Philip wrote: > I meant to say the same thing to Mike or Alan in regard to their weak > response over my explanation of aberration. I posted the four main types of > aberration in optics/astronomy, and the only difference which gave them > their names was the application of the same principle of operation. > > Philip. You'd better repost it then, I don't remember that. I remember you googling "aberration" and inapropiately then trying to apply what you read to what Alan was talking about. What was your position on aberraton again? Regards, Mike.