How did Einstein account for sun atmosphere refraction during that famous eclipse that backed him up?

[giordano bruno]

Our teacher was explaining us relativity history when one of my coestudents made an interesting question:

Wouldnt the huge sun helium atmosphere cause refraction and hence move the star any way?

The teacher seemd lost to this question but soon he answered that Einstein knew the exact amount of refraction and accounted for it to measure gravitational lensing

So my question is how did Eisntein know the exact amount of refraction caused by the sun atmosphere if it hadnt been measured before and how did he distinguished it from gravitational lensing

And how much of the movenment of that star during that eclipse was due to suns atmosphere refraction and how much due to gravitational lensing?

Edited January 21, 2017 by giordano bruno

[Strange]

It wasn't Einstein that did this experiment. It was Eddington.

 

The sun doesn't have a "helium atmosphere".

 

The outer layer of the suns atmosphere (the corona) has a density about 1 billionth that of the Earth's atmosphere. So any refractive effects would be minimal.

 

I think (but don't know for sure) that the stars measured were much further away than the corona anyway.

 

However, the 1919 experiment is generally considered to be pretty flawed and inconclusive. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. It has been repeated since then with much better results. And, of course, there is a lot of other, much better, evidence for GR anyway.

[giordano bruno]

I found this researching the subject:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1467.pdf

 

BENDING OF LIGHT NEAR A STAR: THE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION 3.1 THE PRINCIPLE: DEVIATION DUE TO REFRACTION Refraction of light rays is a well known optics-phenomenon [27]. This provides an alternative explanation of bending of light near a star. When light ray, from space (near vacuum), enters the star’s atmosphere (medium); the light ray bends near the star due to refraction. To illustrate the bending due to refraction, consider a spherical water-droplet as shown in Figure(1.a). When light ray enters from lighter medium (air) to denser medium (water), the droplet works as prism and thus the light-ray bends due to refraction. Similarly, when light ray enters from space-vacuum (lighter medium) to star’s atmosphere (denser medium) it bends due to refraction as shown in Figure(1.b). The atmosphere extends to great heights, it becomes rarer and rarer, however; a reasonable equivalent height is shown in the figure. The amount of bending (maximum deviation) can be estimated semi-empirically (δ = 2(µ − 1) as shown in section 3.3) as follows. Consider the limiting case when the light ray enters the atmosphere touching at point A and leaves touching at point C. The incident ray touches at i = 900 & refraction angle is r at point A and vice-versa at point C as shown in Figure- 2. The angle r is thus critical angle (µ = 1 sinr ), and for maximum deviation the line AC touches the star-core at point B. From the star-geometry of Figure-2, Cosec® = R / R where R/ & R are atmospheric-radius and core-radius of the star. Thus µ = R / R = (R+h) R = 1 + h R where h is the equivalent-height of atmosphere above the star-core (estimated in the following section 3.2). For max deviation situation (Figure-2) thus,

 

 

ESTIMATION OF BENDING (DEVIATION) OF LIGHT NEAR A STAR DUE TO REFRACTION-PHENOMENON The angular deviation at entry point A (Figure(2)) is (i − r), and similar deviation of the ray occurs at exit point C. So, the total deviation (bending) δ = 2(i − r). From optics consideration and using simplification & approximation, and also noting that deviation is more for higher µ & that there is no-deviation for µ = 1; it can be shown that deviation (i − r) ≈ (µ − 1). Hence the expressions for total deviation δ are given as in Eq. 5, as in Eq. 6 (using Eqs. 5 & 3) and as in Eq. 7 (using Eqs. 6 & 4): δ = 2(µ − 1) (5) = χ (6) = 2kGM c 2R (7) The total deviation (bending of light) δ = 2kGM c 2R given by Eq. 7 is same (for fuzz factor k = 2) as that predicted by the celebrated general-relativity and found experimentally correct. The approach (physics) of the present explanation, however, is altogether different and is much simpler. The new approach is based on the commonly well-known phenomenon of refraction of light; there is, however, a fuzz-factor k to account for uncertainty such as in estimation of star’s atmospheric height & its refractive index. The authors aim to emphasize that though refraction-phenomenon approach and general-relativity approach are in agreement as far as result is concerned but the physics of both the approaches are quite different. 3.4 GRAVITATIONAL-LENSING (IN NEW LIGHT AS REFRACTION-BENDING) In perspective of refraction phenomenon discussed for bending of light, the so called gravitational-lensing [29] is in fact ‘real’ refraction-lensing of light due to refraction through atmospheric-layer of star or galaxy (note-both star & galaxy are surrounded with cloud of gases/materials, both can cause refraction-bending of light and thus lensing). In fact the word ‘lensing’ here literally means real lensing (bending of light due to refraction). But through optical-lens deviation occurs with some dispersion too, causing chromatic aberration. It is expected that here too, if the lensing is due to refraction (as said in the present paper), a little dispersion (chromatic aberration) can also occur which may possibly be found experimentally. The sky as if will look more colorful, and it is the color which will differentiate between the object & its image.

 

 

edit:

 

In Asimovs End of Eternity theres a conspiracy to supress space travel to keep getting advantage of time travel

 

Relativity is the thing that makes no worth bothering to try to go to the stars

Edited January 21, 2017 by giordano bruno

[Strange]

I found this researching the subject:

 

 

I wouldn't trust that (presumably unpublished) paper. There are a number of errors in the first few paragraphs.

 

 

According to Einstein, gravity is ‘not a real force’, but an artifact of curvature. But our everyday physical experience is contrary to that and tells that gravity is a real-force.

 

The whole point of science is to get away from this sort of subjective judgment.

 

 

‘Gravity is a real-force and could have electrostatic-origin’ is rather indirectly confirmed through the famous Millikan’s oil-drop experiment [6] wherein the gravitational-force is balanced with the Coulomb’s repulsion on the electro-statically charged tiny oil-drops.

 

This is wrong for a whole variety of reasons. For example, the Millikan oil drop experiment works because the drop of oil is given a net charge, while most matter has zero net charge.

 

Further, we can block the electromagnetic force but not gravity.

 

Neutrons have no charge but contribute a significant amount of the mass (and hence gravitation) of most matter.

 

There are many more reasons why this cannot be true.

[Mordred]

Oh my no I definitely wouldn't trust this article. Especially since we detected G waves that matched the spin 2 prediction while the electromagnetic is spin 1. Which a detailed analysis is completely missing in the above paper. This paper simply doesn't have enough weight even mathematically to counter all the tests of relativity even in terms of gravitational redshift.

 

Strange already mentioned other key details. Thankfully not all peer reviewed papers are necessarily correct.

 

This paper for one doesn't even recognize curved spacetime so its analysis of photons requiring inertial mass is incorrect.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Mordred

[zztop]

I found this researching the subject:

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1467.pdf

This is a severely crackpot paper, has no business being in arxiv. Refraction is frequency dependent, so , white (star)light , by virtue of being composed of a large spectrum of frequencies, would exhibit DIFFERENT bending for each frequency. This is NOT what is being observed. The authors of the paper are ignorant cranks.

A little checking confirms the authors to being heavy duty cranks:

 

[32] R.C. Gupta, A. Pradhan and Sushant Gupta, ‘A Novel Concept for Mass as Complex-Mass towards Wave-particle Duality’, Infinite Energy, Issue 101, 40-48, (2012), [arXiv:physics/1001.4647, (2010)].

 

[33] R.C. Gupta, ‘Fabric of Universe is not like that of the Emperor’s Cloth!

www.wbabin.net/physics/gupta1.pdf, (2008).

Edited January 22, 2017 by zztop

[Mordred]

Lol I could probably write a more accurate and better quality article in my sleep.

[StringJunky]

Lol I could probably write a more accurate and better quality article in my sleep.

... and drunk. It's bollocks.

Edited January 22, 2017 by StringJunky

[Hipaso]

I dont understand very well that article but indeed the sun has an atmosphere and an atmosphere is bound to cause refraction, so seems that the thing that made Einstein got the nobel prize didnt have the slightest optic back up yet now he is your god

 

but what strikes me its how this society manages to keep people submitted and sheeple like

 

anything that goes against the stablishment is cranck and hence ultimately whats wrong is just going against the stablishment, so youre argument is that just going against the stablished is wrong because is crackpottery

 

the sad thing is had the nazies won the war you would be saying that article is wrong because that guys are subhuman and you would provide some pictures that shew the colour of his skin

 

is not anny different taking as granted a crackpot is wrong as a black guy is wrong

Also as that crank points in his article the sky at night is pretty colourfull due to refractional lensing chromatic aberration not plain white as einstein would expect with his gravitational lensing:

 

 

of course you may argue that colour is from doppler effect and expected by einstein

 

this means eisntein takes two assumptions that light is bent by gravity and that light has colour by its speed limit

 

while this guy explains both light bending and colour with a single phenomena of refraction

 

so by pure occams razor this guy reasoning is better

 

of course science is an authority thing where einstein is the top as the pope is the top for catholics and neither cant be wrong for their followers

 

so einstein takes more and more assumptions and a cranck simplifies thing to a single assumption

 

so what he is a crank so he is wrong and i prefer dogmatism to crackpottery

Edited January 23, 2017 by Hipaso

[Strange]

Einstein didn't get his Nobel for work on GR. And, as pointed out you before, there are many better experiments that confirm GR.

And refraction is not the reason for the colours in the sky, as you were told before.

[Hipaso]

Yeah I was expecting that, better experiments to confirm a ship can not travel faster than litle speed so we can not go to the stars

 

You know Ill tell you a little anecdote that shows that this experiments dont deserve the slightest credibility but as you read it in a paper you believe it cause your gullible:

 

Im a noctamble and sometimes I watch tv at night

 

Once I watched a documental on Arthur C Clarcke retirement in an asiatic country

 

To my shock in a moment of the documnetal Arthur C Clarcke admitted about being a pedophile but justified himself saying he only had sex with puber willingly childs in exchange of money

 

Certainly Clarcke had sick eyes behind the glasse that memory will remain

 

Researching on this documental i saw at night i found out it had been recorded im not very sure now if by the sun or the daily mirror to which they publish it in the paper news

 

To the requirement of the interpol for this tape they couldnt provided it yet i saw it on tv at high night so they had to apologize

 

Apparently Arthur C Clarcke was made an english lord some months later

 

So if they can falsify the most basic and evident and spreaded piece of news why wouldnt be able to phalsify any experiment made by a few people

 

the op points of Asimovs end of eternity ive been checking it and found this:

 

One of the main themes is that space-travel, a staple in Asimov's other science fiction works, has been repeatedly stomped out in order to preserve the status quo and keep humanity on Earth (not out of sheer malice — but because advances in space travel always seem to coincide with increased drug use, crime etc, so these advances are undone "for the greater good".)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A sockpuppet responding to another sockpuppet. Yeah, we're done here.