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

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 22:06:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

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).