Wilson up to Mount Wilson, purely with optics.
A high-tech thing on a horse-drawn carriage, it looks funny.
But it is even funnier when you know that this is an astronomical observatory, where they are taking it !!!
Then, of course, it became more decent. The device began to show something. People studied him. We began to make our own, in the image and likeness.
Some are still standing.
By the way, I do not insist at all on this version. It may well be that the American contraption is already our sample, made after studying those that were found.
I in no way want to belittle our ability to copy elementary technology.
Moreover, we can always adapt everything we find in everyday life and use it, as it seems to us correct.
A whole observatory !! In the woods!
Think far-fetched? May be.
After all, a straight stick with a hollow interior, it is a stick in a telescope, in a mortar, in a mortar, and in a cannon. And even in a cocktail tube.
And it is perfectly normal to use one piece later for other purposes. And even more so the casting mold.
You can at least look at our Soviet factories, which standardized products so that as quickly as possible later from the production of spare parts to the tape recorder, it would be possible to move to the line for the production of Kalashnikovs.
A good master has a stick and shoots!
And, of course, I do not want to slander our civilization and whitewash those from whom such gizmos remained.
If they were white and fluffy, they would not have died out in the troubles of the cataclysm, which, apparently, they themselves arranged.
And the most important thing! It is absolutely not necessary to see here statements that past civilizations existed at all! I have no answers, I only have questions! Take a look at the band name!
True, I wonder why such gigantic telescopes are depicted in films of the beginning of the century, albeit grotesquely artistic?
And it would be fine if they were joking, but no!
And Uncle Foucault, by the way, who vehemently objected to the Australian telescope, later found money to build his own in Paris.
This miracle of the eye also looks strange, because with its fastening joints it involuntarily hints at the famous guns.
Which, by themselves, are also not very guns in our understanding, because when they tried to shoot from them, they together refused to do it and broke down in the most inappropriate places.
Even worse, they were supposed to be made of wood.
And often not even for shooting.
The funny thing is that sometimes we can meet wooden cannons on the battlefield.
True, now everyone is sure that these were fake guns in order to deceive the enemy's reconnaissance.
But back to composite products.
Here we see that, if necessary, they could shoot even from around the corner !!!
What contempt, however, for the laws of physics! Well, that's if we're talking about kernels. And if not?
But about the nedopus, this is a separate conversation. In the meantime, we can choose to our taste, for which there was a barrel with a grating on the Australian telescope, if, for example, we attribute to it not only geometric work with light, but also wave work.
In terms of viewing celestial bodies, I would vote for diffraction.
But not necessarily. Because, it could be like this:
Moreover, Foucault has surfaced again!
Or even like this:
Because, and so it happened:
But most likely it was like this:
Because, lately it seems to me that someone there a long time ago, everything was built around magnetic fields. But I remember that when it seems that I need to be baptized, so I do not insist at all.
In short, this is not the end, this is the very beginning! To be continued…. Very soon!!!
Father Himalaya's Pyrheliophor. Assembled for the 1904 Lousiana Puchase Exposition.