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.