Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:36:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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


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.
This idiocy over and over and over!

'Coherent' isn't quite the correct expression, but since you use it
let 'coherent' in this context mean that the surface of equal phase
('wavefront') can be considered to be a plane.

Since you appear to be deaf, I will have to shout:

OF BLOODY COURSE THE LIGHT FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF
A RESOLVED STAR ISN'T COHERENT OVER 600m!

It is the light from a _point_ (area resolution) on
the star that is coherent (plane wavefront).
The wavefronts from two different parts of the star
have an angle to each other, and is NOT coherent.

So you are claiming that a single light quanta can have a 'cross section' of
over 600 metres by the time it reaches Earth????

I am claiming that the diameter of the aperture strongly
affects the probability for where the photon will hit
at the CCD. The photon from a point source will with high
confidence hit within a diameter proportional to
the wavelength divided by the aperture diameter.

If you think that implies that the photon must have
a cross section equal to the aperture, then it illustrates
how hopeless idiotic your idea of a photon is.

This response is typical for you.
Effectually you claim that big telescopes do not have
better resolution than small ones, because you cannot
understand how the size of the apperture can affect a photon.

Since you drop off at the very beginning,
there is no point in going on.
This is obviously way beyond your abilities.

[snip]

Paul