Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

by **mariuslvasile** » Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:48 pm

Refraction does not have anything to do with electric fields, and neither does refractional redshift. My discovery is not based on exotic theories which cannot be proven, it's based on plain vanilla refraction physics and two simple equations which are proven and no one can deny: v=c/n, and f=v/lambda.

What you are hypothetising seems to be another type of redshift entirely, which needs to be proved, and should not be confused with refractional redshift which is proved.

While I have not seen any evidence to support this electrifying theory yet, I've read that a magnetic field can distort the medium and cause a bending of light, so maybe there is a redshift from that too. But that should be called a magnetical shift if it's actually real.

by **silvergreylion** » Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:22 am

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:58 pm Refractional redshift is not distance related, the redshift happens when the light emmited by the star/quasar refracts into space (altough it can be refracted and redshifted inside the star's atmosphere as well, because of the layers with different indexes of refraction).

Ah, but it passes through other electrical fields on its way, as well.

And the electrical field does not play any role in it, because light is not slowed when it passes through an electric field as far as I know.

Think about, let's say, a prism made from titanium dioxide. It is not a structure with covalent bonds..
What would the field strength be inside such a prism?

I thought you were reffering to the plasma medium previously, which is electrically charged, but an electric field alone doesnt cause any refraction, no matter how strong it is.
Did you see any refraction or light bending near an electric tower ? Or near a Tesla coil ? Maybe there is and I missed it.

Like I said, it would take an extremely strong field to even detect it experimentally, actually probably a stronger field than we can generate electromagnetically, due to dielectric breakdown.

by **mariuslvasile** » Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:24 am

me wrote:You can't get more stupid than that.

Einstupidein would disagree here, because he said that human stupidity is infinite. And he proved it by going full retard with the particle-wave duality.

by **mariuslvasile** » Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:58 pm

silvergreylion wrote:Edit: before I forget; refractional redshift should actually be quite hard to detect, as it's only ~7% across 1 billion lightyears.
An experiment to show it, would have to attain an extremely strong electrical field, for it to become detectable.

Refractional redshift is not distance related, the redshift happens when the light emmited by the star/quasar refracts into space (altough it can be refracted and redshifted inside the star's atmosphere as well, because of the layers with different indexes of refraction).

And the electrical field does not play any role in it, because light is not slowed when it passes through an electric field as far as I know.
I thought you were reffering to the plasma medium previously, which is electrically charged, but an electric field alone doesnt cause any refraction, no matter how strong it is.
Did you see any refraction or light bending near an electric tower ? Or near a Tesla coil ? Maybe there is and I missed it.

by **silvergreylion** » Tue Mar 26, 2024 1:52 am

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:57 am But it's incredible that all these self proclaimed scientists have missed it entirely, and I am the first to name it so. This only shows how incredibly stupid they are. Including Einstupidein.

Yes, the quasar is surrounded by ionised gases or plasma which is electrically charged and has a very high index of refraction.
This very high index of refraction is supported by the observations, which show how light is extremelly warped by it, in what these complete idiots who worship Einstupidein call an 'Einstein ring', once again confusing an effect of refraction with that of gravitation. Just like Einstupidein did. You can't get more stupid than that.

Ya know, I actually did suggest to someone some years ago, that that ring could be due to a galaxy (and the plasma around it) being roughly lens-shaped, instead of being due to gravity affecting light. Might've been on YT, can't remember.
Apparently, he hadn't thought of it, but had just accepted the gravity explanation given somewhere else, without thinking about it.

I think this is actually a large part of the explanation; there is just so much to learn today, so much stuff to absorb at university,
that they just accept whatever explanation(s) given, because they don't have time to think things over.
And even if some do, they are "brought in line" by social pressure, due to our tribal nature, which we sometimes forget about.
Sadly, that means universities have become (mostly unintentionally?) centres for indoctrination of the theories of relativity.

I will admit, it took me 27 years to forget enough about those theories, to be able to come up with my own hypothesis.

Now, it finally looks like observational evidence is going to put those theories to rest,
but it will be anything but fun for those believing fully in them, having to change what is undoubtedly an ingrained part of their worldview.
Cognitive dissonance is a nasty experience.

Edit: before I forget; refractional redshift should actually be quite hard to detect, as it's only ~7% across 1 billion lightyears.
An experiment to show it, would have to attain an extremely strong electrical field, for it to become detectable.

by **mariuslvasile** » Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:57 am

silvergreylion wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:14 pm Refractional Redshift, I've gotta say, I love that name. Fits perfectly.
Can also tell from the threads that you came up with it long before I did.

Btw, doesn't the high redshift of a quasar mean, that it's highly charged, so has a much higher refractive index locally?

Light from it should therefore become very redshifted as it leaves the electrical field of the quasar, right?

Well that name comes naturally from refraction, just like the redshift does. But it's incredible that all these self proclaimed scientists have missed it entirely, and I, who am not even a professional scientist, and do this research as a hobby, am the first to discover and name it so. This only shows how incredibly stupid they are. Including Einstupidein.

Yes, the quasar is composed of ionised gases or plasma which is electrically charged and has a very high index of refraction.
This very high index of refraction is supported by the observations, which show how light is extremelly warped by it, in what these relative idiots call an 'Einstein ring', as predicted by their prophet Einstupidein, once again confusing an effect of refraction with that of gravitation. You can't get more stupid than that. (actually, they can, in a quantum leap)

https://www.livescience.com/hubble-capt ... uasar.html

by **silvergreylion** » Sun Mar 24, 2024 6:14 pm

Refractional Redshift, I've gotta say, I love that name. Fits perfectly.
Can also tell from the threads that you came up with it long before I did.

Btw, doesn't the high redshift of a quasar mean, that it's highly charged, so has a much higher refractive index locally?

Light from it should therefore become very redshifted as it leaves the electrical field of the quasar, right?

by **mariuslvasile** » Thu Mar 21, 2024 12:43 am

Lloyd wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:41 am I consider the TPOD with a high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy to be proof that high redshift in this case does not equate to greater distance or greater recessional velocity.

LASER QUASARS, NO REDSHIFTS

I agree, but in the light of my discovery of refractional redshift, that would be explained by quasars having a much denser atmosphere than regular stars, so a much higher index of refraction and a much higher refractional redshift. No need for plasma lasers (sorry Vader).

Vader wrote:Furthermore, it is assumed that the chemical composition of the emission region of quasars is approximately the same as that of normal stellar atmospheres.

I disagree. The assumption that quasars have the same atmosphere as normal stars, is unfounded, as they clearly are not like normal stars at all.

by **mariuslvasile** » Sun Mar 17, 2024 2:10 pm

Lloyd wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:11 pm What do you think of the post at viewtopic.php?p=10052#p10049 about what's normally called a redshift of quasar light not being real redshift?

I think this explains where Darth Vader got his laser saber from. But it does explain where Luke Skywalker got his green laser saber from. So unless there are green laser quasars out there, this theory is not consistent with the Star Wars universe.

by **mariuslvasile** » Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:10 am

Lloyd wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:11 pm Thanks for the comments.

What do you think of the post at viewtopic.php?p=10052#p10049 about what's normally called a redshift of quasar light not being real redshift?

You're welcome.
I think it is interesting, but off-topic, you should start another thread for discussing that theory PLS.
This topic is about Refractional Redshift (Tm) and how relativity and the big bang theory got banged by it

This is the most important discovery of the 21 century, the turning point for physics and astrophysics, the paradigm shift of the redshift ! When the Vasile effect has come to bring order in the big banged universe. As it has utterly erased relativistic physics and the standard cosmoillogical model which is based on it with just two simple equations, that are learned in highschool. This is what Occam's razor is all about.

by **Lloyd** » Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:11 pm

Thanks for the comments.

What do you think of the post at viewtopic.php?p=10052#p10049 about what's normally called a redshift of quasar light not being real redshift?

by **mariuslvasile** » Sat Mar 16, 2024 2:24 pm

Lloyd wrote:I guess we know that the speed of light decreases going through a physical medium, like air, water, or glass, compared to the medium of space. But how does it slow down?

It slows down because v=f*lambda, and lambda aka the wavelength decreases, while frequency f remains constant. The wavelength decreases because it is absorbed by the atoms in the medium and reemited at a smaller wavelength. But I dont know exactly how this happens, I am not a particle physicist. And I dont think they know either, because they ignore the aether and treat light as a particle-wave non-sense.

by **mariuslvasile** » Sat Mar 16, 2024 1:11 am

Lloyd wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:37 pm That seems plausible, but what causes refraction?

The change in the speed of light, which is dependant on the index of refraction, according to the equation v=c/n.

I guess we know that the speed of light decreases going through a physical medium, like air, water, or glass, compared to the medium of space. But how does it slow down? Is it because the frequency changes?

As I have explained in the first post, the frequency does not change during refraction. The speed of light changes, because v=c/n.

How does it slow down ? To be honest I dont know the exact physical mechanism, but I have read that it has to do with the density of the medium, and this seems to be consistent with the observations. It probably has to do with the atomic and subatomic interactions which take more time if there are more atoms/electrons in the medium.

Is there a redshift as light goes from space to air to water to glass?

No, but there is a blueshift. Actually three blueshifts. Because there are three refractions. So light will be refracted and slowed three times, and its wavelength will decrease each time its speed decreases (because f=v/lambda). The decrease in wavelength is called a blueshift, and the increase in wavelength is called a redshift.

by **Lloyd** » Sat Mar 16, 2024 12:41 am

I consider the TPOD with a high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy to be proof that high redshift in this case does not equate to greater distance or greater recessional velocity.

LASER QUASARS, NO REDSHIFTS

This website is also interesting: https://www.laserstars.org/.

... We have thus proposed the following realistic model of a quasar : A quasar is a star in which the surface plasma is undergoing rapid radial expansion giving rise to population inversion and laser action in some of the atomic species. The assumption of the ejection of matter from quasars at high speed is supported from the fact that the widths of emission spectral lines observed in quasars are typically of the order of 2000 - 4000 km/sec. We call the proposed model the plasma-laser star (PLS) model.

... THERE IS NO RED SHIFT
Why is it assumed that the spectra have redshifts? The basic reason for this lies in the time-honoured assumption that the intensities of lines in astronomical sources will be similar to those in the laboratory under ordinary excitation conditions. No account is taken of a possible laser action. Thus, there is no compelling reason to believe in the redshifts if we allow the possibility of a laser action in these bodies.
The term no red shift here, of course, refers to the large red shifts claimed to occur in the spectra of quasars. Very small redshifts, z < 2X10^-3, the type encountered in galactic stars, could certainly be present in the spectra of quasars. Furthermore, it is assumed that the chemical composition of the emission region of quasars is approximately the same as that of normal stellar atmospheres. This assumption is merely a first approximation and a convenient starting point. As our knowledge of quasars improves, this assumption can be suitably modified. The situation is somewhat similar to that of Wolf-Rayet stars, for which our knowledge of their chemical composition has improved over the years but which is still far from a satisfactory state. (There are good reasons to believe that quasars, like Wolf-Rayet stars, are deficient in hydrogen).

See also:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Fir ... 025120.php
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ing-lasers
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... ant-laser/
https://laserstars.org/history/mars.html
https://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisW ... asars.html

by **Lloyd** » Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:37 pm

I commented earlier, but I hadn't read the discussion much. I still haven't read much, but I skimmed the OP. What stands out there for me is this.

And this is relatively easy to prove with just two simple formulas, which show that refraction absolutely causes a redshift/blueshift:

f=v/lambda, and v=c/n

The frequency of light remains constant during refraction, but the speed of light varies according to the index of refraction, therefore the wavelength (lambda) also varies according to the speed of light:

-if the speed of light increases, then the wavelength will also increase and a Refractional Redshift will occur.

-if the speed of light decreases, then the wavelength will also decrease and a Refractional Blueshift will occur.

That seems plausible, but what causes refraction? I guess we know that the speed of light decreases going through a physical medium, like air, water, or glass, compared to the medium of space. But how does it slow down? Is it because the frequency changes? Is there a redshift as light goes from space to air to water to glass?

Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.

Re: Refraction causes redshift, gravity does not. General relativity is wrong.