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

Forum rules

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift

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

by mariuslvasile » Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:23 pm

This experiment can also be explained by the Doppler effect, as Pound and Rebka used FLOWING HELIUM (from up to down) in their desperate attempt to produce redshift from 'gravitational potential'. So the helium molecules were moving away from the light source- which was placed above the helium bag, and towards the receiver- which was placed under the helium bag. Even if the source did not move relative to the receiver, the medium between them moved, so the gamma ray was absorbed and reemitted from a moving source. Which produced a Doppler shift, besides the refractional Vasile shift.

Image

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

by crawler » Wed Jan 31, 2024 9:18 pm

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:25 am
crawler wrote:Em radiation (eg radar) is not light, em radiation is not photons. Em radiation is radio waves. A ray pencil beam of light is made of photons. A laser wave is made of (or can be made of) a formation of photons.
I am satisfied with Maxwell's theory of light as a sound wave in the aether. It is explained really well by Maxwell. I just don't see where this 'photon' fits in this wave equation, as all EM waves, from radio to gamma rays, are waves in the aether with different frequencies and wavelengths. Why would light waves be transmitted in the aether in a different manner, as 'quasi-particles', than the rest of the EM waves ? I dont get it.
Photons are an annihilation propagating at c, the annihilation having a helical shape.
Photons include radial radiation propagating at c, which i call photaenos, radiating from the (central) helix.
The helix results in a faux wavelength, due to the photaenos linked to the helix.
The helix is in effect a coil, with a front & a rear.
Photaenos form a screw, radiating out to infinity for eternity.
Photaenos give us charge.
If the helix is moved or accelerated in some way in some direction then the photaenos give us magnetism.
If a photon (helix) forms a loop (by biting its own tail) then it thusly forms an electron (or some other proper particle).
We call it a confined photon, otherwise if not confined we can call it a free photon.
And there is a 3rd form of photon, semiconfined, which i call an elekton.
Elektons hug the surface of metals etc, & propagate on a surface at c.
Elektons give us elekticity (wrongly called electricity)(wrongly attributed to electrons).
Free photons are what we call light.
Elektons can give us what we call radio waves.
Electrons can live on a surface, & give us static charge.
Movement of electrons can give us radio waves (similar to elekton radio waves).

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

by mariuslvasile » Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:44 am

Are there any scientists on this forum ? I would like them to peer review my game changing discovery, and if refractional redshift is real, as it appears to be since I have proved it logically and mathematically with 100% accuracy and no room for error, then I don't want a Nobel prize. I want Nobel Academy to apologise for awarding and promoting what is clear pseudo-science for decades. And stick to making dynamite, because they blew it off big time. And all pseudo-scientists who worship Einstein and the Nobel Academy and promote this complete pseudo-science as 'experimentally verified' should apologise as well. And stick their Nobels where the sun dont shine, cause they aint worth a dime.

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

by mariuslvasile » Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:25 am

crawler wrote:Em radiation (eg radar) is not light, em radiation is not photons. Em radiation is radio waves. A ray pencil beam of light is made of photons. A laser wave is made of (or can be made of) a formation of photons.
I am satisfied with Maxwell's theory of light as a sound wave in the aether. It is explained really well by Maxwell. I just don't see where this 'photon' fits in this wave equation, as all EM waves, from radio to gamma rays, are waves in the aether with different frequencies and wavelengths. Why would light waves be transmitted in the aether in a different manner, as 'quasi-particles', than the rest of the EM waves ? I dont get it.

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

by crawler » Fri Jan 26, 2024 3:09 am

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:24 amA hole in the ether means a perfect vacuum. How is that a 'particle' ? Or it's a quasi-particle ok. But then you should not call it a photon, because that has nothing to do with Einstein's photon.
My photon exists. Einstein's version of his photon duznt exist (i think)(but his photon might tick some of the boxes). Strictly speaking i suppose that u are correct, i should find another name.
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:24 amHow do you explain refraction using photons ? And what photons are you talking about, Einstein's photons or yours ? Cause you use the term photon but refer to your own version of the photon, which is a bit confusing to say the least.
Slowing bending refraction & diffraction are all caused by photaeno drag due to photaeno congestion. Photaenos fight for the limited use of the aether, thusly photaeno-congestion (due to the nearness of mass)(mass is photons)(photons emit photaenos) slows the photaeno & slows (drags) the photon.
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:24 amActually, radio waves are light waves with a much longer wavelength and much lower frequency. And so are microwaves and infrared. Infrared light is still light, so is ultraviolet light, even if you cant see it directly with your eyes. But all EM radiation is a form of light. Even if we humans can only see a very small portion of it's spectrum, which ranges from radio waves to gamma rays.
To give an analogy with sound, even if we cant hear ultrasounds they are still sound-waves. Other animals can hear them, and probably Batman can too.
Em radiation (eg radar) is not light, em radiation is not photons. Em radiation is radio waves. A ray pencil beam of light is made of photons. A laser wave is made of (or can be made of) a formation of photons.

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

by mariuslvasile » Fri Jan 26, 2024 2:24 am

A hole in the ether means a perfect vacuum. How is that a 'particle' ? Or it's a quasi-particle ok. But then you should not call it a photon, because that has nothing to do with Einstein's photon.

How do you explain refraction using photons ? And what photons are you talking about, Einstein's photons or yours ? Cause you use the term photon but refer to your own version of the photon, which is a bit confusing to say the least.

Actually, radio waves are light waves with a much longer wavelength and much lower frequency. And so are microwaves and infrared. Infrared light is still light, so is ultraviolet light, even if you cant see it directly with your eyes. But all EM radiation is a form of light. Even if we humans can only see a very small portion of it's spectrum, which ranges from radio waves to gamma rays.

To give an analogy with sound, even if we cant hear ultrasounds they are still sound-waves. Other animals can hear them, and probably Batman can too.

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

by crawler » Thu Jan 25, 2024 7:39 pm

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 pmIt's funny that you say Einstein's dark age of science will be over soon, and yet you are defending his photon particle- which effectively removed the aether. Yes, Einstein did that. Because there is simply no need for a medium if light is a projectile like particle.
Likewise, there simply is no need for photons if light is wave in a medium- the luminiferous aether. The light wave is explained as a disturbance in the aether medium, just like a sound wave is a disturbance in the air medium. In other words 'Light is a sound wave in the aether.' Nikola Tesla
(23) There is no such thing as light. What we have is photons.
(24) My projectile-photons do not remove a medium (aether). My photons are a hole in the aether, a hole propagating at c.
(25) The hole is an annihilation of aether, together with a radiating disturbance of the aether.
(26) The radiating disturbance is what i call photaenos, radiating at c.
(27) Radio waves are like sound waves in the aether. (6) Radio waves (eg radar) are not photons.
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 pmRefraction is based on light waves, not on light particles (i.e. photons). Snell had no concept of 'photons' when he discovered the laws of refraction. Neither did Maxwell when he discovered the laws of electro-magnetic radiation. His light theory was based on the existence of luminiferous aether. And he calculated the speed of light as a sound wave in the aether. No photons what so ever.
Yes, but today Snell & Maxwell could get the same results using photons.
mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 pm'James Clerk Maxwell began working on Michael Faraday's lines of force. In his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force he modelled these magnetic lines of force using a sea of molecular vortices that he considered to be partly made of aether and partly made of ordinary matter. He derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium. He then equated the ratio of the dielectric constant to the magnetic permeability with a suitably adapted version of Weber and Kohlrausch's result of 1856, and he substituted this result into Newton's equation for the speed of sound. On obtaining a value that was close to the speed of light as measured by Hippolyte Fizeau, Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Ok. But we still don’t know much about charge or magnetism. But i can say that….
(28) Charge is due to photaenos.
(29) Magnetism is due to photaenos.

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

by mariuslvasile » Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 pm

It's funny that you say Einstein's dark age of science will be over soon, and yet you are defending his photon particle- which effectively removed the aether. Yes, Einstein did that. Because there is simply no need for a medium if light is a projectile like particle.

Likewise, there simply is no need for photons if light is wave in a medium- the lumineferous aether. The light wave is explained as a disturbance in the aether medium, just like a sound wave is a disturbance in the air medium. In other words 'Light is a sound wave in the aether.' Nikola Tesla

Refraction is based on light waves, not on light particles (i.e. photons). Snell had no concept of 'photons' when he discovered the laws of refraction. Neither did Maxwell when he discovered the laws of electro-magnetic radiation. His light theory was based on the existence of lumineferous aether. And he calculated the speed of light as a sound wave in the aether. No photons what so ever.

'James Clerk Maxwell began working on Michael Faraday's lines of force. In his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force he modelled these magnetic lines of force using a sea of molecular vortices that he considered to be partly made of aether and partly made of ordinary matter. He derived expressions for the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability in terms of the transverse elasticity and the density of this elastic medium. He then equated the ratio of the dielectric constant to the magnetic permeability with a suitably adapted version of Weber and Kohlrausch's result of 1856, and he substituted this result into Newton's equation for the speed of sound. On obtaining a value that was close to the speed of light as measured by Hippolyte Fizeau, Maxwell concluded that light consists in undulations of the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

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

by crawler » Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:24 am

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 am 1. Photons don't have mass, so they can't be particles.
2. Photons don't have amplitude, so they can't be waves.
3. Photons don't have logic, so they can't be real.
4. Photons are virtually insane.

https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2023/1 ... o.html?m=1
(11) Photons annihilate aether, thus they have mass.
(12) But photons are not proper-particles, photons are a quasi-particle.
(13) Proper-particles have proper-gravitational-mass & proper-inertial-mass.
(14) Photons are quasi-particles, & their mass is merely quasi-mass, ie quasi-gravitational-mass & quasi-inertial-mass.
(15) Photons have proper-energy, or, praps more accurately, photons are one form of proper-energy.
(16) Photons probably do not have proper-momentum.
(17) Quasi-gravitational-mass duznt contribute to proper-momentum, & quasi-inertial-mass probly duznt contribute to proper-momentum.
(18) Photons are a quasi-particle (12), neutrinos might be another form of quasi-particle.
(19) There probly no more than 2 kinds of quasi-particle.
(20) But quasi-particles have a very large number of sizes.
(21) Quasi-particles can form a loop or loops in which case they make (fundamental)(basic)(proper) elementary-particles (2 kinds)(many forms).
(22) Proper-elementary-particles are what we call electrons etc.
Enuff for now.
Now u are starting to get it.
All of my stuff (including the above) falls simply & easily out of my concept of aether.
I notice that your refraction makes no mention of aether, not good.

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

by mariuslvasile » Thu Jan 25, 2024 12:25 am

1. Photons don't have mass, so they can't be particles.
2. Photons don't have amplitude, so they can't be waves.
3. Photons don't have logic, so they can't be real.
4. Photons are virtually insane.

https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2023/1 ... o.html?m=1

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

by crawler » Tue Jan 23, 2024 9:07 pm

balsysr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:30 am As well as refraction around the vicinity of a star, it is also possible that refraction is occurring in the depths of space between galaxies. This is possible due to a weird form of matter that can form in a near vacuum (<1 particle per cc) at about 2 degree kelvin, composed completely of electrons. Einstein and someone else first published this possibility.

For this to occur we need a source for the electrons. Galaxies of stars are a possibility as they produce masses of high speed electrons, and these being lighter, are likely to go further, than the heavier ions also ejected from solar coronas. Ultimately galaxies may have a slight excess positive charge with the electrons in the space between galaxies forming this physical lattice of electrons.

A physical lattice is important as light passing through such a lattice will only be diffracted, not scattered. This means that the image formed from the light after diffraction is still sharp and clear, as is obvious in the real universe. This refraction would need to be accounted for when doing intergalactic distance calculations.
(1) Bending refraction diffraction slowing etc are all caused by the one cause, &
(2) are thusly the same thing.
(3) Having one particle per cc would give lots of diffraction (if the photon has a "wavelength" of much less than 10mm.
(4) Photons dont have a wavelength, but they do have something very similar to a wavelength (a faux wavelength).
(5) Photons flying in formation do have a wavelength (or at least moreso than a single photon's faux wavelength), a quasi wavelength.
(6) And i repeat, radio waves (eg radar) are not photons.
(8) Radio waves are (or have) true waves & have a true wavelength.
(9) Photons have a faux wavelength or a quasi wavelength.
(10) Cosmic microwaves are partly photons (which are not waves) & partly radio waves (which are waves).
Enuff for now.

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

by mariuslvasile » Tue Jan 23, 2024 3:42 am

Then the refractional redshift is cancelled by the refractional blueshift, as I said...

Anyway I am pretty sure that electrons dont like to stay together...because they have the same charge, and they repell.

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

by balsysr » Tue Jan 23, 2024 3:38 am

No, this form of matter does not create light, but light from the distant galaxies passes through this matter and is refracted.

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

by mariuslvasile » Tue Jan 23, 2024 3:23 am

balsysr wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:30 am As well as refraction around the vicinity of a star, it is also possible that refraction is occurring in the depths of space between galaxies. This is possible due to a weird form of matter that can form in a near vacuum (<1 particle per cc) at about 2 degree kelvin, composed completely of electrons. Einstein and someone else first published this possibility.
And this form of matter produces light on its own ? Because if the light comes from outside it then the blueshift which will occur when the light wave enters this electron melase, will be cancelled by the redshift, which will occur when it exits it. So the light wave must be created inside this electron melase in order to produce a redshift from refraction, other it will produce both a redshift and a blueshift which cancel out.

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

by balsysr » Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:30 am

As well as refraction around the vicinity of a star, it is also possible that refraction is occurring in the depths of space between galaxies. This is possible due to a weird form of matter that can form in a near vacuum (<1 particle per cc) at about 2 degree kelvin, composed completely of electrons. Einstein and someone else first published this possibility.

For this to occur we need a source for the electrons. Galaxies of stars are a possibility as they produce masses of high speed electrons, and these being lighter, are likely to go further, than the heavier ions also ejected from solar coronas. Ultimately galaxies may have a slight excess positive charge with the electrons in the space between galaxies forming this physical lattice of electrons.

A physical lattice is important as light passing through such a lattice will only be diffracted, not scattered. This means that the image formed from the light after diffraction is still sharp and clear, as is obvious in the real universe. This refraction would need to be accounted for when doing intergalactic distance calculations.

Top