sci.physics.particle

On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, "Sue..." wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:04 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> > I mentioned the solar atmosphere because some people think the Shapiro
> > time delay is due to it (such an atmosphere has an altitude-varying
> > index of refraction, which _could_ behave like the Shapiro time delay).
> > It's just that actual measurements of the solar atmosphere and its
> > properties completely refute that claim.
>
> Another way to look at it is that GR *predicts* the
> solar plasma because energy density has a relation
> to a volume of space-time.
>
> Bruno Bertotti seemed to have learned more about solar
> plasma than light bending from the Cassini path, IMHO.
>
> <>http://www.universetoday.com/2003/10/03/cassini-confirms-general-rela...
>
> << The plasma noise is highly variable over all time
> scales, depending primarily on solar activity, in par-
> ticular solar flares, coronal holes, and solar rotation.
> Because of stochastic plasma variability, the real as-
> sessment of how well the dual-band plasma correction
> works can be determined only by doing it. >>
> "Measurement of the PPN Parameter with Radio Signals
> from the Cassini Spacecraft at X- and Ka-Bands"http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/papers/0305.PDF
>
> << It is interesting to note that, since plasma
> effects near the Sun need to be eliminated to
> better than one part in 10^4, the usual expression
> for the frequency correction (7) (where L is
> the optical path with suitable refractive index)
> is not accurate enough. Relativistic corrections
> O.v=c/ are needed, in particular the one arising
> from the difference between the emission and
> the receiving time. The fully relativistic
> expression of the Doppler effect in a moving medium
> has been derived with the Hamiltonian formalism in [31]. >>
> "Doppler Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection"http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~giacomo/Papers/doppler_abs.html
>
> It may be a half full glass to some, a half empty glass
> to others but I see little in that to "completely refute"
> the effects of the solar plasma.
>
> Sue...

Good for you and others of your open mindset kind. I'm on your side
of this topic rant that's giving further consideration as to why
photons that supposedly have zero mass, and yet still manage to
interact with the likes of our sun.
. - Brad Guth