<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regarding gravitational lensing, I admit to having
made similar assumptions as you. The total optical path from the actual
source star (behind) the mass, past it to us, should be very similar, although I
may have (poorly) assumed that the source star is centered behind it from our
perspective. Logically, it is likely offset a little. But I think
that would still make the four images tthe same magnitude and spectra, but
instead of a perfect circle (which I had assumed), the four images must be
exactly on an ellipse.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You have really lit me up regarding your thought
that the Sun's alleged GR shifting of images of stars closely behind it, may
instead be due to optical refraction of the Sun's Corona. We know that the
length of a day is significantly longer due to our Earth's atmosphere "raising"
the image of the Sun by slightly more than a full Sun diameter at both sunrise
and sunset (actually, about 50 arc-minutes for both). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Has anyone ever measured the optical Refractive
Index of different levels of the Sun's Corona? I am tempted to think that
no one has because they have assumed that it is irrelevant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I love the potential implications of your
insight.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>