quick question on telescopes and stars

[gebreab]

Hi so I had a question about telescopes. I was thinking about humans mapping the universe, and I thought about how maybe in the future we will be able to look through telescopes and see every corner of the universe or at least the milky way galaxy. So a question came up because I know that if you look at a star thats far away with your naked eye, you are looking at old light or something. So I had a question about what if you had a powerful telescope that looked upon the surface of a distance star, like really up close, would there still be this time delay? or would we be looking at live action star footage? we could ask the same question about the sun. if we look upon the surface of the sun now, are we still looking at 8 minute old sun rays?

 

Thanks for any help and for taking the time to read my question!!

[Iggy]

...what if you had a powerful telescope that looked upon the surface of a distance star, like really up close, would there still be this time delay?

Yes, it isn't to do with the amount the light is magnified, but the distance to the object and the time it takes to travel that far.

 

if we look upon the surface of the sun now, are we still looking at 8 minute old sun rays?

You are watching now events that happened 8 minutes ago.

[gebreab]

but why do we have to traval if we can just see it? is it because we are seeing the light rays on the telescope glass, not actually on the star???

[Iggy]

the rays are focused by the lens in the telescope. Light goes from the sun to the lens to the eye.

[Airbrush]

but why do we have to traval if we can just see it? is it because we are seeing the light rays on the telescope glass, not actually on the star???

 

Yes, we are seeing the light rays on the telescope glass, not actually on the star. The light you see has traveled from the star.

[gebreab]

the rays are focused by the lens in the telescope. Light goes from the sun to the lens to the eye.

 

 

Yes, we are seeing the light rays on the telescope glass, not actually on the star. The light you see has traveled from the star.

 

 

Ohh ok I see. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that if we built a super telescope and we could see the light rays literally leaving the surface of a star, how that in fact is years ago and we are looking at old light? I understand how we are looking at old light using our eyes, but its hard to understand that concept if we were actually looking at a surface of a star that is alive and flares are coming off and we can see its activity up close, but in truth we are looking at a stars activity millions of years in the past? thats really trippy. like if we observe a volcano erupt on a planet ten billion light years away, we are looking at something that happend ten billion years ago? because the light is just carrying information to our eyes but we cant see the new information because we are on earth. Ok I think i get it. Thanks for the discussion and help!

[JohnStu]

Hi so I had a question about telescopes. I was thinking about humans mapping the universe, and I thought about how maybe in the future we will be able to look through telescopes and see every corner of the universe or at least the milky way galaxy. So a question came up because I know that if you look at a star thats far away with your naked eye, you are looking at old light or something. So I had a question about what if you had a powerful telescope that looked upon the surface of a distance star, like really up close, would there still be this time delay? or would we be looking at live action star footage? we could ask the same question about the sun. if we look upon the surface of the sun now, are we still looking at 8 minute old sun rays?

 

Thanks for any help and for taking the time to read my question!!

 

 

did u say surface of a star? stars don't have fancy surfaces except "lower temperature regions" which are called sun spots

[Klaynos]

Ohh ok I see. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that if we built a super telescope and we could see the light rays literally leaving the surface of a star, how that in fact is years ago and we are looking at old light? I understand how we are looking at old light using our eyes, but its hard to understand that concept if we were actually looking at a surface of a star that is alive and flares are coming off and we can see its activity up close, but in truth we are looking at a stars activity millions of years in the past? thats really trippy. like if we observe a volcano erupt on a planet ten billion light years away, we are looking at something that happend ten billion years ago? because the light is just carrying information to our eyes but we cant see the new information because we are on earth. Ok I think i get it. Thanks for the discussion and help!

 

It's probably a good idea to think about how telescopes work. They pretty much gather light over a large area hitting the front lens and condense it so it can all fit into your eye.

 

The light still needs to get to the front of the telescope in the same way it must get to your eye.

[gebreab]

did u say surface of a star? stars don't have fancy surfaces except "lower temperature regions" which are called sun spots

 

ok, I mean like really up close.

 

It's probably a good idea to think about how telescopes work. They pretty much gather light over a large area hitting the front lens and condense it so it can all fit into your eye.

 

The light still needs to get to the front of the telescope in the same way it must get to your eye.

 

yes that makes it clearer in my head, thanks mate.

[Airbrush]

did u say surface of a star? stars don't have fancy surfaces except "lower temperature regions" which are called sun spots

 

Then you haven't seen the new video of activity on our Sun. The prominances, flares, coronal mass ejections, and generally boiling surface are only visible thru extreme filtering, and they are very "fancy".