[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing an error. The sun throws of masses of particles creating the solar wind. These particles in there arrangement obviously refract light, thus giving the lensing effect. Given the sun is round and emmisions are constant they are densest at the surface and become more dilute as they travel farther from the sun. Is this enough to create the lensinfg seen in observations of solar lensing ? Mirages are a good comparison where line of sight is not needed.

[Kryptid]

The amount of distortion matched the mathematical predictions of relativistic gravitational lensing. If you're going to challenge that, then you'll need to demonstrate that the amount of distortion that the solar wind could cause would be equal to that.

Besides, the Sun isn't the only object known to produce gravitational lensing (galaxies as a whole have been recorded as producing the same effect): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

[Janus]

In addition,  refraction produces chromatic aberration.  Different frequencies of light have different angles of refraction. If the bending of light passing the Sun were due to refraction, it would produce a rainbow fringing effect. 

Then you need to consider that even lower levels of the Corona the density is  only 1.39e-12 that of the density at the surface of the Earth.   Light skimming the Earth's surface would be refracted by the atmosphere by just over 1 degree. 
The predicted bending of light due to gravitational lensing of the Sun is 1.7 sec or 0.00047 of a degree.   So the expected refraction due a solar atmosphere with a density so much less than air at the surface of the Earth would be really, really small compared to the predicted and measured gravitational lensing.

The short of it is that, if the atmosphere of the Sun produced a significant enough refraction to interfere with gravitational lensing measurements, astronomers would be well aware of the fact.  It is not the type of thing that they would overlook.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

But increaced temperature far increaces the bending  effect, the atmosphere of the sun is very hot indeed, the heat is why mirages can cover huge distances, a city 200 miles away can appear, that is far over the horizon.

[PmbPhy]

Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing an error.

Lensing isn't proof of relativity. It's merely an observation which is consistent with a prediction of relativity.

[Janus]

But increaced temperature far increaces the bending  effect, the atmosphere of the sun is very hot indeed, the heat is why mirages can cover huge distances, a city 200 miles away can appear, that is far over the horizon.

Such mirages are caused by  steep thermal inversions. In other words when you have a fairly sharp transition between a lower cool layer of air and a warmer upper layer.  It is not just a matter of warmer air temp.  It is also a temporary and localized effect.
On the other hand, here is a negative of the Eddington photo, with the horizontal dashes marking out the stars used to measured the deflection.

They are at different positions and distances from the Sun, and would not have been subject to the same mirage effect.  And suggest each of these stars were subject to different thermal inversion effects, that all just happened to produce results matching the predicted gravitational lensing, is beyond ridiculous.

[Bored chemist]

But increaced temperature far increaces the bending  effect,

No
A hot gas will expand and that will reduce the density.
The refractive index will fall along with the density and, as has been pointed out, it's already very low.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I do not have a answer for the spetral scattering point, but stars from further from the sun would experience far less positional distortion than those in the close vecinity of the atmosphere of the sun, as the plasma dilutes and temperature drops.

But then again gravitational lensing is noticed around black holes, and they are not known for there spherical edjections of heat and matter, these being reversed in to a the case of a black hole, which is why they are called black holes . Is this lensing the same effect as is experienced by light round a star and consistant with relativity or has it another reason that it is different ?

Is the proof of relativity via gravitational lensing an error.

Lensing isn't proof of relativity. It's merely an observation which is consistent with a prediction of relativity.

Well pointed out.

[Bored chemist]

Is this lensing the same effect as is experienced by light round a star and consistant with relativity

Just to save you time later.
Every single observation ever made in science , nature and art has always been consistent with relativity.

However, as you point out, your idea that the atmosphere of a star causes lensing is not consistent with the properties of  stars, nor with the fact that black holes  act as lenses.

Your idea is dead.

[mad aetherist]

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

However the gravitational bending found inside of & outside of 3 deg doesn't suffer any associated rainbowing. Einstein's GR doesn't predict rainbowing, in fact it might be ok to say that it predicts zero rainbowing. This is a worry for us aetherists, however aetheric explanations for gravitational bending too do not result in rainbowing. Our problem then being that the simplest aetheric explanation yields only 0.87 arcsec of bending, ie only a half of the measured Einsteinian 1.750 arcsec.  The aetheric 0.87 arcsec happens to be equal to the ballistic explanation-calculation carried out by Soldner in about 1804.

The Einstein's equations etc for bending are based on his General Relativity idea that light is slowed near mass due to gravitational potential. Einstein's GR explanation is silly & wrong, it has no micro foundation, his explanation is merely a macro math-trick to help to maintain his Special Relativity assumption that c appears to be constant.

He says that gravity changes clock rate (ticking)(called time dilation)(TD), & that gravity also changes lengths (called length contraction)(LC) in the radial directions from the object. Thusly he says that TD slows the speed of light in every direction at any point, & LC slows the speed of light in the 2 radial directions at that point (ie both the inwards c & the outwards c). Each effect (TD & LC) contributes 0.87 arcsec of bending, adding to 1.75 arcsec.

Einstein uses the Huygens bending equation (which is based on the slowing of light in media, giving bending)(ie refraction) to calculate an equivalent bending-refraction based on the slowing of light (in vacuum) near mass.  Bending in media we know gives rainbowing, but Einstein's bending near mass we know (radio wave VLBI measurements) doesn't give rainbowing.

Slowing near mass might indeed be true, but Einstein's silly SR & GR theory re the cause of such slowing cannot be true (in fact Einstein does not mention a real possible cause)(his psuedo-cause is merely a clever math-trick to make apparent c = c). The answer as to what causes slowing (ie a real slowing)(not just an apparent slowing) will have an aetheric explanation (if indeed such slowing exists). Still thinking.

[PmbPhy]

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

That doesn't mean that its large enough to be measurable whereas the actual bending of light by the suns gravitational field is exactly the amount predicted by GR.
Yet general rela

[mad aetherist]

The gravitational bending-deflexion-lensing of starlight is a worry for us anti-Einsteinians. The bending of starlight due to gradual refraction in the plasma of the Sun's corona is well known & can be identified by the associated rainbowing (this bending-refraction-rainbowing falls to nearnuff zero at about 3 deg off the Sun).

That doesn't mean that its large enough to be measurable whereas the actual bending of light by the suns gravitational field is exactly the amount predicted by GR. Yet general rela

My wording is clumsy.  Yes Einstein predicted the modern figure of 1.750 arcsec. And this 1.750 arcsec is rainbow-free. Aetherists come up with 0.87 arcsec, ie half the true value -- & getting this up to 1.75 arcsec requires one or two non-simple additional postulates re the aether. All of that would need a new thread.