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

[crawler]

Ranzan's explanation of cosmic redshift is magnificent, & accounts 100% for redshifts (except that it might have sidestepped the Arpian redshift).
There is no need for any other additional causes/explanations, but, there might indeed be other causes (i aint sure about the Arpian redshift).

I think it's pseudo-science. He divides the space into Voronoi cells, and claims that these space cells are expanding because Voronoi says so. Expanding space is science-fiction, not science-fact, and it's based on general relativity which is pure pseudo-science as I have demonstrated here. So any theory which is based on GR is pseudo-scientific and therefore wrong. Including the big-bang expanding universe, and Ranzan's expanding cellular universe.

And cosmological redshift is caused by aether, because of the wave attenuation in the aether medium, and by refraction as I have proved in my award non winning paper. Because I debunked the Nobel academy too, so I cant receive the Nobel award sorry.

But I may well start my own academy since I basically destroyed their academy and their Einstein god too. Problem is I dont have the funds to support it, cause my family didnt invent dynamite (how smart, they made a big firecracker), so I will have to invent something first I guess.

I dont recall any GTR or STR in Ranzan's dynamic steady state cellular universe. However, unfortunately, Ranzan is indeed a semi-Einsteinian or a quasi-Einsteinian, in some of his papers Ranzan gives Einstein a bit of credit (in relation to length contraction or somethink)(karnt remember).
But, Ranzan's cells are not expanding, they are dynamic, aether is created at center, & is destroyed in mass (particularly in the massive margins).

[mariuslvasile]

He is clearly using space expansion/contraction, which are derrived by einstein (for contraction) and friddman (for expansion) using general relativity.

'The DSSU incorporates the causal mechanism of gravity. Space-medium expansion (Lambda), space-medium contraction (Einstein’s contractile gravity), mass & energy, gravity-domain limits, … all fit into a unified fully-functional mechanism of gravity. Details: "The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation," J. Mod. Phys. Appl. Vol.2014:3 (2014).'

http://www.cellularuniverse.org/#DSSUrealUniverse

Lambda reffers to the cosmoillogical constant which Einstupidein made up to prevent his relativistic universe from contracting, and which he later called his biggest blunder. And which has been used extensively by big bang pseudo-scientists to 'explain' why the universe is expanding. Because Einstein's biggest blunder is very convenient to these unashamed pseudo-scientists, who can simply adjust its value fo fit their desired results, making it the only constant that varies from 0 to basically whatever number they want. So I think Ranzan is a pseudo-scientist too, since he has based his theory on the same cosmoillogical pseudo scientific blunder (which at least einstein had the decency to admit it as such and remove it from his theory).

[mariuslvasile]

 in some of his papers Ranzan gives Einstein a bit of credit (in relation to length contraction or somethink)(karnt remember).

That is not where credit is due, because length contraction is Lorentz's ideea from his Aether theory, which he used to explain the negative results of the Michelson Morrey experiment. Which Einstupidein of course stole and foolishly implemented in his aetherless SR theory, proving once more that he is a complete and utter plagiator, and a very very stupid one at that. I mean, he steals exactly the ideea which Lorentz invented for the sole purpose of saving the aether, and then says aether is not needed and removes it from his theory. Seriously Einstupidein was not a bright guy. He is probably the stupidest pseudo-scientist that ever lived.

The fact that he is generally portrayed as a genius by mainstream science, only shows how generally retarded mainstream scientists are. They are so retarded that they don't understand that refraction causes a variation in the speed of light and in its wavelength as it refracts from atmosphere into space, or that gravitational time delay is caused by refaction which is slowing down the light near massive objects which are envoloped in gaseous atmospheres, or that helium is not gravity and it has no place in a gravitational redshift experiment. And they they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis.

[mariuslvasile]

I cannot even brag to much about debunking these mainstream clowns, because I barely used two simple equations and basic logic and put their whole 'experimentally proven' relativistic non-sense to the wall of shame. It's almost like arguing with disabled people, and winning the argument by knowing that 1+1=2. And even if I didn't know those simple formulas, it was immediatelly obvious that helium had no place in that gravitational redshift experiment and that if the experiment would have been performed without it there would have been no gravitational redshift. Otherwise, why would you add a bag of helium to it ? To reduce scattering, sure, but then why place the detector outside the helium bag, and not inside it, to avoid refraction ? And why not do it in a vacuum and remove scattering altogether ?

I mean these clowns don't understand basic logic and elementary notions about refraction and classical physics in general, but they pose in these geniuses that understand highly complicated and advanced physics that mere mortals cannot grasp, and begin to solve the misteries of the universe, claiming they know how and when it began, by using these completely wrong pseudo physics.

Which is used instead of classical physics, as the ultimate model for their cosmoillogcial model, in which space bends and curves and twists, and particles are waves and every brain fart they have they call it a scientific theory and then they 'experimentally prove it', like Pound Rebka did by adding helium and confusing refraction with gravitation, if not intentionally doctoring the experiments, in their desperate attempt to win a stupid prize which is absolutely meaningless from a scientific point of view. And in fact it is extremelly detrimental to scientific progress, since these awards are later used to claim the veridicity of those awarded experiments, which are taken for granted by most scientists without any verification other than nobel prize. It got a nobel prize, so it must be right ! Right ? Wrong.

[crawler]

He is clearly using space expansion/contraction, which are derrived by einstein (for contraction) and friddman (for expansion) using general relativity.

'The DSSU incorporates the causal mechanism of gravity. Space-medium expansion (Lambda), space-medium contraction (Einstein’s contractile gravity), mass & energy, gravity-domain limits, … all fit into a unified fully-functional mechanism of gravity. Details: "The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation," J. Mod. Phys. Appl. Vol.2014:3 (2014).'

http://www.cellularuniverse.org/#DSSUrealUniverse

Lambda reffers to the cosmoillogical constant which Einstupidein made up to prevent his relativistic universe from contracting, and which he later called his biggest blunder. And which has been used extensively by big bang pseudo-scientists to 'explain' why the universe is expanding. Because Einstein's biggest blunder is very convenient to these unashamed pseudo-scientists, who can simply adjust its value fo fit their desired results, making it the only constant that varies from 0 to basically whatever number they want. So I think Ranzan is a pseudo-scientist too, since he has based his theory on the same cosmoillogical pseudo scientific blunder (which at least einstein had the decency to admit it as such and remove it from his theory).

Ranzan (like others) mentions standard mainstream terms (especially Einsteinian stuff) to help to get his papers accepted. But nowhere duz Ranzan actually use GTR or STR or spacetime or length contraction etc in his papers, certainly not in his redshift papers.
Prof Reg Cahill duz likewize. Reg mentions dynamic space & quantum foam etc (both terms are much used in standard modern science) in Reg's papers koz invoking aether is suicide in most journals.

[crawler]

 in some of his papers Ranzan gives Einstein a bit of credit (in relation to length contraction or somethink)(karnt remember).

That is not where credit is due, because length contraction is Lorentz's ideea from his Aether theory, which he used to explain the negative results of the Michelson Morrey experiment. Which Einstupidein of course stole and foolishly implemented in his aetherless SR theory, proving once more that he is a complete and utter plagiator, and a very very stupid one at that. I mean, he steals exactly the ideea which Lorentz invented for the sole purpose of saving the aether, and then says aether is not needed and removes it from his theory. Seriously Einstupidein was not a bright guy. He is probably the stupidest pseudo-scientist that ever lived.

The fact that he is generally portrayed as a genius by mainstream science, only shows how generally retarded mainstream scientists are. They are so retarded that they don't understand that refraction causes a variation in the speed of light and in its wavelength as it refracts from atmosphere into space, or that gravitational time delay is caused by refaction which is slowing down the light near massive objects which are envoloped in gaseous atmospheres, or that helium is not gravity and it has no place in a gravitational redshift experiment. And they they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis.

Length contraction due to velocity is of course real. But the standard equation(s) for gamma are wrong(ish).
We can credit Heaviside Searle FitzGerald Voigt Larmor Cohn Poincare Lorentz & Co for contributing to length contraction (goodish stuff) & to frame coordinate transforms (komplete krapp).
The Einsteinian gammas etc look like Lorentz's but the terms are different. And the gammas need to be used in different ways. Einstein lied when he said that his gammas etc were like or similar to Lorentz's.

[crawler]

I cannot even brag to much about debunking these mainstream clowns, because I barely used two simple equations and basic logic and put their whole 'experimentally proven' relativistic non-sense to the wall of shame. It's almost like arguing with disabled people, and winning the argument by knowing that 1+1=2. And even if I didn't know those simple formulas, it was immediatelly obvious that helium had no place in that gravitational redshift experiment and that if the experiment would have been performed without it there would have been no gravitational redshift. Otherwise, why would you add a bag of helium to it ? To reduce scattering, sure, but then why place the detector outside the helium bag, and not inside it, to avoid refraction ? And why not do it in a vacuum and remove scattering altogether ?

I mean these clowns don't understand basic logic and elementary notions about refraction and classical physics in general, but they pose in these geniuses that understand highly complicated and advanced physics that mere mortals cannot grasp, and begin to solve the misteries of the universe, claiming they know how and when it began, by using these completely wrong pseudo physics.

Which is used instead of classical physics, as the ultimate model for their cosmoillogcial model, in which space bends and curves and twists, and particles are waves and every brain fart they have they call it a scientific theory and then they 'experimentally prove it', like Pound Rebka did by adding helium and confusing refraction with gravitation, if not intentionally doctoring the experiments, in their desperate attempt to win a stupid prize which is absolutely meaningless from a scientific point of view. And in fact it is extremelly detrimental to scientific progress, since these awards are later used to claim the veridicity of those awarded experiments, which are taken for granted by most scientists without any verification other than nobel prize. It got a nobel prize, so it must be right ! Right ? Wrong.

It seems to me that gravitational redshift etc all have zero affect koz any change to frequency cancels in the long term.
Whereaz Ranzan's stretching duznt cancel anywhere at any time in any way.

[mariuslvasile]

Length contraction due to velocity is of course real.

I don't think it is. There is no experiment which proves this, no one has actually observed/measured any contraction on a moving physical object. The claims are that particles moving close to the speed of light are contracted, but how exactly did they measure that ? This is pure theoretical physics and its not based on empirical evidence.

And Lorentz made it up to save the stationary aether theory, but if the aether is dragged by the earth's gravity, there is no need for this artificial theory.

[crawler]

Length contraction due to velocity is of course real.

I don't think it is. There is no experiment which proves this, no one has actually observed/measured any contraction on a moving physical object. The claims are that particles moving close to the speed of light are contracted, but how exactly did they measure that ? This is pure theoretical physics and its not based on empirical evidence.

And Lorentz made it up to save the stationary aether theory, but if the aether is dragged by the earth's gravity, there is no need for this artificial theory.

The nearly null results of vacuum mode MMXs shows that the Lorentz gamma for length contraction gives goodish numbers. There must be some kind of shape change when velocity changes.
Prof Reg Cahill has explained/derived the correct calibration for gas mode (& vacuum mode) MMXs (in about 2001).
Except that VV Demjanov explained in 1968 (he has lots of modern papers).
The background aetherwind blows through our solar system at 500 km/s south to north about 15 deg off Earth's axis.

[Lloyd]

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?

[Lloyd]

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

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[Lloyd]

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?

[mariuslvasile]

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.