Sobral 1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by theMoons gravity

On Aug 18, 12:18 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
PD and Jerry have **** for brain. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry
agree with the theses **** heads? shrug

Your claim is that a pure gradient refractive index lens, with
no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead will
merely displace an incident beam without changing its direction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought experiment for you.

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

Jerry

On 18/08/2011 08:28, Jerry wrote:
On Aug 18, 12:18 am, Koobee wrote:
PD and Jerry have **** for brain. Does any other Einstein Dingleberry
agree with the theses **** heads?shrug

Your claim is that a pure gradient refractive index lens, with
no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead will
merely displace an incident beam without changing its direction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought experiment for you.

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

Or for a real observational example Titan (which at the time came as a
bit of a surprise to professional astronomers). When Titan occulted
28Sag in 1989 there was an amateur observatory on centreline that
observed a very much stronger mid event brightening than was predicted
from diffraction alone. This focussing effect was strong evidence for a
much denser atmosphere on Titan than was suspected at the time.

A video clip of the actual event with timing inset is online at
http://astrotalkuk.org/2008/05/06/episode-14titan/

If he hadn't got the video evidence of it he would probably not have
been believed. We now know from probes that Titans atmosphere is mostly
nitrogen and surface pressure is more than on Earth.

There are some interesting recent articles about the 50th anniversary of
Yuri Gugarin's trip to the UK and unveiling of a replica statue too.
Actually the archive link seems so slow you may as well go to the root
page where at present it is still the most recent item.

http://astrotalkuk.org/

Declaring an interest.
The author is a friend and I think he is doing a great job. He manages
to interview a fair number of UK astronomers (and visitors to the UK).

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 18, 3:41*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

Or for a real observational example Titan (which at the time came as a
bit of a surprise to professional astronomers). When Titan occulted
28Sag in 1989 there was an amateur observatory on centreline that
observed a very much stronger mid event brightening than was predicted
from diffraction alone. This focussing effect was strong evidence for a
much denser atmosphere on Titan than was suspected at the time.

A video clip of the actual event with timing inset is online at
http://astrotalkuk.org/2008/05/06/episode-14titan/

Wow!!! Thanks!!!

If he hadn't got the video evidence of it he would probably not have
been believed. We now know from probes that Titans atmosphere is mostly
nitrogen and surface pressure is more than on Earth.

Jerry

and, remember, classical water waves also bend,
as around breakwaters; unfortunately,
folks are too caught-up in the rock o'light "photon"
interpretation, along with the Copenhagen reification
of the mere probabilities of particles, existing or not,
meow.

On Aug 18, 1:08*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
and, remember, classical water waves also bend,
as around breakwaters; unfortunately,
folks are too caught-up in the rock o'light "photon"
interpretation, along with the Copenhagen reification
of the mere probabilities of particles, existing or not,
meow.

The Sun's star light deflection came first and then the Moon's 9
minutes later. I am the first to see the moon's participation.

you are the first to think that you were the first
.... at nothing.

On Aug 18, 5:36*am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
yes, there's a whole study of "caustics," and
they are very nonlinear;
you are confusing the tracing of a single "ray"
of light, a single normal to the wavefront, and
your assertion may apply to one such path or another, but
not to the whole wave.

there are no photons, and there is no vacuum.

Maybe near enough to one hydrogen atom per cubic meter far between
galaxies.
Your definition of "vaccuum" would leave NO material in the universe.
Plenty of photons!
They are the little fellas that distribute the energy when the atom
bomb explodes,
and transfer matter and energy throughout the universe.

Jim G
c'=c+v
c'=c+v

yes, that's the "point;"
there are always some of them with which light
can interact, because that's what "electromagnetism" is. I mean,
what difference does it make, how far apart they are --
what are the qualitative properties of electronic orbitals,
between atoms at various distances?

"photon" is just a nice neologism d'Einstein,
which he chose to think-of as a "massless rock,"
in his equivocating over the aether.

Your definition of "vaccuum" would leave NO material in the universe.
Plenty of photons!