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

[Marvas]

@COLGeek Like I said, neither did Galileo's heliocentrist theory gain any traction innitially. In fact he was jailed for contradicting the established ptolemeic cosmology, which placed the earth in the center of the universe. The consensus was that Ptolemy's geocentrism was correct, and this consensus lasted from antiquity to a few centuries back. And it took over a hundred years until Galileo's theory 'gained traction' as you say. So the fact that a theory gains traction or not has absolutely nothing to do with its truth value ! Just because a theory is popular does not make it right, and just because a theory is not popular does not make it wrong.

That is why in formal logic the appeal to popularity or majority is considered illogical, as is the appeal to authority and antiquity.

That said, if you think that something is wrong with my theory then you should point out exactly what it is, not resort to these logical fallacies.

 

[Marvas]

I believe you have made a fundamental mistake. A velocity factor is not a change in speed. It’s only a change in direction. If the emitter is stationary, the refractor stationary and the detector stationary, the frequency does not change with refraction. And the speed does not change. Only the direction.

That is Snell's law of refraction, not mine. I did not discover the fact that light slows in a medium according to the equation v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the medium.
So your argument is that my theory is wrong because the laws of refraction are wrong. My theory is based on known refraction physics, I did not add anything to it. In optics it is well understood that the wavelength changes when light refracts. And even on wikipedia it says that the wavelength changes during refraction.

Problem is in astronomy this phenomenon caused by refraction is completelly ignored, and most astronomers simply have no clue that it exists, which is why they confuse it with gravitational redshift, which does not exist. In fact, they confuse all the known effects of refraction with those of gravitation: light bending, slowing and changing wavelength. And they all recite the relative dogma which states that space is curved and this causes light to redshift and bend, and that this was experimentally proven by Pound Rebka, Shapiro and other relative scientists.

What I did is challenge this dogma with known refraction physics, in this case that refraction causes a change in speed and wavelength, causing either a redshift or a blueshift, and show that this refractional shift was confused by Pound and Rebka with gravitational shift.

 

[Marvas]

In Boulder there is a clock that runs one part in 10^16 slower on the floor than on the ceiling.
How does refraction affect a strontium clock?

In a rabbit hole there is a clock which runs even slower. Ask Alice, she will tell you that time dillates there cause space is more curved in the hole. This arguments which prove relativity cause someone detected a picosecond difference with his fancy atomic watch are completelly unrealistic and ridiculous. There could be so many factors which can affect the atomic watch, like temperature, magnetic fields, including the earths, and so on. In fact, strontium is a metal and therefore reacts to magnetic fields. In fact, the atomic clock has a magnet inside which sorts the strontium atoms out depending on their energy, and they are energised by shooting an EM wave of a certain frequency at them. Any electronical device which emmits EM waves or generates EM fields could influence the flow of strontium atoms, like an air conditioner or a router.

 

[Marvas]

Its not just one guy on the internet who claims Einstein was wrong, unless you think Tesla twitted on his iphone that Einstein is a curly haired crackpot and his theory is pure metaphysical non-sense. Also Dayton Miller, or Sagnac, did not have an internet connection. But even on the internet Im not alone. Ron Hatch, GPS inventor, Edward Dowdye, phyiscs proffesor and NASA scientist, Stephen Crothers, math proffesor, are all succesful scientists who succesfully discredited GR.

 

[billslugg]

Pound and Rebka swapped positions for source and receiver many times. Sometimes they had the emitter on the top of the tower and sometimes they had it at the bottom. All confounding factors were removed.

 

[Gibsense]

Problem is in astronomy this phenomenon caused by refraction is completelly ignored, and most astronomers simply have no clue that it exists, which is why they confuse it with gravitational redshift, which does not exist. In fact, they confuse all the known effects of refraction with those of gravitation: light bending, slowing and changing wavelength. And they all recite the relative dogma which states that space is curved and this causes light to redshift and bend, and that this was experimentally proven by Pound Rebka, Shapiro and other relative scientists.

I loved your article re the ether but was disappointed to read this assertion that gravitational dilation does not exist. Clearly, not so.

 

[Gibsense]

But even on the internet Im not alone. Ron Hatch, GPS inventor, Edward Dowdye, phyiscs proffesor and NASA scientist, Stephen Crothers, math proffesor, are all succesful scientists who succesfully discredited GR.

Tell me how they successfully discredited Relativity. So far just an assertion and as such not a lot of value.

 

[Marvas]

Pound and Rebka swapped positions for source and receiver many times. Sometimes they had the emitter on the top of the tower and sometimes they had it at the bottom. All confounding factors were removed.

This is irrelevant because refraction occurs in both cases and causes a blueshift when the emmiter/source is placed up in helium, and a redshift when it is placed down in air (when its swapped with the detector).

What they should have done is also make the experiment in a horizontal setup, and if there was no redshift/blueshift then it meant gravity was causing it in the vertical setup. If there was a redshift in the horizontal position, then it means its caused by refraction and/or by Compton scattering and it has nothing to do with gravity.

 

[Marvas]

I loved your article re the ether but was disappointed to read this assertion that gravitational dilation does not exist. Clearly, not so.

But if aether exists then the logical implication is that both special and general relativity are wrong. Special relativity was founded on the negative result of the MM experiment, which was interpretated by Einstein and all relative scientists in the sense that aether does not exist. And special relativity is a special case of general relativity, so if SR is wrong then GR is also wrong. So all predictions made by GR are wrong, including gravitational redshift/time dilation.

And if this experiment doesnt convince you, then check out the Shapiro gravitational time delay which I also debunked with refraction:

Shapiro time delay is caused by Refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.

Shapiro time delay is caused by refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist. The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic Solar System tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to...

forums.space.com

And another reason why gravitational time dilation cannot exist is because it slows objects down as they enter a gravitational field, instead of accelerating them. As the theory predicts that photons are slowed down by it, so it causes a gravitational deceleration, instead of acceleration. And this gravitational time dilation is said to be the source of gravitational acceleration, so there is a clear contradiction and inconsistency in Einstein's gravitational theory.

 

[Marvas]

Tell me how they successfully discredited Relativity. So far just an assertion and as such not a lot of value.

Well for a start here is how Edward Dowdye did it:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B_ixkOI4k8c

Gravity does not cause any light bending, NASA scientist claims. But what does ?

https://beyondmainstream.org/scientist/dr-edward-dowdye/ Once more, when you are looking at stars near the sun, you notice that the light is only bent when the starlight is inside the corona of the sun, but did not bend outside the corona where Einstein predicted. Einstein’s general theory of...

forums.space.com

Stephen Crothers a math wizz debunked it with maths which is way more complex and difficult to understand, you can also find it on youtube.

And Ron Hatch is a GPS inventor who observed that there is no frequency shift in the GPS radio signal from space to earth, which completelly debunks Einstein's gravitational shift due to time dilation. This observation is consistent with the theory of refractional redshift/blueshift, where frequency remains constant.

 

[Gibsense]

And another reason why gravitational time dilation cannot exist is because it slows objects down as they enter a gravitational field, instead of accelerating them. As the theory predicts that photons are slowed down by it, so it causes a gravitational deceleration, instead of acceleration. And this gravitational time dilation is said to be the source of gravitational acceleration, so there is a clear contradiction and inconsistency in Einstein's gravitational theory.

This shows a fundamental misinterpretation of GR by yourself - I suspect. Although lost in the mathematics (for me) the principles are clear enough:

• The photons are not slowed down; they continue at c in the space that is curved by gravity.
• The view by an outside observer away from the gravitational well is that time is rotated (along with the shape of space) such that the photons' time is observed as slowing. Even this needs modification: Time is slowed (as observed) Hence 'Time dilation'
• There is no slowing or acceleration except as that observed (interpreted) by flat space (ish) from outside the gravity well. That's why it is called relativity.

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe there are three independent dynamics that may form cosmic redshift. The first is a very strange kind of duty cycle. This duty cycle is unlike any other duty cycle you have heard about. This is the first dynamic. This dynamic is always first and always the primary dynamic.

The second dynamic is distance. Distance alone can shift light. This is because of that strange un-known duty cycle. Just distance can increase the shift. That is with a moving emitter.

And the third dynamic is cosmic rotation. Cosmic rotation effects the length of old light. The older, the more effect.

These three dynamics are independent of each other.

It’s necessary to explain the first dynamic to understand the second. Please imagine an old fashion stage coach wagon wheel. Take the rim off and save it. Replace the 6-8 wooden spokes with thousands of straw size spokes. Now take that rim, and place LEDs and photo detectors on the inside of that rim. So that anything passing thru that rim can be timed. A spoke detector, a spoke length detector.

Are you with me so far? We are going to spin the hub with those spokes. And then we are going to release all those spokes at the same time. Notice, that no matter at what speed the hub is spinning, the released spokes have the same length. And also notice that no matter how fast the hub is moving down the road, the released spokes have the same length. So now, no matter the spin rate, or the hub velocity, the released spokes remain the same length. And if the hub speed is constant, the spoke velocity is constant. Spoke velocity is set with hub rotation speed only, NOT hub velocity. Hub velocity can not be added to spoke velocity because, the spokes are emitted in an instant. CHUNK emission.

Now we take the rim, release the spokes, and TIME the duration of the spokes going thru that distant rim. The rim is a catcher of the spokes, and we time the duration of the spoke thru that rim.

Are you with me? Keeping the hub rotation constant, no matter the distance, no matter the velocity of that hub(not rotation), the duration of the spoke thru the rim remains constant. Do you see that?

The velocity of the spoke comes ONLY from the hub rotation, NOT hub velocity. Do you see that?

I am trying to use matter objects to show how fields work, and it is not easy. Bear with me.

Let’s go back to the hub. The hub is naked. As we turn the hub, spokes start to grow. All the spokes grow at same time. After the hub turns ½ turn, 180 degrees, the spokes have grown to maximum. And are released at 180. Immediately after that the hub starts growing another set of spokes. During every 180 degrees of growing they are released. TWO releases of spokes for every one turn of hub.

The emission, or hub waveform would be one straight vertical line every 180. That line is the instant of release. One single skinny line. Every 180.

Now let’s look at the rim waveform. It’s catching the spokes. It will have the spoke duration, which is a square wave. That square wave will have 180 degrees of duration. THEN… it has 180 degrees of nothing. This is the time when the spokes are growing back at the hub. Dead time. No emission during this time.

The wave form at the rim is a 50% duty cycle. There is the same duration of growing time as to the spoke time. So the spoke rim time and the growing(waiting) hub time are equal. IF, IF there is no relative motion.

Are you still with me? But look what happens to that 50% duty cycle with the emitter moves. If the emitter moves away, the spoke time remains the same, but the time(and distance) between the spokes increases, because the distant increase, during the growth time. BUT only the dead time between the constant spoke length changes. The dead time shifts.

Now is when the second dynamic, takes place, the distance dynamic. Take a stationary detector(rim).

Place an emitter(hub) one light year away, and have it in motion moving away at 100 km/sec.

This will give you a certain redshift. Now place another hub 10 light years away and have it move at 100 km/sec. The shift from this will be more than the first shift, due to just distance. Can you see this?

This is because of this strange duty cycle. Where the on time is constant and only the off time between the spokes changes, not he spoke time. Distance alone causes the shift. But it has to be moving distance, not static distance.

And finally, cosmic rotation. The longest path to a star is the light path. Let’s say our spacecraft has a gun-sight. We center our destination star at the center of that sight. As time goes by, we notice that the star moved a little from the center, and we have to correct our path, We will have to do that all the time on the way to the star. Because long light is bowed, because of the cosmic rotation. This makes the path of light longer, and remember, some shift comes from distance alone. With cosmic rotation there are two separate distance effects. One is linear distance with relative motion and one is distance effect is angular, cosmic rotation. Linear distance, and angular distance. TWO distances. TWO moving distances.

So depending on distance and relative motion, all three dynamics can be in play for redshift.

The outer stars and galaxies have the same velocities as the stars and galaxies close by, and a lot of redshift is due to distance and flight time, flight path, and not velocity.

Space is empty and square. That is the very first rule of physics. The ratio of time and length are quantum and can not be changed.

This is a quantum cosmos.

 

[Marvas]

This shows a fundamental misinterpretation of GR by yourself - I suspect. Although lost in the mathematics (for me) the principles are clear enough:

• The photons are not slowed down; they continue at c in the space that is curved by gravity

You forgot about the time dilation part !

Since the light would be slowed down by gravitational time dilation (as seen by outside observer), the regions with lower gravitational potential would act like a medium with higher refractive index causing light to deflect. This reasoning allowed Einstein in 1911 to reproduce the incorrect Newtonian value for the deflection of light.[41] At the time he only considered the time-dilating manifestation of gravity, which is the dominating contribution at non-relativistic speeds; however relativistic objects travel through space a comparable amount as they do though time, so purely spatial curvature becomes just as important. After constructing the full theory of general relativity, Einstein solved in 1915[42] the full post-Newtonian approximation for the Sun's gravity and calculated the correct amount of light deflection – double the Newtonian value. Einstein's prediction was confirmed by many experiments, starting with Arthur Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse expedition.

Gravitational redshift - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And when Einstein first made his gravy theory, he forgot about the space curvation part ! And conveniently added it so that it doubled the refraction from time dillation in order to match the observations. So because his theory in its innitial form did not comply with the observations he simply added this fudge factor to it and voila ! Just like he did with the cosmoillogical constant. How is this FRAUD considered a scientist or a genius at that I really dont understand. He basically made $hit up whenever his theory did not fit the observations. That is not science, its FORGED science. Or the science of forgery. Or Sci-fo.

And as you can see, the wikipedia article clearly states that according to GR light is slowed by time dilation, and that for objects traveling at non-relativistic speeds space curvation is irrelevant to the relative gravitational equation. Which means that they are slowed by gravitational time dilation. Which means they are decelerating, not accelerating ! Which means that according to GR there is no gravity, since there is no gravitational acceleration coming out of it, but the exact opposite. Case closed.

 

[Marvas]

Its geting a bit boring debunking this clearly illogical theory over and over again, why cant you just admit ITS WRONG and get over it ? Or you need an authority figure to tell ya that ? Like Roger Penrose, if he comes out and says it then everyone will be like 'Einstein was wrong, we knew it all along'. Cause most people are dumb, and need approval from authority figures in order to believe or disbelieve something. Or from the majority of the authority. They think science works like the catholic church ! Some clergy guys vote and they choose what is the truth. Geocentrism it is.

 

[Marvas]

Look, even the BBC got my theory right !

Measuring refracted waves​

For a given frequency of light, the wavelength is proportional to the wave velocity, or speed:
wave speed = frequency × wavelength
This means that if a wave slows down, its wavelength will decrease. For example, if the wavelength decreases by a factor of three, the wave velocity, or speed, will also decrease by a factor of three, as frequency stays the same.
The effect of this can be shown using wave front diagrams, like the one below. The diagram shows that as a wave travels into a denser medium, such as water, it slows down and the wavelength decreases. Although the wave slows down, its frequency remains the same, due to the fact that its wavelength is shorter.

Measuring refracted waves - Reflection, refraction, and sound waves - OCR Gateway - GCSE Physics (Single Science) Revision - OCR Gateway - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise, sound, light, reflection, refraction and ultrasound with GCSE Bitesize Physics.

www.bbc.co.uk

And I dont think its fake news ! Cause it's all over the news, but they dont say their source cause I dont want to get the Nobel prize like all those relative fools (or frauds) who confused refraction with gravitation.

 

[Gibsense]

You said Wikipedia said this: "Since the light would be slowed down by gravitational time dilation (as seen by (an) outside observer)"

So! As seen by an outside observer. That's why it is called relativity.

You do not seem to accept the whole basis of relativity. You have not explained why a head on collision of light with something travelling toward it (like headlights from an oncoming car) Still does not add velocities.

Sorry your apparent anger in not justified

 

[Gibsense]

And I dont think its fake news ! Cause it's all over the news, but they dont say their source cause I dont want to get the Nobel prize like all those relative fools (or frauds) who confused refraction with gravitation.

I do not think you need to worry.