Deviation of light by Sun is optical

See the original text.

3 Deviation of stars light by Sun is optical
------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
We consider the sun and its atmosphere as a spherical lens causing
deviation of stars light and also decrease of its speed in the lens.
Such a lens can probably make a multiple image of a star. It is also
shown that the sun, because of its atmosphere, is in fact smaller than
what an observer measures. We show that the above-mentioned spherical
lens is non-dispersive practically.

Optical justification
---------------------
Predictionand of deviation of the stars light when passing
by the sun is one of the most important works done by the general
relativity which afterwards was confirmed by practical measurements.
The performed experiments also showed that the speed of an
electromagnetic
wave passing beside the sun was decreased, while the general relativity
was not able to justify it yet. At last Shapiro could obtain this time
delay as a result of the general relativity.

In this article we present optical justification of the above two
observed phenomena. This justification in a very simple manner covers
both the deviation and speed reduction of the light together. The basis
of this justification is considering the sun and the atmosphere around
it, which totally form a gaseous spherical volume, as an optical
spherical lens (of course one that its refractive index increases
going toward the center) causing the deviation of light and also
decrease of its speed inside the lens.

The sun, up to a high height from its surface, has an atmosphere which
becomes more rarefied regularly as this height is increased. For
simplicity suppose that this atmosphere consists of two layers with
refractive indices n1 and n2, as shown in Fig. 1, such that
n2n1n0. It is natural that the light ray in its passing across the
surface S1 will be refracted inward, and in passing across the
surface S2 will be again refracted inward, and this ray after passing
from its minimum distance from the sun will be refracted outward
in its next passing across the surfaces S2 and S1. The result of these
successive refractions, because of the spherical shape of the surfaces,
is the deflection of the ray in passing through the sun atmosphere
as if the ray has been attracted by the sun. It is obvious that this
simple model furthermore predicts that the speed of the light ray
decreases in the vicinity of the sun surface because of its positioning
in optical denser mediums.

------------------------.//--^^^^^^--\.
_,/' `\_ '\,_
/' `\_ '\
S1/' _.,---~\-,_ `\
/ S2,/' \ '\, \
| ,' .,,. \ `\ |
| | /' '\ \ `. |
n0( n1( n2( SUN ) \ ) )
| . \, ,/ \ ,' |
\ ' `''` /' |
\ `\,_ _/'| /'
\_ `?------?' | _/
`, | ,/
`'-,._ _|- '
`'---------'`/
/'
/'
/'
/'
Fig. 1

We made use of two known physical subjects implicitly in the above
analysis:
The first, this fact that the distribution of the density of gas
molecules
in a gravitational field is such that approaching the center of the
gravitational attraction, density of the gas increases. A similar
analysis for the gaseous molecules of the earth atmosphere yields the
relation n=n0exp(-mgh/(kt)) for the density of the molecules of the
earth
atmosphere relative to the height from the ground in a one molar column
of the gas. This relation in which n is the number of molecules in the
unit volume at the height h from the ground and n0 is this number on
the ground and m is the mass of each gas molecule, indicates very well
that approaching the center of the gravitation attraction the density
of the gaseous molecules increases. Therefore, it is quite obvious
that the gradient of the density of the gaseous atmosphere of the sun
is such that the density increases approaching the center of the sun.

The second subject being that we made use of the law of Gladstone and
Dale too. This law gives the relation (n-1)/rho=constant for the
variations of the refractive index, n, with the density of the gas,
rho. It is clear from this relation that for a gas, the more the
density of the gas is, the more the refractive index related to it
will be. Therefore, according to the first subject we conclude that
there exists the same centerward gradient for the refractive index as
predicted for the density of the molecules of the sun atmosphere,
ie, approaching the center of the sun the refractive index increases.

It is clear that study on the observed deviations and measured time
delays can be a useful aid in order to investigate the quality and
quantity of the atmosphere around any celestial body under
consideration.

Attention to some other points related to the discussion is useful.
As we can see in Fig. 2 it is probable that the celestial lens a
focuses
the real (inverted) image of the star b in the position c, and an
earthy
observer in d indeed observes this image in c.

b
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ .//--^^^^^^--\. \
_,/' `\,_
/' / \ '\
/' , , `\
/ , , \
| ` .,,. ` |
| | /' '\ | |
a ( | ( ) | )
| | \, ,/ | |
\ . `''` . |
\ , , /'
\_ , , _/
`, , , ,/
` -,._ , -'`
\ ' --------- /
`\ /`
`\ /`
`\ /`
c`




*
d
Fig. 2

But of course according to Fig. 3 it is more probable that the image of
a
far star is focused on a line rather than a point.

| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | .// ^^^^^^--\. | | |
| | |,/' '\,| | |
| |/'| |`\| |
| /| | | |\ |
|/ | | | | \|
| | | .,,. | | |
|| | | /' '\ | | ||
(| | | ( ) | | |)
|| | | \, ,/ | | )|
\\ \ \ `''` / / |
\, , , , , ,'
\\ \ \ / / _/
\, \ \ / /,//
\`'\,.\ / -/' /
\ \ \''---------'/ / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\ /
\ /
\/

Fig. 3

The situation is exactly the same referred to as gravitational lens
with multiple image.

Another point being that as we see in Fig. 4, i and j are the limit
rays
and then an observer in b measures the angular magnitude of the sphere
a equal to q not p (in other words he or she observes a part of the
back of the sphere too).

.//--^^^`^^^--\\.
_,/' '\,_
/' n `\
/' `\
/ \
| .,-,. |
| ,/'/' '\'\, |
( /` ( a ) `\ )
| i ,` |\, ,/| `, j |
\ . ` ` - ' ` . /
\\ | \ / | //
\\_ | \ / | _//
\ `, . \ / . ,` /
\ `'\,._ ` ` _.,/'` /
\ \ `'-\--.--/-'` / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\----------r----------/
\ `. | | .` /
\ \-----q-----/ /
\ \ \ / / /
\ \ \ / / /
\ ` \ / ` /
\ \ \ / / /
\` |p| `/
\``, ,``/
\`| |`/
\| |/
\ /
*
b
Fig. 4

Therefore, eg certainly the observed angular magnitude of the sun is
larger
than the real one, regardless of the effect of the atmosphere of the
earth
which is a compensating one.

Supposing that the sphere a is not radiant but has yet the above
mentioned
centerward condensing atmosphere n, if the angular magnitude of the
sphere
a is to be obtained by measuring its apparent cover on the background
far stars, then the rays only outside the angle q will be observable by
b, and in fact b measures the angular magnitude of the sphere equal to
q
again. It is obvious that this angular magnitude can be as large as r
(ie the angular magnitude of the atmosphere around the sphere a) at
most.
Therefore, if such a sphere exists, it will darken an area of the sky
which its apparent angular magnitude is q (which is larger than the
real
angular magnitude p and smaller than the angular magnitude of the
atmosphere, r). Since at the most q is equal to r, such a (dark) sphere
is not distinguishable at very far distances (because at these
distances
r approaches zero).


POINT:
-----
General Relativity predicts existence of black holes which according to
it
they attract any light of themselves or passing nearby. I think the
scientists believing black holes don't notice that every one of such
black
holes must have such a huge volume as covering exactly the same
(probably)
observed dark extent around the center of the black hole (and if so,
then
the term hole, implying a relatively small space, will be unfit).
My reason: Suppose that 'a' in Fig. 5 is a small (point) black hole.

|| 2r |
||-------|
l|| |
V| |
\\ /'
`\\ a /'
`\*'
`\
`\
Fig. 5

Suppose that every light beam passing through the column 2r will be
attracted and absorbed by 'a'. Since there are numerous columns of this
kind in every direction from numerous stars in space, there will be
numerous light beam of the kind 'l' in Fig. 5, passing nearby, in every
direction. It is clear that such light beams prevent the space around
'a' being observed dark unless we suppose that the volume of 'a' itself
is very large.


But how can the solar atmosphere, as the observations show, be
non-dispersive? Surely if we can consider the solar lens as a small
lens or prism in an optical laboratory and allow a narrow beam of
some non-monochromatic light to pass through it (not towards its
center), then we must expect dispersion of the light passed through
the (solar) lens due to its refraction in the lens. But that such a
dispersion is not observable when observing the stars light passing
beside the sun is because of this fact that it is not only a single
narrow beam of the light of a star that reaches the sun but numerous
beams of its light reach the sun parallel to one another. The reason
of their parallelism is that the star is distant from the sun very
much.
In this manner instead of a single beam which may pass through a lens
in an optical laboratory, we are here dealing with numerous parallel
beams. According to the justification related to Fig. 1, these beams
when passing through the sun's atmosphere (or in other words when
passing beside the sun) are deflected into different directions in
proportion to their distances from the sun's center. It is natural
that each beam is also dispersed in the solar lens simultaneous with
its deflection. Then, we shall have numerous differently oriented
deflected beams each of which simultaneously dispersed, after passing
of the beams through the sun's atmosphere. It is clear that different
dispersions of different deflected beams (related to the primary
parallel beams adjacent to each other) will be intermingled with each
other (eg the rays a and b in Fig. 6 that have different wavelengths
are mixed with each other due to their parallelism), and consequently
an earthy observer won't observe any dispersion but only the deflection

of the beam will be observable for him or her; indeed this is just
the same reason that why in an optical laboratory the phenomenon of
separation of different wavelengths of a sufficiently thick beam of
some non-monochromatic light is not observed in the middle part of the
beam after its refraction in a prism (or a spherical lens).

| |
| |
| |
V V
| |
| |
_.,-----,._ |
,/' `\, |
,' __ `\
.' /' `\ ,
( ( SUN ) )
` \, ,/ ,'
`, '' /'
`\,. .//,'
`?------?'/' '
_--~/'/' /
_,--' /'/' /
,--' /'/' ,
,--' /'/' ,'
,--' /'/' ,'
,--~ /'/' ,'
a b

Fig. 6

But what can we say about the deviation observed for the stars light
passing far from the sun (to the extent of the radius of the rotation
of earth about the sun)?

I am not certain that there is not any gaseous materials, even very
rare,
in the space between the earth and sun. It seems irrational to consider

this space as a perfect vacuum. We can consider such a gaseous space,
if there exists, as a kind of atmosphere for the sun.

But let's see the problem differently. In the 4th article of this book
I have proven, at least as I think, the existence of very tiny
particles
playing role of the vehicle for propagation of electromagnetic waves.
I named these particles as ether. There, it has been shown that this
ether
is attracted by celestial bodies (under the influence of gravitation).
Ordinary matter (eg gas) is also attracted by these bodies. It is
rational to consider the same gradient of density for this ether
around the sun as the gradient of density of the gas (as stated above).

Thus, we conclude that wherever we have dense ordinary matter we should

also have dense ether.

Considering the law of Gladstone and Dale (mentioned above) this
necessitates to conclude that the more the density of ether is,
the more the refractive index related to it will be. And considering
our previous conclusion (stating that the gradients of density of gas
and ether around the sun are similar) we can conclude that if a
celestial body has no atmosphere but only attracts the ether around
itself (even to the extent as far as the distance between the earth
and sun) the light passing near the body will be bent in the same
manner as described in this article because the ether around the body
has the same gradient of density as mentioned in the article.
(In other words maybe a celestial body has an ethereal atmosphere
without having ordinary atmosphere.)

Anyway, while astronomical researchs and measurements have proven that
the solar corona has indeed an expansion up to the earth (having a
density
of the order of 10 to 20 particles per cubic centimeter near the earth
(while near the sun is of the order of one billion particles per cubic
centimeter)), accepting the original model presented in this article,
ie considering the atmosphere of the sun as expanded as reaching the
earth is more reasonable.

Hamid V. Ansari


The contents of the book "Great Mistakes of the Physicists":

0 Physics without Modern Physics
1 Geomagnetic field reason
2 Compton effect is a Doppler effect
3 Deviation of light by Sun is optical
4 Stellar aberration with ether drag
5 Stern-Gerlach experiment is not quantized
6 Electrostatics mistakes; Capacitance independence from dielectric
7 Surface tension theory; Glaring mistakes
8 Logical justification of the Hall effect
9 Actuality of the electric current
10 Photoelectric effect is not quantized
11 Wrong construing of the Boltzmann factor; E=hnu is wrong
12 Wavy behavior of electron beams is classical
13 Electromagnetic theory without relativity
14 Cylindrical wave, wave equation, and mistakes
15 Definitions of mass and force; A critique
16 Franck-Hertz experiment is not quantized
17 A wave-based polishing theory
18 What the electric conductor is
19 Why torque on stationary bodies is zero
A1 Solution to four-color problem
A2 A proof for Goldbach's conjecture

My email addresses: hamidvansariatyahoodotcom or
hvansariatgmaildotcom
To see all the articles send an email to one of my above-mentioned
email addresses.

wrote:
3 Deviation of stars light by Sun is optical

Much of what you say is well known. But some parts are just plain wrong,
and you come to a completely incorrect conclusion. OF COURSE a solar
atmosphere could be a lens for light that passes close to the sun; the
issue is: how large of an effect is this compared to the predicted
effect of GR? Numerous other computations come to the opposite
conclusion -- it is much smaller than the GR effect.

First, note that we can MEASURE the density of gas from the sun near the
earth, and from that compute its index of refraction and know its
effects are negligible near and outside the orbit of earth. Yet VLBI
observations show gravitational lensing from the sun at angles greater
than 90 degrees from the sun -- for which the line-of-sight to the
distant object is always further from the sun than is the earth, and
therefore the effects due to the index of refraction of the solar
atmosphere are negligible. Like observations near the sun, these are in
good agreement with the predictions of GR.

Second, your argument about lack of dispersion is just plain wrong. Yes,
for a casual observer looking into a prism with a wide light beam
entering, no color separation is observed in the middle of the beam. But
that is not what astronomers do. Astronomers have highly directional
telescopes, and if you looked into that prism with micro-radian
precision you would indeed see color separation (in effect the angular
resolution of the telescope turns the wide input beam into a narrow
one). Your eyes are not telescopes, and do not have the requisite
angular resolution; modern astronomical instruments do.

Neither Shapiro delay nor the gravitational lensing by the sun are
explained by the atmosphere of the sun. Indeed, simple arguments based
on the equivalence principle show there must be SOME gravitational
lensing; they obtain only half the observed effect because they don't
take into account the full geometrical effects of gravitation.

And, of course, if you insist on it being optical effects, you must TUNE
the "effects" you claim to be almost precisely the values predicted by
GR -- unless you have an independent method of computing the index of
refraction(etc.), you have no leg to stand on; your paper gives no such
independent computation. Until you can justify your claim that optical
effects are MUCH larger than other computations of them, your claims are
irrelevant.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...


| And, of course, if you insist on it being optical effects, you must TUNE
| the "effects" you claim to be almost precisely the values predicted by
| GR --


Ahahahaha!

There are exactly 300 apples on all apple trees. If you miscounted them,
TUNE your "effects" to suit my theory, because YOU made an error.shrug

In sci.astro Tom Roberts wrote:
wrote:
3 Deviation of stars light by Sun is optical

[...]
And, of course, if you insist on it being optical effects, you must TUNE
the "effects" you claim to be almost precisely the values predicted by
GR -- unless you have an independent method of computing the index of
refraction(etc.), you have no leg to stand on; your paper gives no such
independent computation.

More than that -- he would have to explain why the observed dependence of
the deflection on the angle from the Sun ("solar elongation angle" of the
source whose light is being measured) agrees with the predictions of GR.

The usual introductory textbook derivation of deflection of light by the
Sun usually computes the deflection for a beam just grazing the Sun's
surface, for which the deflection is largest. But light passing quite
far from the Sun is still deflected; the deflection is smaller, but still
easily measurable by VLBI for radio sources even more than 90 degrees from
the Sun.

Shapiro et al. have a nice paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101) in
which they look at over a million measurements, with 541 radio sources and
87 VLBI sites. This is enough data that they can successively drop out
sources with lines of sight within 10 degrees of the Sun, 20 degrees,
30 degrees, on up to 90 degrees. The error bars get bigger -- both because
the deflection is smaller and because there are fewer measurements -- but
there is no sign of any deviation from the GR prediction. Even restricting
to sources at lines of sight at least 40 degrees from the Sun, the errors
are only about 2%.

If one wants to explain this as being due to the Sun's atmosphere, one must
claim not only that the atmosphere extends *far* beyond the Sun (picture a
light ray passing 40 degrees from the Sun...), but also that the density of
this enormous, previously unnoticed "atmosphere" just happens to vary in
exactly the right way to precisely reproduce the predictions of GR.

Steve Carlip

Dear carlip-nospam:

wrote in message
...
....
If one wants to explain this as being due to the Sun's
atmosphere, one must claim not only that the
atmosphere extends *far* beyond the Sun (picture a
light ray passing 40 degrees from the Sun...), but also
that the density of this enormous, previously unnoticed
"atmosphere" just happens to vary in exactly the right
way to precisely reproduce the predictions of GR.

And to do that in such a way that Venus and Mercury are not
dropped into the Sun by drag, and still not displace the light
from the object through this now moving medium. A moving medium
would also alter the apparent position of the distant object
(Fizeau).

Yes, a real feat of tweaking...

David A. Smith

wrote:

Deviation of stars light by Sun is optical
------------------------------------------

We consider the sun and its atmosphere as a spherical lens causing
deviation of stars light and also decrease of its speed in the lens.

What about the deviation of light by galaxies and galaxy clusters,
which is normally attributed to gravitational lensing? Would you claim
that this, too, is merely atmospheric refraction?

Mark