Here is one of your repeated (false) claims Cassini did test for refraction that you are not letting me refute....

| The complete fractional frequency shift is the sum of three parts:
| the non-dispersive part $y_{nd}(t)$ (which includes the gravitational
| signal) and the time dependent plasma contributions $y_\wedge(t)$ and
| $y_\vee(t)$, proportional to the columnar electron content along the
| beam in the up- and the downlink, respectively. With three independent
| observables, the three quantities $y_\wedge(t)$, $y_\vee(t)$ and
| $y_{nd}(t)$ are separately determined.
Note particularly that last clause: "the three quantities $y_\wedge(t)$, $y_\vee(t)$ and $y_{nd}(t)$ are separately determined".
-- jt]]

(For starters you supply no pg# and paper source. I cannot find
that quote in the slack.edu bertotti paper.).

Nor does your quote refer to any comparison between the 3 "parts"
for *frequency shift*. Please tell me. If you think your above quote
proves that Cassini tested two seperate frequency bands for refraction...exactly what part of that above quote actually confirms
this?

And please tell me why you think section 3.1 of the bertotti paper,
that I only cited in the last post you rejected, does not combine
the two seperate frequencies observed by cassini into one because
of intense variability in the corona density.

You will find it hard to answer because section 3.1 says exactly
that both frequencies were combined because of intense variability
in corona density. Which means of course...that no comparison is
possible between the time delay of the two frequencies

[[Mod. note --
1. My quote was from the supplemental materials for the Bertotti et al paper, figure caption for figure S1 (note Nature calls this the figure "legend"). You can find this linked from the nature.com website https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01997#Sec3
Look for the section "Supplementary Informat

The article you cite is paywalled. Only a short abstract, 2 figures and a rather minimally informative “legend” text. Of which I have quoted
fully below. Obviously you know it doesn’t have any evidence that Cassini tested for refraction ie different time delays between frequencies.
Why not? Because Bertotti himself admits in his 1993 paper that at
no point is refraction between frequencies tested for. How could
it be? He combines the two observed Ka and X frequencies into one
mixed band for analysis.

”Fig. S1. Effectiveness of the plasma calibration scheme. From top
down, the signal stability (Allan deviation at an integration time t =1000) >of the three observables X­X¯, X­Ka¯, Ka­Ka¯ and the non-dispersive part
ynd, computed using the triple link for each passage. The complete >fractional frequency shift is the sum of three parts: the non-dispersive
part ynd(t) (which includes the gravitational signal) and the time
dependent plasma contributions y↑(t) and y↓(t), proportional to the >columnar electron content along the beam in the up- and the downlink, >respectively. With three independent observables, the three quantities
y↑(t), y↓(t) and ynd(t) are separately determined.”

2. Radio propagation through a plasma is known to be frequency-dependent. The passage I quoted states explicitly that observed
(frequency-dependent) frequency shift (for the round-trip Earth to
Cassini and back to Earth) is the sum of a frequency-independent
(a.k.a "non-dispersive") part and two frequency-dependent parts
(one for the Earth-to-Cassini uplink, one for the Cassini-back-to-Earth downlink), and that the multifrequency data was sufficient to -- and
the authors did -- calculate all three of these parts.

Yes exactly. Calculated, not measured. As Bertotti has confirmed in his
1993 paper: Astron. Astrophys. 269, 608–616 1993
(A paper referenced in both the arxiv and Nature 2003 papers.)
Three way link yes, but still only 2 frequencies. Just smaller error margins. And the Ka and X bands are then combined by calculation.
( As a “mixed optical” path as described in his 1993 paper. )
Which is then compared to *hypothetical* time delays predicted by GR
theory and *assumptions* of electron column properties.
Bertotti in his closed loop 2003 arxiv paper also does this and also
admits the data from Ka is discontinuous and the corona is too variable
to analyse as two seperate frequencies.
Truth is the sci.astro.research moderators including Phil H. know
that Bertotti did not test Cassini data for time delays between frequencies. But are too dishonest to admit it.
Hence they ignore Bertottis 1993 paper and instead supply a link to a paywalled paper which they haven’t even been able to read themselves.

wanted. But the quoted passage also explicitly says that the other two
parts "proportional to the columnar electron content along the beam"
were also calculated, and I think these are the refractive-index measurements you're asking for.

Assumptions are not observations.
Notice the 2 dispersive and 1 non dispersive parts are not measured seperately. They are ‘Calculations’ based on theoretical assumptions.
And combined to see if they fit the observed time delay from the combined
Ka and X frequency bands. As described in the various 4 sections of the
1993 paper cited above.
Never has an in situ measurement of the corona density and its refractive
index ever been made.

The goal of the Bertotti et al
multi-frequency analysis technique was to obtain a time series of the frequency-independent quanitty $y_{nd}(t)$, which could then be input
into further analyses to test GR. The construction of $y_{nd}(t)$ was designed to try to ancel out the effects of the solar plasma, and
figures S1 and S2 show that that was in large measure successfully accomplished. Since the subject of this paper was the GR test using
the plasma-effects-cancelled-out quantity $y_{nd}(t)$, it's not too surprising that the authors didn't explicitly show plots of the plasma delays (what they refer to $y_\wedge(t)$ and $y_\vee(t)$).
-- jt]]

It’s not too surprising because the authors didn’t never did analyse
Ka and X band data seperately. As your quote confirms. Contrary to
numerous claims that Cassini data rules out refraction only as the
source of observed time delays.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)