I got a telescope a few months ago, and I only just noticed this. The Diameter of the Mirror is 3 Inches, however, the hole on the front of the telescope is 1.5 Inches, Isnt the hole and the diameter of the mirror supposed to be equal? If so, why on earth is mine like this ??? lol

What type of scope is it?

Basic Newtonian Reflecter, primary mirror > Flat mirror > lense. 

Yes, if you have a 3 inch reflector the opening at the front should be at least 3 inches wide. Some telescopes have a dust cover with a smaller hole in it, comes with a small lens cap that you pull off. This is used to reduce the size of the opening at the front in special circumstances, when you have a very bright object like the moon that hurts your eyes to look at. By using the smaller aperture you reduce the amount of light coming in. So maybe you're not completely opening the front of your telescope. The entire front, "dust cover" should come off when looking at planets and stars. This will give you more light and detail. I also have a 3 inch reflector, and it has a dust cover made just like this. What brand is yours?

ok, I took the cap off, it took some muscle, but i got it off in the end.

 Stars still look like speks of light, no matter how much I zoom.

I havent had a chance to look at Jupiter, or any other night sky object yet, BUT, I looked at the top of a tree about 400 metres away, and the tree was about 50 metres high, I could see a load of flies at the top of the tree, and details on the leaves. 

Jonnyb:

ok, I took the cap off, it took some muscle, but i got it off in the end.

 

 Stars still look like speks of light, no matter how much I zoom.

I havent had a chance to look at Jupiter, or any other night sky object yet, BUT, I looked at the top of a tree about 400 metres away, and the tree was about 50 metres high, I could see a load of flies at the top of the tree, and details on the leaves. 

Stars should look like specks of light just as though your were looking at them with the naked eye. The only difference is that you will see many more of them through your telescope.

I have to ask this, I assume by zoom you mean when you change from one eye piece to another and not turning the adjustment knob to move the focuser in or out.  Some people are under the impression that the focuser on the telescope is to adjust a zoom like a zoom lens of a camera.  That is not the case.  To zoom in or out (change the magnification) on an object you need to use different eyepieces and adjust the focuser until the stars are nice points of light. 

Have A Nice __________

 Yeh, I only have 3 eyepiece zooms, and I know that the knobs focus the objects.

 And, if the stars are only points of light, then, how far do you have to zoom if you had unlimited apperture to actually see the stars as 'sun like' objects, as if you were looking up at the sun in daylight?

 
Thats what ive always wondered, because when you see the images people take of stars, they look round, and not like specks of light, and because they look round, they look almost smaller than the sun looks, but there are loads of them packed together in the same photo, so are they really that large and close to each other? unlike our sun being very far away from any other stars.
 

Stars are very far from us, and from each other.

The reason they look round in photographs is because long exposures gather more light, which spills over into adjacent pixels in digital cameras, and exposes more film in traditional plates.

So far as I'm aware, we've only ever imaged the surfaces of two stars other than the Sun (Betelgeuse and Antares). These stars are positively huge (about 1/3rd as large as our Solar System) and they're near enough for large observatory telescopes to do the job. But no amateur telescope will show you a properly-focused stellar image that is larger than a point, except when the seeing smears the light.

A properly-focused stellar image will always be a point.

You're using the term zoom here incorrectly. An eyepiece which offers a single focal length will show you a given magnification and field of view with a given telescope. To do more, you must replace that eyepiece with another.

More properly, there are zoom eyepieces which have a means of varying their focal length, so you get multiple magnifications for a single eyepiece.

I think you were using the term zoom in reference to the act of increasing the magnification (as in "zoom in"), right? It's only appropriate to use that term when referring to a zoom eyepiece. But that's no big deal. Just clarifying.

Jonnyb:

 Yeh, I only have 3 eyepiece zooms, and I know that the knobs focus the objects.

 And, if the stars are only points of light, then, how far do you have to zoom if you had unlimited apperture to actually see the stars as 'sun like' objects, as if you were looking up at the sun in daylight?

Sorry but I had to ask that question.. 

Other that what Jeff had already explained about stars in images, another reason you see them larger than you would see in a telescope, especially in amateur images is because the tracking and guiding throughout the exposure of the image isn't perfect. This often causes stars to look bloated larger than they should appear.  The more precise the tracking the smaller and more accurate the stars will look in the image.   Some of that bloated appearance might also be caused by the atmospheric conditions during the exposure process. 

Have A Nice ___________

Telescope tubes are llike water  buckets .. the bigger the bucket the  more water it will hold.

When you have a bigger telescope bucket the more light pours in.

You bought a very small scope ..next time a 6 inch & up dobsonian will be better for

deep sky hunting :)