hq said:
I'm sorry. I assumed we could use this established term without getting into straightforward physics of repeating energy (in this case, visible light wavelengths) conservation formula on a surface area, in regard to directional radiation from the light (energy) source, commonly known as the field of view.
Nope, no need for the physics explanation. I'm not a physicist, and I have no need or use for any highly technical discussion of this issue. And, as I said before, I'm not trying to derail this discussion into some sort of argument over jargon. I was merely trying to make sure we were all on the same page based on some ridiculous stuff I've heard with regards to that terminology in the past.
hq said:
I'm not sure if any of the readers would actually imagine that light from any other direction than what's being intentionally refracted through to ocular is meaningful?
That's precisely what I'm suggesting, because I've had that exact argument with other shooters in regards to the "light gathering scope" issue in the past. One guy at the range was telling me how his 40mm objective scope was ideal because his scope is a "light gathering scope", which meant that it "didn't need to be as large because it pulled in other light". I've had a few of these kinds of discussions with people over the years, mostly at the gun store counter.
As such, I felt it was important to explain that point, to the best of my ability, in case the OP was under that assumption himself. Again, I see no need for the technical explanation of visible wavelengths of light, etc. I only mean to convey what is necessary for a practical look at this issue.
Anyway, since the rest of your post explains the major factors in the same way I did, I can see that you get the issue:
1) Bigger objective
2) Better lenses
So, we're pretty much in agreement. And, we also seem to be in agreement that scopes do not "gather light" in the manner that some folks I have talked to would like to suggest.