1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY

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

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 19 21:24:54 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 19 22:06:25 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jojo@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Wed Nov 20 07:29:40 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    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!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt_wnyewBm0&list=PLdnBDlkvz2vMjeEke6PLIQWNT1eZf7O62&index=4


    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 20 21:49:47 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 20 21:42:37 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 21 00:15:15 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 21 04:49:03 2024
    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."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jojo@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Thu Nov 21 06:18:09 2024
    LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sat Nov 23 10:15:34 2024
    On 2024-11-20 21:42:37 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    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.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sat Nov 23 11:57:50 2024
    Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

    On 2024-11-20 21:42:37 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    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)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 23 17:52:47 2024
    W dniu 23.11.2024 o 15:56, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog pisze:


    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.

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