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

[mariuslvasile]

'Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia

'Astronomers don't know anything.' -Vasilepedia

In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it.


Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift (certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists). It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when the speed of light increases, and in a decrease in wavelength or a blueshift when its speed decreases.

The demonstration is quite simple, as we only need two simple equations in order to show that refraction causes a redshift or a blueshift.


The first is the wave equation f=v/λ, or λ=v/f

and the second is the refraction equation n=c/v, or v=c/n  

(where n is the index of refraction of the medium, v is the speed of light in a medium, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum)

We insert the second into the first and we get λ=c/nf.

Since f is constant during refraction, and c is also constant, we see that when the index of refraction n increases, the wavelength decreases (shifts to blue), and when n decreases the wavelength increases (shifts to red).

For two mediums with refractive index n1 and n2, wavelength is directly proportional with speed:  λ1/λ2=v1/v2,

and inversely proportional with the index of refraction: λ1/ λ2=n2/n1

For example during refraction from the sun's atmosphere or heliosphere into space, the index of refraction decreases from n>1 to n=1 and the speed of light increases from v to c, so the wavelength also increases and the light emitted by the sun gets shifted to red. This would also explain why almost all galaxies appear redshifted, since they are made of stars which are all redshifted from refraction. 

Before reaching space there are, however, multiple refractions inside the sun’s atmosphere, which has many layers with different indexes of refraction, which regress as they aproach space (i.e. the outer layers have a lower index than the inner layers, which are more dense). So the light emiited by the sun gets more and more redshifted as it refracts through these layers before it reaches into space, the final frontier, and gets refracted and redshifted again. 

And those who claim that the 'gravitational potential' of the sun is causing a shift in wavelength, or a gravitational shift, are simply ignoring the laws of refraction, which explains quite simply why light is redshifted near massive objects, which are all surrounded by dense atmospheres made from gases such as hydrogen and helium which affect the speed and wavelength of light.

It is important to understand that light does not always propagate at a constant speed c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum. In every other situation, when it encounters a medium, it travels at slower speeds, which varies with the index of refraction of the mediums, n=c/v. So instead of c, it travels at a lower speed v=c/n.

Therefore, when we observe a redshift, we must not assume that light has travelled at a fixed speed (or c in a vacuum) until it reached us. And associate the redshift with a drop in frequency, as scientists do, because they dont take variable speed of light from refraction into account, and use c as the standard value for the speed of light, instead of v=c/n. So by ignoring the mediums in which light traveled, they erroneusly apply the formula f=c/λ, instead of f=v/λ=c/nλ. Thus, if λ increases, to them a redshift can only mean that frequency decreased. When in most cases, when light has refracted through different mediums, the speed of light has changed, not its frequency, causing its wavelength to shift. That is, in my opinion, the main reason why scientists (including Einstein) failed to see that refraction causes a redshift, and confused gravitational redshift with refractional redshift.  

And because their so called gravitational redshift experiment was not done in a vacuum, but in the earth’s atmosphere, in which a bag of helium was added ‘to minimise scattering’. More specifically, the gamma ray traveled through the helium bag, and then through air, as the metal target and the detector were placed outside the helium bag.

'The gamma rays traveled through a Mylar bag filled with helium to minimize scattering’ (wikipedia)


It doesn’t take a genius to realise that the gammaray was refracted from helium into air, which has a higher index of refraction than helium, causing its wavelength to decrease and shift to blue, or increase and shift to red, depending on the different setups of the experiment (in other setup they placed the emitter under the helium tube, and the detector above it, creating an air to helium refraction and a refractional redshift). The gammaray was indeed shifted, but by refraction, and not by gravitation. Yet for Harvard University and the Nobel Academy this was a gravitational shift, just like Einstein predicted.  

Except Einstein did not predict that gravitational redshift occurs in the presence of helium, and nowhere in his proposed tests of general relativity does helium appear*. Why does it appear in this experiment, then ?

Because, there simply was no gravitational shift in the absence of helium. So they blamed it on ‘scattering’ from air, not on Einstein’s theory being wrong, and thrown in a bag of helium to prove it right. But it simply does not follow how the use of helium leads to a gravitational shift, when it can be so easily proven that it leads to a refractional shift.

Because the helium and air mediums in which the experiment was set obviously caused a refraction of the gammaray and a change in its speed and wavelength. So what they observed was just a Refractional redshift/blueshift, and not a gravitational one.

The only logical conclusion of that experiment is that refractional redshift exists and it was confused (deliberately or not) with gravitational redshift by the researchers. Their Nobel prize should be cancelled and the scientific community should immediatelly revise all experiments which claim that confirmed general relativity. Because this experiment did not confirm general relativity at all, and in fact it infirmed it. Since the shift was caused by refraction, and not by gravitation.

Given that helium is not gravity, and it does not appear in Einstein’s theory of general relativity or in his proposed tests to confirm it, Pound and Rebka should have not used it in this gravitational experiment, unless they were really desperate. Indeed, they were so desperate to get the Nobel prize, that they even drilled holes in the floors of their Harvard university (presumably to impress the Nobel jury). When they could have simply used the stair well (as a gravitational well, of course). So adding a bag of helium to produce a redshift out of thin air, was just another act of desperation.

This experiment should have been performed ideally in a vacuum or, if not possible, in the same medium in order to avoid refraction and refractional shift. As it was, it did not prove anything other than refraction changes the wavelength, which was probably known at the time by some scientists, including some Harvard ones, but excluding the Nobel ones. And the Nobel Academy is ultimately responsable for reviewing, approving, and awarding Harvard’s completely failed (or doctored) experiment. 

The Pound and Rebka gravitational redshift experiment attempted to prove Einstein right by the absurd addition of helium, which does not constitute gravity and is never mentioned by Einstein in his general relativity.  Because it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Maybe they liked playing with helium, but even kids know that it alters the sound waves. This is also what happens to light waves. And the Nobel academy should have known this as well, and immediatelly call the scam instead of awarding it. But they fell for it because they had no clue that refraction causes redshift, which is also true for mainstream scientists today.


The gravitational redshift experiment is one of the three tests proposed by Einstein to confirm general relativity. He stated that if any of these tests fails, then his whole theory would collapse. 

Since I proved that one of these tests has failed, general relativity has collapsed and it has been falsified. And therefore the standard cosmological model is wrong, since it is based on relativity and relativistic redshifts. So from now on, it should be called the standard cosmoillogical model.


And the pseudo-scientists who claim GPS proves Einstein right because the gps signal gets blueshifted by Earth's gravitational well/curved space dont understand refraction either. The reason of the blueshift has nothing to do with gravity, but with refraction. 

The Gps sattelites are in space, where the radio wave signal travels at the speed of light in a vacuum 'c', but as the wave passes through the atmosphere of the earth it refracts and slows down. So its wavelength will decrease because the speed of the wave decreases, not because of Einsteins bullshit physics which curve space. But because f=v/lambda, and the frequency f is constant in refraction, so if v the velocity decreases then lambda the wavelength also decreases and the signal gets blueshifted. 

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

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


P.S. There's a reason why cosmology is in a neverending Crysis. And it's called General Retardivity !

 

 

 

[crawler]

U mentioned.....
gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field);

U missed one ......
gravitational redshifts (due to light entering a gravitational field);

This is explained by Conrad Ranzan in one of his papers on his website. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/index.htm
Carl Frederick Krafft might have had the idea too in the 1950s & 60s (i forget).

[mariuslvasile]

U missed one ......
gravitational redshifts (due to light entering a gravitational field);

That is a gravitational blueshift, and I was quoting from wikipedia...

[mariuslvasile]

This is explained by Conrad Ranzan in one of his papers on his website. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/index.htm
Carl Frederick Krafft might have had the idea too in the 1950s & 60s (i forget).

What is explained and it what paper exactly ? I didn't find anything about refractional redshift on his site. The only articles on the web which mention it are all mine. Because I discovered it apparently.

And mister Ranzan seems to support a theory based on cellular space expansion and abberates with expanding voronoi cells, which I dont even want to know what they are frankly. He dismisses an illogical pseudo scientific theory of expanding space only to came up with another illogical pseudo scientific theory of expanding space. There is nothing scientific in an expanding space. Its a complete non-sense.

[galaxy12]

I apologize for being naive on the subject of refractional redshift. Someone might have to explain it to me better. If I understand this correctly, if light traveling through space encounters an atmosphere or other medium, its wavelength shortens because it slows down while having the same frequency. When the same light later leaves the atmosphere, its wavelength lengthens again but the frequency does not change. I thought redshift was a lowering of the frequency of light without respect to wavelength? How does refraction change the frequency?

[mariuslvasile]

If I understand this correctly, if light traveling through space encounters an atmosphere or other medium, its wavelength shortens because it slows down while having the same frequency. When the same light later leaves the atmosphere, its wavelength lengthens again but the frequency does not change.

Your understanding is correct.

I thought redshift was a lowering of the frequency of light without respect to wavelength?

This is wrong. A redshift IS by definition an increase in wavelength, and is called redshift because red has the longest wavelength of the visible spectrum (blue has the shortest).
But pseudo scientists ignorant of refraction such as Einstein and his followers automatically associate this increase in wavelength with a drop in frequency because they ALWAYS use f=c/lambda regardless of the medium light travels in, instead of f=v/lambda=c/n*lambda, where v is speed of light in the medium, and n is the index of refraction of the medium. You can only use f=c/lambda if light travels in space or in a vacuum, because c is the speed of light in a vacuum. But since star light is not emmited in a vacuum, but in the star's atmosphere, it will travel at a lower speed (v=c/n) until it exits the star's atmosphere. So it will always be redshifted from refraction, first as it refracts in the diferrent layers of the atmosphere and finally as it exits it and refracts into space.
But the frequency will not change at all, only the speed which will automatically affect the wavelength since f=v/lambda.

How does refraction change the frequency?

It doesn't. That's why it produces a refractional redshift, and thats why astronomers have no ideea that it exists and confuse it with gravitational redshift. Because they were indoctrinated by einsteinian pseudo physicists to believe that a redshift can only correspond to a decrease in frequency, which is obviously false since I have just proved it. It can also correspond with an increase in speed. Only in Doppler effect and only in the same medium it coresponds to a decrease in frequency. But in Vasile effect it corresponds with an increase in speed.

Dont get me wrong Doppler effect is cool and all, but Vasile effect is just as important, if not more important since with Doppler effect you can't explain redshift in a static universe but with Vasile effect you can. And I have just proved that big bang expanding universe is false with this special effect. Altough I can prove that with special relativity too: https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... s.html?m=1

[galaxy12]

Thank you for your explanation. I understand that the wavelength changes as light travels through mediums with different refractive indexes. I do not understand how this alteration in wavelength causes what astronomers typically refer to as redshift. If a star makes light with a frequency in the violet range, the light exits the star's atmosphere and travels through space. When the light enters a telescope, the light will continue to be in the violet range on arrival if the frequency has not changed. Am I missing something?

[crawler]

This is explained by Conrad Ranzan in one of his papers on his website. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/index.htm
Carl Frederick Krafft might have had the idea too in the 1950s & 60s (i forget).

What is explained and it what paper exactly ? I didn't find anything about refractional redshift on his site. The only articles on the web which mention it are all mine. Because I discovered it apparently.

And mister Ranzan seems to support a theory based on cellular space expansion and abberates with expanding voronoi cells, which I dont even want to know what they are frankly. He dismisses an illogical pseudo scientific theory of expanding space only to came up with another illogical pseudo scientific theory of expanding space. There is nothing scientific in an expanding space. Its a complete non-sense.

Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. Imagine the head of the photon, this propagates at c km/s in the aether, & the head accelerates in the direction of propagation (according to an observer on the quasar) because the aether inflow is slower at greater distance. Imagine the tail of that photon, this accelerates more slowly than the head, hencely the photon stretches. Krafft wrote about this kind of stretching in 1963. There is no dispersion.

Ranzan's (cosmic) Redshift (5). Photons propagating through the cosmic cells of our infinite universe are stretched due to (4) as they approach micro mass (eg electrons) & also as they approach macro mass (eg stars). Plus they get another dose of stretching due to (4) as they depart micro mass & macro mass. This double whammy of stretching (ie firstly during approach & secondly during departure) is counterintuitive (indeed Marmet doesn't understand), but if u think about it u might get it. Aether stretches on both approach & departure, & the photons stretch with the aether. Handy hint -- think of what happens to the head & tail of photons. It produces stretching of photons, & bending of light, but does not produce any dispersion due to frequency, ie all frequencies are stretched by the same %, & all frequencies suffer the same amount of bending (ie contributing to lensing).


Marmet & Ranzan have some papers re cosmological redshift.

http://www.marmet.org/louis/
Louis Marmet (2013) On The Interpretation Of Redshifts. (Cant find a link).
7.3 in Marmet's paper is Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe theory re redshift being due to photons being permanently stretched when approaching mass & then a second dose of stretching when going away from that mass.
http://www.cellularuniverse.org/CosmicR ... Ranzan.pdf
(2018) On The Interpretation Of Spectral Red-Shift In Astrophysics. (A later paper by Marmet)(no link).
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/FRBs_an ... ations.pdf
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/pdf/667.1.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/555b/9 ... 1577326532

[mariuslvasile]

I understand that the wavelength changes as light travels through mediums with different refractive indexes. I do not understand how this alteration in wavelength causes what astronomers typically refer to as redshift.

A redshift is defined as an increase in wavelength, and I don't think any astronomer contests that.

European Space Agency for example says:
'Red shift' is a key concept for astronomers. The term can be understood literally - the wavelength of the light is stretched, so the light is seen as 'shifted' towards the red part of the spectrum.'

If a star makes light with a frequency in the violet range, the light exits the star's atmosphere and travels through space. When the light enters a telescope, the light will continue to be in the violet range on arrival if the frequency has not changed. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the definition of redshift. What you say here is true, but it has nothing to do with redshift.

[mariuslvasile]

Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. [...]

None of those redshifts have to do with refraction. I dont understand what you are trying to show. Can you be ontopic please ?

[crawler]

Krafftian Redshift (4). Aether flowing towards the quasar is stretched as the aether accelerates, & photons propagating away from the quasar stretch in the aether. [...]

None of those redshifts have to do with refraction. I dont understand what you are trying to show. Can you be ontopic please ?

Yes, none of these redshifts have to do with refraction.
But, your first words in your first posting were...........
'Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia
And, Krafft's & Ranzan's redshifts need to be added to the Wikipedia wordage, ie there are four sources. Your refraction makes that five.

[mariuslvasile]

Yes, none of these redshifts have to do with refraction.
But, your first words in your first posting were...........
'Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia
And, Krafft's & Ranzan's redshifts need to be added to the Wikipedia wordage, ie there are four sources. Your refraction makes that five.

Sure, but right after that quote from wikipedia I stated that 'Astronomers don't anything' -Vasilepedia. Because what astronomers 'know' is mostly wrong, and gravitational redshift and any shift based on general relativity ('where space itself stretches') does not exist as I have clearly proved. Because general relativity is a falsified meta-physical theory i.e. pseudo-science, and space does not bend, stretch or do any sort of gymnastics.

So there are only two scientifically proven redshifts, Doppler shift and refractional shift, because the ones you mention are theoretical and have not been proven yet. The tired light redshift is also very plausable but it has not yet been proven.

[crawler]

Yes, none of these redshifts have to do with refraction.
But, your first words in your first posting were...........
'Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia
And, Krafft's & Ranzan's redshifts need to be added to the Wikipedia wordage, ie there are four sources. Your refraction makes that five.

Sure, but right after that quote from wikipedia I stated that 'Astronomers don't anything' -Vasilepedia. Because what astronomers 'know' is mostly wrong, and gravitational redshift and any shift based on general relativity ('where space itself stretches') does not exist as I have clearly proved. Because general relativity is a falsified meta-physical theory i.e. pseudo-science, and space does not bend, stretch or do any sort of gymnastics.

So there are only two scientifically proven redshifts, Doppler shift and refractional shift, because the ones you mention are theoretical and have not been proven yet. The tired light redshift is also very plausable but it has not yet been proven.

Yes GR & SR are rubbish (spacetime is rubbish)(BB is rubbish). And in any case GR redshift is negated by GR blueshift.
I forgot (6) the Arp creational redshift (my name)(Arp was one of the few real astronomers).

[mariuslvasile]

Yes GR & SR are rubbish (spacetime is rubbish)(BB is rubbish). And in any case GR redshift is negated by GR blueshift.

How is it negated ? I don't get it.

[crawler]

Yes GR & SR are rubbish (spacetime is rubbish)(BB is rubbish). And in any case GR redshift is negated by GR blueshift.

How is it negated ? I don't get it.

I think u mean that there is no such thing as GR redshift or GR blueshift (eg for a photon approaching a mass & then departing that mass).
But, assuming that there are such shifts, then in theory the 2 shifts must cancel exactly.
Shapiro Delay is a measure of the temporary slowing of photons (or more correctly i think the slowing of radar waves)(ie radio waves) near mass, & i think that such Shapiro Delay supports redshift & then blueshift (albeit strictly speaking for radio waves not for photons)(but praps the exact same slowing effect applies to photons), & the 2 shifts cancel.