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 20:01:50 +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>
 <43qdnYEnNfyTrt_6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:01:49 -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: <43qdnYEnNfyTrt_6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Z3OdnbJisPgzqd_6nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 97
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KK29QUEMVXBoIwlND6v8bG/tHjeeCrD35BHQbig2VeJybqGX9yVuYQG4qYt6Q65cFTvLrohk78oLTA5!xv8y8sb/B7UR0TuWNCdqg55GbpIrl/943ZkmzGG9R79zBsoNUSbwVm22rS1Ju1MXa9RIeQrPWKqc
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: 6402

On 11/23/2024 11:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

This "light makes orbits" can sort of explain "redshift bias" also
when galaxies make "Large rotational down-Doppler" and this kind
of thing - that such as these ad hoc theories are as minimal
as yet relate and connect right back to the rest of QM and GR, ....