# An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift

#### Marvas

An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift

Marius L. Vasile @ Vasile effect

In this article I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world’s finest scientists- we’re talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it.

Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the speed of light increases, and in a decrease in wavelength or a blueshift when its speed decreases.

The demonstration is quite simple, as we only need two simple equations in order to show that refraction causes a redshift or a blueshift.

The first is the wave equation f=v/λ, or λ=v/f
and the second is the refraction equation n=c/v, or v=c/n

(where n is the index of refraction of the medium, v is the speed of light in a medium, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum)

We insert the second into the first and we get λ=c/nf.

Since f is constant during refraction, and c is also constant, we see that when the index of refraction n increases, the wavelength decreases (shifts to blue), and when n decreases the wavelength increases (shifts to red).

For two mediums with refractive index n1 and n2, wavelength is directly proportional with speed: λ1/λ2=v1/v2,
and inversely proportional with the index of refraction: λ1/ λ2=n2/n1

For example during refraction from the sun’s atmosphere or heliosphere into space, the index of refraction decreases from n>1 to n=1 and the speed of light increases from v to c, so the wavelength also increases and the light emitted by the sun gets shifted to red. This would also explain why almost all galaxies appear redshifted, since they are made of stars which are all redshifted from refraction.
(Before reaching space there are, however, multiple refractions inside the sun’s atmosphere, which has many layers with different indexes of refraction, which regress as they aproach space (i.e. the outer layers have a lower index than the inner layers, which are more dense). So the light emiited by the sun gets more and more redshifted as it refracts through these layers before it reaches into space, the final frontier, and gets refracted and redshifted again.)

And those who claim that the ‘gravitational potential’ of the sun is causing a shift in wavelength, or a gravitational shift, are simply ignoring the laws of refraction, which explains quite simply why light is redshifted near massive objects, which are all surrounded by dense atmospheres made from gases such as hydrogen and helium which affect the speed and wavelength of light.
It is important to understand that light does not always propagate at a constant speed c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum. In every other situation, when it encounters a medium, it travels at slower speeds, which varies with the index of refraction of the mediums, n=c/v. So instead of c, it travels at a lower speed v=c/n. This slowing of EM waves in the atmosphere of massive objects has been confused with a gravitational time delay or time dilation, once more revealing the sheer ignorance of relavistic scientists like Shapiro who ignored refraction and foolishly concluded that the time delay is caused by gravitation.

Therefore, when we observe a redshift, we must not assume that light has travelled at a fixed speed (or c in a vacuum) until it reached us. And associate the redshift with a drop in frequency, as scientists do, because they dont take variable speed of light from refraction into account, and use c as the standard value for the speed of light, instead of v=c/n. So by ignoring the mediums in which light traveled, they erroneusly apply the formula f=c/λ, instead of f=v/λ=c/nλ. Thus, if λ increases or decreases, they will erroneusly conclude that frequency changed too, and illogically define redshift as such:

‘In physics, a redshift is an increase in the wavelength, and corresponding decrease in the frequency and photon energy, of electromagnetic radiation (such as light).’ -Wikipedia

While it may be well be true that frequency decreases in the Doppler redshift, it certainly does not imply that ALL redshifts in the universe will do the same thing !
And certainly not in refractional redshift, where an increase of wavelength can occur without any decrease in frequency, because the speed of the wave will increase.

And this is exactly what happened in the famous Pound and Rebka gravitational redshift experiment.
Because that experiment was not done in a vacuum, but in the earth’s atmosphere, in which a bag of helium was added ‘to minimise scattering’. More specifically, the gamma ray traveled through the helium bag, and then through air, as the metal target and the detector were placed outside the helium bag, as shown in the picture below.

‘The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled with helium to minimize scattering’ (wikipedia)

It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the gammaray was refracted from helium into air, which has a higher index of refraction than helium, causing its wavelength to decrease and shift to blue, or increase and shift to red, depending on the different setups of the experiment (in other setup they placed the emitter under the helium tube, and the detector above it, creating an air to helium refraction and a refractional redshift). The gammaray was indeed shifted, but by refraction, and not by gravitation. Yet for Harvard University and the Nobel Academy this was a gravitational shift, just like Einstein predicted.
Except Einstein did not predict that gravitational redshift occurs in the presence of helium, and nowhere in his proposed tests of general relativity does helium appear.

Why does it appear in this experiment, then ?
Because, there simply was no gravitational shift in the absence of helium. So they blamed it on ‘scattering’ from air, not on Einstein’s theory being wrong, and thrown in a bag of helium to prove it right. But it simply does not follow how the use of helium leads to a gravitational shift, because it simply follows that will only lead to a refractional shift.
Because the helium and air mediums in which the experiment was set obviously caused a refraction of the gammaray and a change in its speed and wavelength. So what they observed was just a Refractional redshift/blueshift, and not a gravitational one.

The only logical conclusion of that experiment is that refractional redshift exists and it was confused (deliberately or not) with gravitational redshift by the researchers. Their Nobel prize should be cancelled and the scientific community should immediatelly revise all experiments which claim that confirmed general relativity. Because this experiment did not confirm general relativity at all, and in fact it infirmed it. Since the shift was caused by refraction, and not by gravitation.

Given that helium is not gravity, and it does not appear in Einstein’s theory of general relativity or in his proposed tests to confirm it, Pound and Rebka should have not used it in this gravitational experiment, unless they were really desperate. Indeed, they were so desperate to get the Nobel prize, that they even drilled holes in the floors of their Harvard university (presumably to impress the Nobel jury). When they could have simply used the stair well (as a gravitational well, of course). So adding a bag of helium to produce a redshift out of thin air, was just another act of desperation.

This experiment should have been performed ideally in a vacuum or, if not possible, in the same medium in order to avoid refraction and refractional shift. As it was, it did not prove anything other than refraction changes the wavelength, which was probably known at the time by some scientists, including some Harvard ones, but excluding the Nobel ones. And the Nobel Academy is ultimately responsable for reviewing, approving, and awarding Harvard’s completely failed (or doctored) experiment.
Pound and Rebka attempted to prove that gravity causes redshift by the absurd addition of helium, which is not gravity and is never mentioned by Einstein in his general relativity. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Maybe they liked playing with helium, but even kids know that it alters the sound waves. This is also what happens to light waves. And the Nobel academy should have known this as well, and immediatelly call the scam instead of awarding it. But they fell for it because they did not know that refraction changes the wavelength and causes redshift/blueshift, which is also true for mainstream scientists today, who all confuse refractional redshift with gravitational redshift.

And then we wonder why cosmology is in a crysis. Because the standard cosmological model i.e. big bang theory is entirely based on general relativity and relativistic redshifts, which do not exist because they are pseudo-science. So from now on it should be called the standard cosmoillogical model.

The gravitational redshift experiment is one of the three tests proposed by Einstein to confirm general relativity. He stated that if any of these tests fails, then his whole theory would collapse like a house of cards. In this paper I have proved that the g-shift experiment was fundamentally flawed by the use of helium, and that the refraction from helium into air (or viceversa) produced the blueshift/redshift- which had nothing to do with Einstein’s theory of gravity. So it’s game over for general relativity.

Last edited:
Rod Mack

#### Marvas

That is my article. I also posted it on Academia. And on another forum.

So far it has not been peer reviewed, but it does not matter because other papers which have been reviewed are obviously false. Like Pound and Rebka's, Pound and Snider's, Shapiro's, Eddington's and pretty much all relativistic experiments which can be easily disproved with basic refraction physics.

The latter (Eddington) has been debunked by DR. Edward Dowdie from NASA who showed there is no light bending outside of the sun's corona, where the bending is caused by refraction. That alone is enough to disprove general relativity, but I disproved the other experiments because I was sick of all these scientists who claim that general relativity is true because there are so many experiments which have proved it. When in fact, none of those experiments have proved it, and basically they have all disproved it because they were either doctored or foolishly interpreted by these Einstein fanboys who apparently failed/skipped highschool just like him and went straight to university.

Last edited:

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
Bold statements.

We'll see who responds to your premise.

Peer reviews certainly matter, but you should already know that. Good luck.

#### Marvas

They don't matter because I have just disproved two of them which have been peer reviewed. So the peer review process has failed miserably in at least two cases, therefore it is completelly useless. In logic only arguments and evidence matter, not the majority's opinion which is a logical fallacy just like the argument from authority. Simply put, a majority of scientists can be stupid, biased and wrong, just like an authority like the Nobel Academy can be stupid, biased and wrong.

And Doctor Edward Dowdie from NASA has completelly disproved Eddington's experiment, but of course no peer review has validated his obvious demonstration. In fact they ignored it completely, just like they do with mine. Because almost all peers are brainwashed with Einstein's pseudo physics and simply cannot accept that their idol was wrong.

Last edited:
Rod Mack

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
They don't matter because I have just disproved two of them which have been peer reviewed. In science only arguments matter, not the majority's opinion which is a logical fallacy just like the argument from authority. Simply put, a majority of scientists can be stupid and wrong, just like an authority like the Nobel Academy can be stupid and wrong.
And Doctor Edward Dowdie from NASA has disproved another one, but of course no peer review accepted his obvious demonstration. Because almost all peers are brainwashed with Einstein's pseudo physics and simply cannot accept that their idol was wrong.
You can make better arguments without resorting to insulting terminology and references, as well as by providing compelling data to support your position.

#### Marvas

I did provide compelling data to support my position that those stupid experiments are wrong, as they have been either doctored or foolishly interpreted by scientists who were ignorant of basic refraction physics. Neither Pound-Rebka nor Shapiro took into consideration variable speed of light from refraction, and simply used c everywhere in their calculations, instead of v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction. If they did that they would have realised that refraction causes both redshift and time delay, and would have not confused the obvious effects of refraction with those of gravitation. Their stupidity is nothing short of phenomenal, and perfectly fits in Einstein's infinite universe, where stupidity is also infinite. I am simply using Einstein's terminology and references here.

Last edited:
Rod Mack

#### billslugg

You need to go talk with Pentcho Valev, he worked this issue here for a long time with almost the same words you are using. He went away after awhile, couldn't get any traction.

#### Marvas

You need to go talk with Pentcho Valev, he worked this issue here for a long time with almost the same words you are using. He went away after awhile, couldn't get any traction.
He did not. He has completelly different arguments, and none involve refraction. My whole demonstration is based on refraction physics, and it's extremelly simple, since it involves two simple equations: v=c/n, and f=v/lambda. Which one don't you understand ? It's highschool physics man. Just because Einstein skipped highschool doesnt mean we all did.

#### billslugg

We need a "throw down". You and Petcho, mano a mano. We could charge money. Can't wait.

#### Marvas

I just throwed down Einstein, Harvard University, Nobel Academy, and the whole scientific community to be honest. Petcho, while a formidable adversary, is not my adversary so I have no reason to throw him down. In fact I am sure he will agree that my demonstration is correct and join my winning team, known as team Refraction. Anyone can join, as long as they finished highschool and want to teach Einstein and other pseudo-scientists like him a lesson (of refraction).

Last edited:

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
I await this future debate, if it happens.

If so simple, why have the notions not gotten any traction?

#### billslugg

I'll watch but not participate. I have a long tradition of not understanding but one theoretical framework of the universe at a time and right now I'm not understanding Einstein. I'll let you know when there is an opening. Stocking up on popcorn as we speak.

#### Classical Motion

The modern equations for refraction work only because your reference is wrong. Because your reference is a wave. Light has fooled all.

Light shift is a duty cycle shift, not Doppler. And the shift is only a haft wave shift, not a full wave shift.

Invert a duty cycle.......and you have true light. Only the off time, the space time of the wave shifts.....with emitter motion. The on time remains constant with motion.

Space Width Modulation. Instead of pulse width modulation.

Light blinks, it doesn't wave. And it's constant velocity is ONLY for a stationary point. Not an observer. All observers are in motion.

Smoke that one.

I started with 4 bits. Had to toggle, then strobe instructions in....with mechanical switches. Out put was an old teletype.

#### billslugg

Not all observers are in motion. There is a preferred velocity in the universe. Simply measure the CMBR dipole anisotropy and set your cruise control in the opposite direction. Once CMBR dipole anisotropy is zero you are at rest.
There is no preferred position in the universe, all locations see themselves at the center.

Rod Mack

#### Marvas

ColGeek said:
If so simple, why have the notions not gotten any traction?

Why the notions of refraction have not gotten any traction ?
They did, just not for people who skipped highschool like Einstein. Or Shapiro and others who 'experimentally proved' his theory, by ignoring refraction altogether in their experiments.

Neither did Galileo's ideas gain any traction initially, and it was not rocket science either. The explanation is because of indoctrination and lack of critical thinking, and because the universe is infinite and so is human stupidity, according to Einstein, therefore it takes quite some time until people understand very simple things. Like when you add helium in air the light refracts from helium into air and changes its speed and wavelength, because frequency f=v/lambda remains constant, so when v increases lambda also increases, and viceversa. So the light will be redshifted/blueshifted from refraction, and not from gravitation. Or that when a radio wave reaches the sun's atmosphere it will slow down because v=c/n, so it will take a longer time to travel through its atmosphere than it would take in a vacuum. So there will be a slight time delay, which is again caused by refraction and not by gravitation. So no time does not slow down because of gravity, its just the EM waves slow down in the atmosphere of massive objects like the sun.

Last edited:

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K