• Re: The weather's response to a solar eclipse

    From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Dec 23 21:26:57 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences reduced
    air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of the light of
    the stars because it would be refracted towards the denser air exactly as
    it does at sunset, making the Sun remain visible after astronomical
    sunset.

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.

    Source: "The weather's response to a solar eclipse"

    OK. Next excercise: account for gravitational deflection
    of the radio positions of quasars, which is routinely measured
    on a daily basis, without having eclipses.

    And while you are busy, prove that the Earth is flat,

    Jan
    (GAIA for the next posting)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Dec 23 17:06:01 2023
    On 12/23/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making the
    Sun remain visible after astronomical sunset.

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.

    Source: "The weather's response to a solar eclipse"

    This constitutes yet another example of elementary science being sufficient to refute relativity.

    They routinely measure the gravitational deflection of stars by
    satellites in space. No air/weather. Solar eclipses on earth are no
    longer necessary.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Dec 24 02:04:22 2023
    On 12/23/2023 7:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 2:06:04 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 12/23/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making
    the Sun remain visible after astronomical sunset.

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.

    Source: "The weather's response to a solar eclipse"

    This constitutes yet another example of elementary science being sufficient to refute relativity.
    They routinely measure the gravitational deflection of stars by
    satellites in space. No air/weather. Solar eclipses on earth are no
    longer necessary.

    That is lucky because eclipses can no longer provide any evidence for it!

    So you admit that GR provides the correct predictions in space?
    And why aren't you providing evidence of how much deflection this
    weather effect makes or explain why the weather effect just happens to
    match the predictions of GR by chance?

    There is an eclipse coming up. I'm sure a few high school and freshmen
    college physics professors will take a few photographs and give them to
    their classes to validate/refute GR's predictions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Dec 24 02:08:57 2023
    On 12/24/2023 12:21 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 6:02:13 PM UTC-8, palsing wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 2:43:39 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making
    the Sun remain visible after astronomical sunset..
    Sure, the Sun's position is deflected at sunrise and sunset due to refraction in our atmosphere. However, the atmosphere of the Sun at its limb is thinner than the best vacuum that can be made on Earth. The deflection of a star's position when near
    the Sun's limb is due to gravity... just like the position of entire galaxies can be due to an intervening galaxy, as in the case of Einstein's Cross, for example...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.
    I see you *still* have not read even a single textbook. Are you proud of your ignorance of the subject matter?
    Paul, I was talking about the Earth's atmosphere.
    Understood. Apparently, you do not understand that the Earth's atmosphere only refracts light to a large degree when the object is near the horizon. When there is a solar eclipse high in the sky the deflection of stars near the Sun's limb is due
    solely to gravitation. Get that textbook because your own personal fantasies are not even close to being reality. You *still* do not know what you do not know.

    At sunset the Sun is still visible when under the horizon making refraction then at least .5 degrees so 1.75" is 1/2057th of that!

    And your explanation that satellites in space measure deflections which
    match those seen on earth as well as matching GR's prediction is...?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Dec 24 13:18:31 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 12:27:01?PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making the Sun remain visible after astronomical sunset.

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.

    Source: "The weather's response to a solar eclipse"
    OK. Next excercise: account for gravitational deflection
    of the radio positions of quasars, which is routinely measured
    on a daily basis, without having eclipses.

    And while you are busy, prove that the Earth is flat,

    Jan
    (GAIA for the next posting)
    Is that deflection twice Newtonian?

    Yes, of course.
    It is a routine correction that needs to be applied
    to the raw astrometric data to obtain accurate stellar positions.
    (remember that GAIA's accuracy is in the -micro-arcsecond range)

    How can everything in the universe be
    deflected Newtonian except light? Pound & Rebka found Newtonian for light.

    You sort out your own misunderstandings.

    Which is it for Quasars?

    Same of course. And (see above) Einsteinian corrections
    apply to quasar positions as measured on Earth by VLBI, [1]

    Jan

    [1] As verified routinely to great accuracy by the IERS.
    The accurate computation of UTC from TAI depends on it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Dec 24 20:52:17 2023
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 12/23/2023 7:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 2:06:04?PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
    On 12/23/2023 3:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 11:38:58?AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crosse
    n wrote:
    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of >>>>the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the >>>>Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences >>>>reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of >>>>the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the >>>>denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making the Sun remain visible >>>>after astronomical sunset.

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air >>>>pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.

    Source: "The weather's response to a solar eclipse"

    This constitutes yet another example of elementary science being >>sufficient to refute relativity. They routinely measure the
    gravitational deflection of stars by satellites in space. No
    air/weather. Solar eclipses on earth are no longer necessary.

    That is lucky because eclipses can no longer provide any evidence for it!

    So you admit that GR provides the correct predictions in space?
    And why aren't you providing evidence of how much deflection this
    weather effect makes or explain why the weather effect just happens to
    match the predictions of GR by chance?

    Yes, and while he is at it he should predict how the deflection will
    depend on the angular distance from the sun.
    However, he has even the sign wrong.
    At these time and distance scales Coriolis effects are irrelevant, and
    pressure differences just fill in.

    Now anyone who has ever seen a total eclipse wil have noticed
    a marked temperature drop during totality.
    So the air density must -increase- to maintain pressure euilibrium,
    not decrease. So the index of refraction also increases,
    just the opposite of what our hero needs.
    It's bunk all over. [1]

    There is an eclipse coming up. I'm sure a few high school and freshmen college physics professors will take a few photographs and give them to
    their classes to validate/refute GR's predictions.

    It has ben validated many times, since 1919.
    Even remeasurement of the original plates confirms Eddington's result,

    Jan

    [1] And FYA, the increase in air density can sometimes be seen directly.
    When there is hot air rising before the eclipse, forming cumulus clouds,
    the rise of the air, and hence cloud formation stops during the eclipse,
    and for some time after totality, because the now denser air cannot
    rise. (seen it described, not in person, it was not that kind of a day)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Dec 24 17:51:18 2023
    On 12/24/2023 2:52 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    There is an eclipse coming up. I'm sure a few high school and freshmen
    college physics professors will take a few photographs and give them to
    their classes to validate/refute GR's predictions.

    It has ben validated many times, since 1919.
    Even remeasurement of the original plates confirms Eddington's result,

    I know that. I meant it as a teaching exercise, like how freshmen
    physics students measure the speed of light with an oscilloscope and
    pulse light generator or something.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Dec 24 17:57:28 2023
    On 12/24/2023 4:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 4:18:35 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 2:43:39?PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 11:38:58?AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen:
    The evidence for light deflection during a solar eclipse consists of >>>>> the deflection outward of the apparent positions of stars near the
    Sun.

    However, during an eclipse, the area that is eclipsed experiences
    reduced air pressure. This would result in the outward deflection of >>>>> the light of the stars because it would be refracted towards the
    denser air exactly as it does at sunset, making the Sun remain visible >>>>> after astronomical sunset.
    Sure, the Sun's position is deflected at sunrise and sunset due to
    refraction in our atmosphere. However, the atmosphere of the Sun at its >>>> limb is thinner than the best vacuum that can be made on Earth. The
    deflection of a star's position when near the Sun's limb is due to
    gravity... just like the position of entire galaxies can be due to an
    intervening galaxy, as in the case of Einstein's Cross, for example... >>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

    Therefore, this evidence of deflection is fully accounted for by air >>>>> pressure, making relativity entirely unnecessary.
    I see you *still* have not read even a single textbook. Are you proud of >>>> your ignorance of the subjct matter?

    Paul, I was talking about the Earth's atmosphere.
    Yes, and you were talking nonsense.

    Jan
    When Galileo showed everything is affected the same by gravity no matter its mass and Eotvos regardless of its material, how can light be affected differently, twice Newtonian? It's not.

    No, ALL light is deflected as twice Newtonian, regardless of its
    frequency or its source. It's not different.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Patrick Dolan on Tue Dec 26 15:37:53 2023
    On 12/26/2023 1:41 PM, Patrick Dolan wrote:

    The Eddington bent starlight experiment could have been repeated in the ISS with undreamed of precision by all previous earthbound experimenters, by use of a jar lid held at arm's length and a smartphone.

    No need. Satellites such as the ones looking for exoplanets have
    resolutions of milliarcseconds and have to compensate for bent starlight
    even at 90 degrees to the sun. No eclipse necessary, natural or artificial.

    JJL will protest that infra red data for zillions of stars up to 90 degrees from the sun have already proved the Einstein hypothesis.

    So you already know about this, yet propose an unnecessary half-assed experiment with astronauts holding up a jar lid.

    Richard Hertz dug into, and debunked that phony data and claim.

    No, he never did any such thing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)