Look, I'm getting tired of this poopoo. I denied there was an "actual" image or whatever for the original case. I was wrong. Within several other posts, I discussed something ELSE (please note the word else) I thought was a virtual image. Example below: Quote me: Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:46 AM > ................In another type of telescope, a positive (think convex) lens > (system) is used to form a virtual (in the air) image and a second positive > lens system is used to focus along with your eye's lens at the virtual > image........................ Er, um, no, it seems to me you've been denying that I attempted to discuss any sort of virtual image at all. Well I did and I was wrong about this terminology too. That was what I was referring to in the God damned post you're jumping on me about. Look, I admitted that I f*cked up, but I did not f*ck up admitting that I f*cked up. Regards, Bob From: "chandler" <chandler@yomogi.or.jp> > Bob Blakely <Bob@Blakely.com> writes: > > > Whoa there! You're right! Damn, I had another brain fart! What I've been > > calling a virtual image is a form of real image, even though it can only be > > seen through the eyepiece and exists only in the ether! Now there was a name > > for this type of real image. What was it? I can see the diagrams from the > > text in my head, but I can't make out the term! > > Er, um, no, it seems to me you've been denying that it is any sort of > image at all. As in the usage of "real number" in maths (a rich source > of pomo nonsense, btw), "real image" has a conventional meaning, that > doesn't deny the "reality" of virtual images. I think most simply that a > *real image* is one to which the light rays are all converging (so it > forms on a sheet of paper); otoh, a *virtual image* is one from which > the light rays are *diverging*. So if you catch these diverging rays in > your imaging system (eye), you see the image. > > When you hold a magnifying glass just above the newspaper, it forms an > image you can most certainly see, that is just below the actual surface > of the newspaper. So it would be astonishing if it you could capture > this image by placing some film underneath the newspaper!
