Relativity claims the corona is too thin to refract enough to curve starlight.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Relativity claims the corona is too thin to refract enough to curve
starlight.

This is based on the Saha equation, which has been disproven.

"The Saha Equation & the Pressure above the Photosphere!"

The corona is dense enough to refract starlight as much as detected in
the eclipse experiments.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity claims the corona is too thin to refract enough to curve
starlight.
This is based on the Saha equation, which has been disproven.
"The Saha Equation & the Pressure above the Photosphere!"
http://youtu.be/vt_wnyewBm0
The corona is dense enough to refract starlight as much as detected in
the eclipse experiments.

I've written on Dr. Robitaille in other venues.

Dr. Robitaille is a crank.

I first learned about the Saha equation when I was a high school
attendee at the 1968 Summer Science Program held at the Thatcher
School in Ojai, California. It was one of Dr. Chambers' favorite
topics, and he made it really clear to us the physical underpinnings
of the equation and its importance in astrophysics. I've even written
about the Saha equation on Quora.

Contrary to Dr. Robitaille's claims, astrophysicists do not rely
merely on the Saha equation to calculate solar atmospheric pressure.
Data from solar missions like SOHO, SDO, the Parker Solar Probe etc.
all align with the standard low density atmospheric model, which is
based on known plasma physics. Solar wind data, the behavior of
the magnetic field, helioseismology, corona temperature profiles
etc. all align with each other into a consistent picture.

Like other crackpots, Dr. Robitaille quite cheerfully tosses out
decades of observational data and theoretical analysis to focus on
a limited number of items that don't make sense to him, and he makes
up novel science as he goes along.

[rhertz]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille


Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist.
As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of
Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major
advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the
project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.

In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though
he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were
outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to
non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he
maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background
radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big
Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.

He also maintains that the sun is not a ball of plasma but is, in fact,
made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted
by any reputable physics publication.

.............



Supporters

Dr. Myron W. Evans (Chemist)
Stephen J. Crothers
David Talbott (Mythologist)

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
Pierre-Marie Luc Robitaille (born 1961) is an accomplished radiologist.
As director of magnetic resonance imaging research for the Department of
Medicine of Ohio State University from 1989-2000[1] he made major
advances in the science of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), leading the
project to build the 8 Tesla Ultra High Field human MRI scanner.
In 2000, he was asked to step down from his position as director (though
he remains a professor) when he began to promote theories that were
outside his actual realm of expertise, specifically related to
non-mainstream beliefs in the areas of astronomy and physics: he
maintains that satellite measurements of the cosmic microwave background
radiation, believed by most astronomers to be an afterglow of the Big
Bang, are actually observations of a glow from Earth's oceans.
He also maintains that the sun is not a ball of plasma but is, in fact,
made of liquid metallic hydrogen. None of his ideas have been accepted
by any reputable physics publication.
..............
Supporters
Dr. Myron W. Evans (Chemist)
Stephen J. Crothers
David Talbott (Mythologist)

Thanks, Richard!

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: As you probably are aware, rational wiki is the sort of
skeptical publication that is only skeptical of alternative views and
not of mainstream views. Contrary to their report, which involves itself
in guilt by association by referring to a mythologist supporter, his
ideas are accepted by Alexander Unzicker [in his book, "The Liquid
Sun"], a reputable physicist. As you know, physics publications are
governed by a process of political censoring called the referee process
in dark back rooms. I see Prok approves of such filthy scheming
practices. Relativity has long refused to engage with critics, including
in this forum, where stonewalling tactics by stubborn dogmatists do not
convince the many skeptics who consult this forum. They would better
defend relativity by resorting to reason and ascertaining the intended
meaning in comments instead of misconstruing like an ideologue.

[rhertz]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mr. Hertz: As you probably are aware, rational wiki is the sort of
skeptical publication that is only skeptical of alternative views and
not of mainstream views. Contrary to their report, which involves itself
in guilt by association by referring to a mythologist supporter, his
ideas are accepted by Alexander Unzicker [in his book, "The Liquid
Sun"], a reputable physicist. As you know, physics publications are
governed by a process of political censoring called the referee process
in dark back rooms. I see Prok approves of such filthy scheming
practices. Relativity has long refused to engage with critics, including
in this forum, where stonewalling tactics by stubborn dogmatists do not
convince the many skeptics who consult this forum. They would better
defend relativity by resorting to reason and ascertaining the intended
meaning in comments instead of misconstruing like an ideologue.

The idea that starlight deflection when grazing Sun's surface TERRORIZE
relativists since Day 1.

This is the report that Eddington presented to the Royal Astronomical
Society:


IX. A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's
Gravitational field (43 pages),

from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919.

By Sir F. W. DYSON, F.R.S., Astronomer Royal, Prof. A. S. EDDINGTON,
F.R.S., and Mr. C. DAVIDSON.
(Communicated by the Joint Permanent Eclipse Committee.)
Received October 30,-Read November 6, 1919.


******************************************************************
QUOTE FROM "I. PURPOSE OF THE EXPEDITIONS" (PAGE 292)

It seems clear that the effect here found must be attributed to the
sun's gravitational field and not, for example, to refraction by coronal
matter. In order to produce the observed effect by refraction, the sun
must be surrounded by material of refractive index 1.00000414/r, where r
is the distance from the center in terms of the sun's radius.

At a height of one radius above the surface the necessary refractive
index 1.00000212 corresponds to that of air at 1/140 atmosphere,
hydrogen at 1/60 atmosphere, or helium at 1/90 atmospheric pressure.
Clearly a density of this order is out of the question.
*****************************************************************

Of course that the IGNORANCE about the Sun in that epoch was huge, as
astrophysics and Sun's physics was primitive and didn't consider the
Sun's behavior as a nuclear furnace, using E=mc2.

QUOTE FROM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eddington himself developed such theories only since 1920, when he
anticipated the discovery and mechanism of nuclear fusion processes in
stars, in his paper "The Internal Constitution of the Stars". At that
time, the source of stellar energy was a complete mystery; Eddington
correctly speculated that the source was fusion of hydrogen into helium,
liberating enormous energy according to Einstein's equation E = mc2.
This was a particularly remarkable development since at that time fusion
and thermonuclear energy, and even the fact that stars are largely
composed of hydrogen (see metallicity), had not yet been discovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT, some understanding about Sun's atmosphere would take more than 45
years to be developed (around 1965), and MANY THINGS are still a
mystery.

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.


There IS NOT A SOLID, FINAL THEORY about the internal constitution of
the Sun and other stars. For instance, the phenomenon of random solar
flares and Sun's spots REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. Astrophysicists can't provide
ANY SOLID THEORY about the mechanisms on the Sun's surface or in the
layered interior.


There is A DENIAL in considering that the inner layers rotate at
different rates, how many layers are, what forms the core, why so strong
magnetic fields exist, why there is a difference of millions of "K in
the external atmosphere, if each layer HAS UNIFORM DENSITY, the
mechanisms behind solar spots, how do they interact with the inner Sun,
etc.

But, most relevant issue for me, is THE DENIAL about the influence of a
non-homogeneous layered Sun, the solar wind and strong electromagnetic
influence in the advance of Mercury's perihelion.

To even consider the above is enough for any astrophysicist TO BE
OUTCASTED from the community (CANCELLED).

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: According to Robitaille, Dowdye inferred from the bending at
the solar limb that the plasma limb must have sufficient substance to
bend the light, contrary to the consensus that it is too thin. Dowdye
thought observations of starlight passing by the Sun are only deflected
within the solar plasma limb at the surface of the Sun = 1 solar radii &
that Shapiro delay is caused because microwaves are affected by
ultraviolet and infrared radiation & that the apparent paths of 5 stars
orbiting the black hole at the center of the galaxy would be distorted
by gravity but they are not.

Robitaille says we can create most elements on Earth in laboratories,
but the solar model cannot, so we do not understand its composition. He
also points out that the light from the stars does not show the interior
composition since they have a surface and are liquid metal.

The galactic rotation curve proves that there is ten times the mass
known, proving that they do not know what is in the stars. It is not in
some dark matter halo.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: "The Collapse of the Big Bang and the Gaseous Sun" by
Robitaille.
https://muratk3n.github.io/thirdwave/en/2021/01/collapse_of_the_big_bang_and_the_gaseous_sun_robitaille.html

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: In the NY Times article I mentioned, Robitaille says, "The
density [14] of the central core is thought to approach 150 g/cm3, while
that of the lower photosphere is thought to be on the order of
10-7g/cm3. Neither of the numbers, of course, can be verified by direct
experimentation."

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
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.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog
The solar corona is therefore not only far too tenuous to account for
the observed deflection of starlight around the Sun

And it's alwayd good to remind that according
to the mad teachings of your idiot guru there
is no deflection and starlight [in vacuum]
is always taking straight/geodesic paths.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by rhertz
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, ....

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Prok: Robitaille questions the underlying fundamentals leading to these
interpretations of the empirical data. So your reply does not address
the fundamentals. He disagrees with the standard model and your reply
just insists on it while throwing in an ad hominem. This is typical of
defenses of relativity by relativists who assert their interpretations
of empirical results without addressing the real issues.

Robitaille argues the total pressure above the solar photosphere is much
more than standard model which says 1/10,000 or less than Earth's. They
claim to have measured the pressures but really only estimated them. He
cites Harold Zirin's book "The Solar Atmosphere" that says the Saha
equation underestimates the pressure 100 trillion times in the corona.
Robitaille bases his argument on his liquid sun. He says pressures above
photosphere probably 10's of 1,000's of atmospheres (Earths). He says
because sun is so much more massive than the earth its corona pressure
would be much more than Earths.

Relativists are cranks following a quack.

[jojo]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Relativity claims the corona is too thin to refract enough to curve
starlight.
This is based on the Saha equation, which has been disproven.
"The Saha Equation & the Pressure above the Photosphere!"
http://youtu.be/vt_wnyewBm0
The corona is dense enough to refract starlight as much as
detected in
the eclipse experiments.

refract to curve? isnt it the curvature that curves?

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Jojo: In the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun is still visible after sunset
because sunlight curves down into the denser layers closer to the
surface. That is refraction.

[jojo]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jojo: In the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun is still visible after sunset
because sunlight curves down into the denser layers closer to the
surface. That is refraction.

oh ok, i was thinking of something else.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jojo: In the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun is still visible after sunset
because sunlight curves down into the denser layers closer to the
surface. That is refraction.

In Earth's atmospere the refraction of some colors are more than some
other colors. Although atmospheric scattering makes the setting Sun
look red the last seen color can be green or blue.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Jojo: In the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun is still visible after sunset
because sunlight curves down into the denser layers closer to the
surface. That is refraction.

In Earth's atmospere the refraction of some colors are more than some
other colors. Although atmospheric scattering makes the setting Sun
look red the last seen color can be green or blue.

Yes, see Minnaert. There are two effects:
green is scattered more than red,
but also refracted more than red.

So in green you look farther over the horizon,
and you may see the attenuated green
when the red is already behind the horizon.
This is the famous 'green flash',
popularised by the Jules Verne novel with the eponymous title.

But there are many other subtleties involved.
In practice mirage conditions are needed
to obtain sufficient brightness for visibility,

Jan
(know it only by title)