On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:39:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:26:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The resolution of Earth based telescopes is now several times
better than the HST (because they are several times bigger.)

The VLTI (Very Large Telescope Interferomet) at
the European Southern Observatory has adaptive optics.

Well now you have to explain how a single photon can extend over 10 metres.

How does very low level starlight make a 'wavefront' at this distance?

The wave-particle duality is an experimentally proven fact.
Whether I, you or anybody else can 'explain' it is irrelevant.
Keck works, and can collect photons from distant sources
literally one by one, and each an every photon emitted from
the same point source is focused on the same small spot which
only can be explained by the 10m aperture.

Pathetic!
In future, if you can't answer, please don't try ...



We are talking about interferometers remember.

1. The light from a star (or anything but a laser) isn't coherent,
it is noise, that is the amplitude and frequency vary arbitrarily.
But even such a wave have surfaces of equal phase, and the wave that
is emitted from a _point_ have a spherical surface of equal phase
(let's call it "wavefront"). The tiny fraction of the sphere that
hits our telescope will be a plane. And this plane wavefront will
be focused at a point on the CCD. Where the point will be is given
by the angle between the wavefront and the lens/mirror
2. Given that the 600m telescope is capable of resolving the star,
that is image it as a disc rather than a point, then a point
at one side of the star will be focused on one side of the image,
while a point on the other side of the star will be focused
on the other side of the image.
That is, the wavefront from a point on one side of the star
will have an angle compared to the wavefront from a point on
the other side of the star, so they will be focused at
different points on the CCD.
_That's how telescopes and cameras work._

Very good Paul. Nice to know they teach some optics in Norway.

But you must know this, Henri?

I DO Paul...and I also know that light across the aperture is virtually just
'noise'. It certainly isn't all in phase....If you think it is, please explain
the mechanism that brought it all into phase.

Of bloody course it isn't "all in phase". If it were, all the
light would be focused in a single point! Telescopes make _images_!
So why the hell are you stating such an irrelevant triviality?

I'm trying to stimulate your brain into some kind of action....

It doesn't answer the questions about interferometry.

See below.

I can hardly wait....

Or is it no limit to your ignorance?
You discuss fiercely about how interferometers 'really' work
(dizzy photons), but have no clue about how a lens/mirror can
project an image on a screen(CCD)?
Amazing!

Paul, interferometers usually consist of at least a pair of receivers spaced as
far apart as practical.
If the angle subtended by a star is to be resolved by interference between
images from the two, the white light entering each must be coherent right
across the whole wavefront. How can that happen Paul?

You demonstrate yet again that you don't know how an interferometer works.

See below.

I can hardly wait....

I suppose you want to talk about one narrow spectral line rather than white
noise...that's OK. ...but I think interferometry uses radio rather than visible
light, CMIIW.

Henri, the interferometer that started this discussion was the interferometer
which measured the diameter of l Carinae. It is the VLTI
(Very Large Telescope Interferometer) at the European Southern Observatory.
This is the kind of interferometer I am talking about.

OK.
It detects something.
I say it detects changes in light speed along with other willusions.

The BaTh predicts that interferometers like the above work,
because the speed of the light is utterly irrelevant.
Any theory that predicts that telescopes work, predicts
that interferometers work.
Just tell me how photons emitted from oposite sides of a star can end up in
phase over a 600m wavefrant...
This stupidity again!
Why the hell would you like the light from both sides of the star
or from both ears of your model 'to end up in phase' over the aperture
of the telescope or your camera?

How confused can you get?

Paul, you are really lost.
Interferometry requires TWO receivers.

Indeed.
That doesn't make your babble above less idiotic.
See below.

I can hardly wait....

So we have indeed quite directly measured the diameters
of Cepheids and Miras, and literally seen that they are pulsating.
Any talk about dizzy photons, willusions or other stupidities
can't change this fact.
.....dream on Paul....
Henri, you will have to accept that telescopes and cameras work.
No idiotic babble about 'light emitted from different parts of
the object ending up in phase over the aperture of the telescope'
can change the fact that TELESCOPES WORK!

And a 600m telescope would be able to image l Carinae as a disc.

...but we don't have such telescopes and it doesn't happen.

Are you going to insist that a 600m telescope can't work? :-)
Of course you don't.
So read on.

I can hardly wait....

With this fact in mind, read the following again:

Now we cut out two 8m diameter circular disks at opposite
sides of the rim of our giant telescope mirror.
We keep these disks, and remove the rests of the giant mirror.
So we have two 8m mirrors separated by 584 m.
They are still focusing at the same spot.

How will the image now look?
It will still be basically the same image, and we can
still directly measure the angular diameter of the star.
The image will have fringes in it, though.

I'll bet it will...Fringes caused by different light speeds...

Note this, Henri.
The image from two 8m mirrors 600m apart is the same
as the image from a 600m mirror, but for a few fringes
in the image! You can directly measure the diameter
of the star by measuring the diameter of image!

No you can't. It's still far too small.

The resolution of a 600m telescope is ca. 0.5 mas.
The diameter of l Carinae is ca. 3 mas.
mas = milli-arc-sec

It is simply a fact that interferometers like the VLTI do
image stars like l Carinae as a disk which you can measure
the diameter of.

You still haven't explained how the weak starlight that enters both detectors
is coherent. Since it comes from many parts of the star, I don't see that it
can be .....UNLESS of course you accept my unification theory.

To refute this is idiocy. Several of these instruments
are now in daily use. To claim that they don't work
is as idiotic as claiming that cameras don't work.

But if your religion demands it, you will deny anything.
Right?

Paul, it matters not one iota whether or not the star goes huff puff.
The main cause of the luminosity variation is cyclic c+.
...or do you still believe that most star curves can be matched with the BaTh
out of pure coincidence?

The issue is your claim that the diameter of stars like l Carinae
cannot be measured by interferometric measurements.

Do you now understand that it can?

I certainly do understand.... and the answer is clearly NO, IT CANNOT..

If telescopes work, so do interferometers.
The principle is the very same.

This reveals your ignorance of optics..

Have you now fathomed that, or will you still state stupidities like:
"Just tell me how photons emitted from opposite sides of a star can end up in
phase over a 600m wavefront".

Interferometry requires coherent light.
Please provide an explanation as to how light emitted from many parts of a
star's surface, maybe at slightly different times, can end up in phase 1800LYs
away and over a distance of 600m.

Paul



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.