How does coherent light travel between stars?

Erica: it is clear that you are educated to a point that is well beyond your grasp. The evidence for everything on the site is much better substantiated than what you call science. My writing style is for a young and mentally agile person, so it may look different than you might expect. Thumb down your closed mind. Yahoouse… I play where I wish, and this is play for me to do this while I work at the state-of-the-art in the application of physics and have done so for the past twenty years. Lodar: No buy on the angular angle – that whole process is a contrivance meant to justify a failed model. To see individual stars in some of the farther galaxies, we should be able to read a newspaper on Pluto. If you had opted for direct light vs. reflected light (gave you the opening, did I?), you had a chance. John W.: Coherent light has a larger definition than applied to lasers, and the accent here is that the source of light from that far away – if it were something silly like a waveform, they w

(continued) they would have had 200 million years to interfere as they may wont, so interference is virtually zero. Information that travels that long is coherent by definition. BTW, I mastered laser principles in eighth grade, which was in the 1960’s.

You all have missed the obvious because your education is so limited. Your astrophysics model is worthless when held to even the lowest level of scrutiny. You sell it only because that’s all you have been handed. Others are way ahead – you are actually six years behind your reality.

Erica (my ego can’t resist): I expect to receive a certain prize for my showing of how and my defining of why every and all experimental events observed to date on Earth which involve a photon are a derivative of the Sun’s gravity. That means that all of your data on which you model the universe which uses a photon, is not valid beyond the outer radii of our comets.

Lodar: AGAIN, we are not talking about your silly math about galaxies... do the same trig for one of the stars in that far galaxy. We can see that star as an independent entity, so arguments about galaxies are really stupid and divisive - which is my point. You demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about by using this impropriety as a propped-up truth, which is what can be expected of the limits of your education.

Erica: Oh my, please reread your content and ask who is the ranter? Who flails and rails against disagreement? Your issue is that you do not know yourself, have any confidence whatsoever in who you are. That's about as close to a reactionary rant as I will get. Have a nice day.

Erica: Oh my, please reread your content and ask who is the ranter? Who flails and rails against disagreement? Your issue is that you do not know yourself, have any confidence whatsoever in who you are. That's about as close to a reactionary rant as I will get. Have a nice day.

Ummmm, that was supposed to go once, but Yahoo! had a hiccup. Sorry. BTW, thanks Lodar for the 'genius' label. Its good to know you agree with most.

Lodar: Upon reflection, I realize that YOU represented that distant galaxy as ONE ENTITY.

IF you can model that galaxy as having the optical properties that unifies it to present to us in detail, then lay on. IF NOT, then you just validated my model. My contention is that any attempt to excuse the visibility of individual stars in that galaxy are based in my model of gravity because electromagnetic entities do not have the legs to provide detail at these distances – the classic conundrum. I contend that any attempt to rationalize our vision of these stars as based on electromagnetics is doomed by quanta values.

That's it? You guys were easy on me, except of course, Erica. Yous have a choice - re-read Millennial Physics enough times to understand it or retire from physics. Grasp Black Holes as a significant tool with which to model Event Horizon physics - it leads to understanding time. Gravitational Induction Pumping (with a special wink to John W.) is a glimpse at stuff y'all haven't even looked at.

It is irrelevant if you as individuals agree with my model or if you run around with stakes in your hand (I loved that), this model is, at least in part, the future.

Considering that it is a re-write of the foundation of all the physical sciences, I expect the teeth gnashing (like our dear Erica's here) to continue for years. The result is worth the battle.

The best part is that the work is done - all that's left is the 'shouting', which is showing itself to be much easier than I thought. Thanks for the encouragement!