Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Interesting. ChatGPT fails defending starlight deflection when photons
 graze Sun's surface
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:01:13 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <0ceeb56e09a9ec828c2ab502d5632e84@www.novabbs.com>
References: <9f729554aafb0be632aaeebd57833d95@www.novabbs.com> <9657386124cca2fe6f147aa37dfdd1e4@www.novabbs.com> <5a42c06d9d8c648b549334970dc6bca4@www.novabbs.com> <d4055e3f3507579983d127632cc2c089@www.novabbs.com> <69d47380ddfb2c7bfc3b52108c0ca4ca@www.novabbs.com> <64f47e8d963b95943d6851d26707db10@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="13281"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$l2UI0xdj1c2l3VB5PRPmQex3qkmLJZfT3GVB4I4GicDDOPZIKq3VO
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5005
Lines: 73

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 7:59:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 1:34:39 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 0:57:06 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> For me, c IS CONSTANT, and the phenomena of deflection is due to
>>>> REFRACTION.
>>>
>>> ======================================================================
>>>
>>> In the Earth's ionosphere, radio waves are strongly refracted by free
>>> electrons. This refraction is strongly dependent on frequency:
>>>
>>> n^2 = 1 - ω_p^2 / [ω(ω + iν)]
>>>
>>> where ω_p is the plasma frequency. Propagation of optical frequency
>>> light is virtually unaffected by free electrons in the ionosphere.
>>>
>>> Both radio frequencies and optical frequencies are refracted by BOUND
>>> electrons in atoms and molecules. In the Earth's atmosphere, water
>>> molecules are extremely important in the refraction of radio waves,
>>> but of rather less importance in the refraction of optical frequencies.
>>>
>>> ======================================================================
>>>
>>> In the solar corona, the situation is quite different. Radio waves
>>> are, of course, refracted by free electrons in the solar corona, so
>>> VLBI measurements of the gravitational deflection of radio waves must
>>> be corrected for refraction. This is done by performing measurements
>>> at multiple wavelengths and using the known relationship between
>>> wavelength and refraction by free electrons to determine the
>>> un-refracted path of the radio waves.
>>>
>>> It is unnecessary to correct for refraction by BOUND electrons because
>>> of their almost complete absence in the solar corona. Above a
>>> transition zone a few thousand kilometers above the surface, the
>>> coronal gases are heated to temperatures greater than 1,000,000°C. At
>>> such temperatures, all of the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium,
>>> carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are stripped down to bare nuclei.
>>> Spectral lines visible in the corona comes from heavier trace elements
>>> like iron and calcium which are able to retain a few of their
>>> electrons.
>>>
>>> (Do not be confused by the F corona spectral lines, which are due to
>>> scattering of light by dust particles.)
>>>
>>> Visible light passing by the Sun is not refracted by FREE electrons in
>>> the solar corona, and the complete stripping of electrons from all
>>> elements up through oxygen means that there are virtually no BOUND
>>> electrons in polarizable atomic species capable of refracting visible
>>> light either.
>>>
>>> In other words, not only is the solar atmosphere far too tenuous to
>>> contribute significantly to the measured deflection of visible light,
>>> its composition is entirely wrong.
>>>
>>> ======================================================================
>> Alexander Unzicker differs with you on that in his book, "The Liquid
>> Sun."
>
> Naturally, you prefer to believe in absolute, complete crackpot nonsense
> by a person who claims a degree in neuroscience but nevertheless has a
> considerable YouTube following.
>
> Why does that not surprise me?
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/alexander_unzicker/
> https://www.quora.com/Could-the-physicist-Unzicker-be-right-when-he-says-Postwar-physicists-while-deliberately-ignoring-gravity-invented-two-more-interactions-as-if-this-wasn-t-a-sign-of-methodological-degeneration
Instead of engaging in reasoned dispute, you resort to ad hominem. Why
does that not surprise me?