Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:54:54 +0000
Subject: Re: Relativity claims the corona is too thin to refract enough to
 curve starlight.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <6b0c7e8c846682004d455d379716128c@www.novabbs.com>
 <a594f9da668554342e9778d771bce7a8@www.novabbs.com>
 <89cd74f3047884327042a8ed2ad4ce29@www.novabbs.com>
 <469efb0cbe09e1f72d64fca9c2f24dfb@www.novabbs.com>
 <eafde161b6230ae1f3e1196f153f9f3a@www.novabbs.com>
 <1621ff5df3bd697467e792c6cdf9babe@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 11:54:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1621ff5df3bd697467e792c6cdf9babe@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <43qdnYEnNfyTrt_6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 89
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-SjVbEjTB/UOZO7szttNjLkxxbnIj883B4RJ/t4vQ2G6mwlQDCd46YljXOHJj1nWOIHNh8bplwI9pngy!xtdh4QLwiQKSx3GHV0R5DPXCA6X8pRXa0Z5M/NVpEpWHHZ957U9xlxkrGWaO9RPawCFDxSsTAclV
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5920

On 11/23/2024 06:56 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 2:43:16 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> I'm a believer in the phenomenon of refraction to explain starlight
>> deflection and "gravitational lensing". I'm totally against the crap
>> of GR and curved spacetime. This, for the record.
>
> In discussing possible refraction effects affecting experimental
> observations of gravitational deflection by the Sun, we need to
> distinguish between VBLI observations made at radio wavelengths versus
> observations made at optical wavelengths.
>
> At radio wavelengths, refraction by the solar atmosphere is a known
> issue. This refraction is dependent on frequency according to the
> following formula: n = sqrt(1 - ω_p^2 / ω^2 ) where ω_p is the plasma
> frequency, which is dependent on the electron density at the time of
> observation.
>
> VLBI observations of quasars like 3C279 are performed at multiple
> wavelengths to allow highly accurate correction for this refraction,
> which in any event is negligible beyond 3 degrees from the Sun.
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1395/pdf
>
> Optical frequencies are unaffected by plasma refraction. Any bending
> of light due to refraction would be from a different source.
>
> At optical wavelengths, refraction is due to atoms or molecules
> acting as polarizable dipoles. Incoming electromagnetic waves shift
> their electrons back and forth. The dipoles absorb incoming light and
> re-radiate light at the same frequency. Since the resonant frequency
> of the dipoles does not match that of the incoming light, the
> re-radiated light will be of slightly retarded phase relative to the
> incoming light. The net result of all of this to slow the speed of
> the wave passing through the medium. (This is assuming that the
> frequency is not near an absorbance line, which results in anomalous
> dispersion).
>
> In the case of the Sun's atmosphere, above a transition zone a few
> thousand kilometers above the surface, the coronal gases are heated
> by as of yet poorly understood mechanisms to temperatures greater
> than a million degrees. At these temperatures, all of the lighter
> elements (hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen) are
> stripped of all their electrons, leaving bare nuclei. The few spectral
> lines visible in the corona (above its bright continuous background)
> are due to traces of iron, calcium, and other heavier elements which
> manage to retain a few of their electrons.
>
> The solar corona is therefore not only far too tenuous to account for
> the observed deflection of starlight around the Sun, it is almost
> totally devoid of polarizable species that can contribute to
> refraction at optical wavelengths.

How about that it's the opposite of "camera obscura", the pinhole
camera, the "Large-Fresnel lensing" may have an optical explanation
why as about bodies that optical light focuses, makes imaging,
and that it happens to be the same as the geodesy, as about
_orbits_ here the point being instead of deflection.

Anyways that's a wonderful exposition and theories of stellar pulsation
after theories of stellar formation as with regards to "The Hearth"
and all, is pretty great.

Here there are two things considered with regards to the
imaging and precession about what crosses the solar coronal.
One is that Einstein's cosmological constant was given a
non-zero value, so that "the observed position of Mercury's
precession", which goes away, that the theory provided about
half of the correction. Then another is the Fresnel, has
some consideration that there's "Large Fresnel", about either
the other half or all the effect, and what makes otherwise
usual notions of Einstein crosses and all that in the sky survey,
vis-a-vis "micro-lensing", gravitational as it's deemed to be,
"micro-lensing", and "micro-lensing anomalies".

If there's one thing it helps to reflect, is that
"electromagnetic radiation", the electrical field,
and "optical radiation", in space, are _not_ the same thing.
Yes I know that it's common that optical radiation is in
the "electromagnetic spectrum", simply according to
frequency and wavelength, that's though kind of where it ends.


So, kind of a "super camera obscura: camera occulta",
has of course just a little brief own theory.