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

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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).

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.

[silvergreylion]

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?

[mariuslvasile]

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

[silvergreylion]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[silvergreylion]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.