You skillfully gloss over all my comments. Anyway...
Your comments were statements, not questions. "You should know that," "You should also know that," "You should also know," these were all statements. My choosing to not dispute them does not necessarily mean that I have glossed over them. I could, for example, be in complete agreement with you that I should know this, that or the other. You should (and probably do) regard it as highly likely that I do know what you were referring to. However, the issue at hand has nothing to do with diffraction theory, nor with adaptive optics, either NGS, nor LGS.
> ... If, on the other hand, we find that one of the founding assumptions of
> the theory, does not hold, then we will have to discard the theory all
> together, pending confirmation by other groups. And then it is back to the
> drawing board to try to come up with a theory that encompasses both the old
> and the new observations. That is science. ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
> This will apply to just about the entire field of astronomy if we can
> demonstrate that one of the founding assumptions of heliocentrism is wrong.
> Would you agree?Neville.
>
That's what I wrote.
But it also goes for your theory of a geocentric Universe.
I would like your confirmation of that.
No problem. I hereby confirm that a demonstrable flaw in the founding assumptions of a geocentric universe would render the model built upon those assumptions untenable.
Neville.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
