[mad aetherist (OP)]

Light bent by the Sun doesnt have a rainbow effect. All colors are bent equally.
If not then stars near the Sun would not be solid dots, the dots would be stretched in a radial direction, & the stretched dots would have a uniaxial color birefringence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

This lack of rainbow accords with Einsteinian GR. The faux-bending of light crossing an accelerating elevator must depend on acceleration not color.

The lack of rainbow also accords with aetherwind theory.  Here bending near the Sun is due to the accelerating aetherwind blowing into the Sun (where aether is annihilated), the photons propagating in the aether are carried with the aether & hencely have a bent traject.  All colors are carried equally, hencely no rainbow effect.

But my photaeno-drag theory says that gravity should yield a rainbow effect. Photaeno-drag says that photons are slowed near mass -- photaenos emanating from the passing free photons interfere with photaenos emanating from the confined photons of the Sun.  The slowing is greater on the near side of the passing photon & hencely the photon's traject bends towards the Sun.

Photaeno-drag gives us (1) the slowing of light near mass, (2) the slowing of light in air water glass due to (1)(a stronger version of (1)), (3) refraction (bending) at interfaces due to (1)&(2), & (4) diffraction (bending) at edges (eg slits) due to (1)&(2), & (5) bending (bending) near mass (eg Sun) due to (1).
Here there are three kinds of bending & all three depend on color (at least partly) & must yield a rainbow effect.

I say three kinds, but actually there is only one kind, photaeno-drag.
(1) & (2) dont give a rainbow in a uniform photaeno field, ie bending needs a varying photaeno field. U get such a field near the Sun (ie a greater density of photaenos nearer the Sun), & near an interface (unless the interface is at 90 deg).

So my photaeno-drag theory for bending near the Sun must give a rainbow, contrary to what we see. I will have to have a think about this.

[Bored chemist]

Light bent by the Sun doesnt have a rainbow effect. All colors are bent equally.

That would be a problem.

However
Space is bent by gravity and the light goes through space.
Colour doesn't alter that fact so all the light takes the same path regardless of colour.

No need for your baseless ramblings.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Light bent by the Sun doesnt have a rainbow effect. All colors are bent equally.

That would be a problem. However Space is bent by gravity and the light goes through space. Colour doesn't alter that fact so all the light takes the same path regardless of colour. No need for your baseless ramblings.

Do u realize that u said that space is bent by gravity, & then u said that there is no need for baseless ramblings.

Photaeno-drag slows shorter wavelengths moreso. Therefor if p.d is the cause of bending then there must be a rainbow effect.  However the r.e near the Sun would praps be weak, & not very obvious.
Shapiro & Co measure r.e separately for their radio frequency measurements of signal-delays for signals passing the Sun. I might have another read of their reports.
The trouble with Shapiro's stuff is that he doesnt measure actual bending, just delays. So praps his paper would be a waste of my time.  There might be lots of r.e in his paper, but not necessarily any associated bending. 

Anyhow i will keep an eye out for any relevant info re r.e near the Sun. Comments welcome.
If lensing halos from hidden galaxies seen around some galaxies are very thin then that hurts my photaeno drag theory -- but i think that such halos are always very wide (measured radially). Anyhow i will have a look.

[Bored chemist]

Do u realize that u said that space is bent by gravity, & then u said that there is no need for baseless ramblings.

Not only do I realise that, but I probably got the spelling right

Photaeno-drag slows shorter wavelengths moreso.

And that's what we grown-ups call baseless rambing.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Photaeno-drag slows shorter wavelengths moreso.

And that's what we grown-ups call baseless rambing.

It is not baseless. U might remember that photaenos emanate squarely from the main helical body of the photon, hencely some photaenos emanate out ahead of the main body. If the wavelength is shorter then the helix is tighter & the helix has more of an angle relative to the axis of the helix, hencely.....
(1) a greater percentage of the squarely emanating photaenos emanate out ahead of the main body, &
(2) these photaenos angle ahead at a sharper angle.

(3) Consequently when these leading photaenos meet other photaenos emitted by air water glass the larger photaeno density due to (1) leads to more photaeno congestion compared to longer wavelengths. Here in effect photaenos fight for the use of the aether, because the aether doesnt have an infinite capacity for the needed excitation creating the photaenos.
This meeting or interference or congestion or interaction needs a better name -- u & an unspecified number of other grown-ups have suggested rambing, i like that, & i am happy to use rambing untill i think of something better.

(4) In addition due to (2), the sharper angle, the rambing might be stronger for shorter wavelengths compared to the weaker rambing at longer wavelengths having a less sharp angle.

(5) But the main effect of (2) is that rambing (slowing the progress of the propagation of the photaeno) feeds back to the main body more strongly, more effectively, slowing the propagation of the main body itself, ie the axial velocity of c kmps is reduced to c' kmps (my apologies for introducing math here)(it was unavoidable).

So as u can see my rambing is not baseless.

Anyhow rambing must be accompanied by rainbowing, due to different colors suffering or enjoying different strengths of rambing.  Rainbowing must happen during refraction & diffraction & bending & lensing.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Ok i think i have worked out why bending near the Sun duznt give a rainbow.
I reckon that bending does give a rainbow, but near the Sun it is not strong enuff to be obvious to the eye. 
Likewize bending gives a radial stretching of starlite near the Sun.

The oldendays black&white pix of the Sun & surrounding stars taken during eclipse would not of course show any color or rainbowing, but B&W pix would show radial stretching, if any, if stretching were strong enuff to be vizible.

The eclipse pix must of course include coronal refraction, & coronal refraction must produce rainbowing & radial stretching.  But there is no obvious radial stretching in the pix.  That doesnt mean that refraction didnt produce rainbowing, it merely means that the refraction was too weak to be obvious.

The B&W pix are problematic in that the telescopes had to have a mechanical drive to keep up with Earth's spin, plus the exposures were very long (say 10 sec), plus the starlite had to pass throo the Sun's corona, & then throo Earth's corona, plus the problem of telescope focus & camera focus.

Hencely the little pinpricks of starlite would end up being smeared nailpricks.  And radial stretching, both kinds (refraction in the Sun's corona)(& bending), would both be hidden.  If one is hidden then the other must be hidden, assuming that both are of about the same strength.

Yes i am happy with that. Photaeno-drag (rambing) lives.

[Bored chemist]

U might remember that photaenos emanate squarely from the main helical body of the photon

I remember pointing out that your idea is nonsense and, more importantly, explaining why it is wrong.

Consequently when these leading photaenos

You seem to keep going on about them, even though they don't exist.
That's what I mean by rambling.

If I called it "raving" would you understand it better?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

U might remember that photaenos emanate squarely from the main helical body of the photon

I remember pointing out that your idea is nonsense and, more importantly, explaining why it is wrong.

Consequently when these leading photaenos

You seem to keep going on about them, even though they don't exist. That's what I mean by rambling. If I called it "raving" would you understand it better?

I dont remember u pointing out that photaenos are nonsense & i dont remember u explaining why wrong.
However u & other Einsteinologists keep raving about spacetime.

What is the Einsteinian explanation for em radiation? Is it a particle? Or praps a virtual particle?
For sure it wont involve a medium, unless the medium is spacetime.
Oh yes i just remembered, Einsteinologists reckon that em radiation is photons & photons are em radiation.
So the question becomes what is a photon according to Einsteinologists. Not only do Einsteinologists not have a mechanical model of a photon, they reckon that a mechanical model is impossible. Wiki reckons that.....

.......The photon's wave and quantum qualities are two observable aspects of a single phenomenon—they cannot be described by any mechanical model;[2] a representation of this dual property of light that assumes certain points on the wavefront to be the seat of the energy is not possible. The quanta in a light wave are not spatially localized.

And skoolkids swallow that krapp.  A model aint difficult. But my photaenos are not a model, they are meant to be reality, allbeit lacking much detail.  A detailed mechanical description is nearnuff impossible, & must be very complicated, probly involving ideas that we havent yet thort of.

My reality starts with one thing, praether.   And then aether etc are just different processes involving praether, these being some kind of movement (giving gravity) &/or excitation (giving photons & photaenos). All processes can be created & annihilated, but praether cant.
No need for virtual particles, no spacetime, no time.

In the meantime, back at the ranch, Einsteinologists have no sensible description of any kind of reality for anything.
Some of the Einsteinian models might be ok, if they give good numbers (thats what models are for). But there is not even an attempt at reality.  The nuclear atom is a good attempt at reality, but i wouldnt class that as being Einsteinian.

[Bored chemist]

I dont remember u pointing out that photaenos are nonsense & i dont remember u explaining why wrong.

You should pay more attention, or you won't learn to avoid making the same silly mistakes.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.msg571189#msg571189

However u & other Einsteinologists keep raving about spacetime.

I'm not sure I even mentioned it.
Show where I did.

My reality starts with one thing, praether. 

And that's the problem.
You start from made up dross.
GIGO.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I dont remember u pointing out that photaenos are nonsense & i dont remember u explaining why wrong.

You should pay more attention, or you won't learn to avoid making the same silly mistakes.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=19935.msg571189#msg571189

However u & other Einsteinologists keep raving about spacetime.

I'm not sure I even mentioned it.Show where I did.

My reality starts with one thing, praether.

And that's the problem.You start from made up dross.GIGO.

I am glad that u dont trumpet spacetime.

I think that Einstein named photons, the smallest particles or quantums of light.
And i named photaenos, the smallest particles of electro'magneto'charge radiation.
Photons might emit a fixed number of photaenos, eg 1 million per photon, from the central helix. And photaenos propagate outwards praps squarely to say infinity, propagating at say 5c kmps in the nearfield & praps slowing to c kmps in the far field.
Each photaeno praps travels with the helix, but i dont think so. I reckon that that part of the helix stays put & the start point of the photaeno stays put. In which case photaenos are shed when the end of the photon passes. And the shed photaenos keep propagating outwards, for ever.  There are praps a fixed number of photaenos attached to the helix at any one time (eg 1 million).
New photaenos are created at the front of the helix, the helix propagating axially at c kmps, photaenos propagating out at say 5c initially.
Each photaeno is praps a tornadic tube, a spinning of the aether.
The tube might be a kind of mini helix, very similar to the main helix. Which raises the possibility that mini-photaenos emanate from the mini-helix, ie from the photaenos. And each mini-photaeno might itself be a mini-mini-helix.

Photons annihilate aether, ie along the helix itself, or along the axis. If aether is annihilated then aether must flow in to replace the lost, in which case a photon has mass. Praps photons of all wavelengths have the same mass.
Photaenos too probly annihilate aether, in which case photaenos have mass, in which case emc radiation has mass.

Anyhow lots to think about. Comments are welcome.