michaelstmark (July 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm)

SBs are diffraction artifacts and they're formed by the physical optics phenomenon of constructive interference, which is the in-phase aspect of (light) interference.Constructive interference is the ultimate cause of ALL diffraction effects.Google it old fella!And also let's define "ultimate" shall we?( and preferably not your own personal wet fart definition )

MRphotogod (July 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm)

You keep making noise but you simply can't back your claim with fact, link or empirical evidence.The bladed aperture diaphram is the root cause of starbursts. When it obstructs the light path, starbursts are formed. When it does not obstruct the light path, no starbursts are formed. Nothing else in the chain of events that produces starburts happens without the bladed aperture diaphraam. It is the ROOT cause of starbursts. Your position has been refuted.

MRphotogod (July 25, 2008 at 8:55 pm)

Wrong again. Provide ONE SINGLE like that states starbursts are caused by LIGHT INTERFERENCE"You are being intellectually dishonest again mickeryDICKerystmark.Got your wee willy in your hand and your thumb in your mouth again? So post your dozens of links that claim light interference is the cause of starbursts. How many times can you NOT prove your claims? DOZENS! LMAO!

michaelstmark (July 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm)

" You can't provide the single link that supports your claim."Not a single one no, but dozens.Google constructive interference diffraction patterns.Silly old goat Lamson!

michaelstmark (July 25, 2008 at 8:39 pm)

The aperture is a proximate cause, for sure.But it's not the ultimate cause. As I keep confirming to you, constructive interference is the ultimate cause.You need to wash your old man's ears as well as your mouth out with soap, Lamson.

MRphotogod (July 25, 2008 at 8:31 pm)

Well there you go again, making up a claim out of thin air. If you are correct than please point us to a link that claims starburts are caused by "light interference".Your claim is quite specfic. Give us a link.You can't provide the single link that supports your claim.You lose once again.It must really suck to be mickeryDICKerystmark.

MRphotogod (July 25, 2008 at 8:26 pm)

Actually I used a wiki entry, you lose again. If you want to dispute singlar root ccase theory, be my guest. My claims and definition stands.Sadly for your root cause analysis shows the mechanical interference caused by a bladed aperture diaphram as the root cause of starburts.

michaelstmark (July 25, 2008 at 8:14 pm)

" You can't offer any empirical evidence, fact nor links to support your claim that "light interference" is the cause of starbursts."There you go, just throw out any old debate deflection chaffTMAnyone can google "constructive interference", which is light interference in its in-phase mode, and learn that it manifests as diffraction artifacts.And starbursts ARE diffraction artifacts.Lying old toady Lamson rides again.

michaelstmark (July 25, 2008 at 8:05 pm)

"You haven't defined your version of "root cause"."Oh yes I did,.."Correct, you defined YOUR version.(Thanks for letting the truth slip out for once.)lolThat's just your style, making up your own pet versions of terms to dress your tailor's dummy of deception.I prefer the dictionary definition, and it points to "root cause" as being open-ended and even causation linking all the way back to the big bang.

MRphotogod (July 25, 2008 at 7:39 pm)

"...would you like time to concoct more meaningless terms to shore up your ailing sand castle against the tide of truth?"Why? My claims are backed by fact, empirical evidence and numerous links.Your claims on the other hand are simply constructed out of thin air. You can't offer any empirical evidence, fact nor links to support your claim that "light interference" is the cause of starbursts.When you find any of the above,then let us know. Until then your position has failed.