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

[mariuslvasile]

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.

There is no Shapiro gravitational time delay. Because there is no gravitational time dilation. The radio wave delay is caused by refraction inside the atmosphere of the planets, which causes the radio wave to slow down near them, as it travels through their atmosphere. Hence refraction will effectively slow the radio waves near massive objects like planets. So, just like in the case of gravitational redshift, einsteinian pseudo-physicists have confused an effect produced by refraction with one of gravitation. 
Which proves once more that general relativity is a false pseudo-science, based on a complete ignorance of refraction.

This is just another example of how refraction is confused with gravitation by these so called scientists, who don't know basic refraction physics. They just have to know that v=c/n, where n is index of refraction, which is learned in highschool, and do the math (altough they need to know the indexes of refraction of the atmospheres of the planets used, and each index is variable because of the different layers which make up their atmosphere). Instead they use c everywhere, instead of v=c/n when light enters the planets atmospheres, and illogically 'prove' that time is slowed down by their gravity, as predicted by general relativity. All that they prove is Einstein's prediction that
'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity'.

[mariuslvasile]

The radio wave delay is caused by refraction inside the atmosphere of the planets,

Or of stars, like the sun.

[crawler]

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.

There is no Shapiro gravitational time delay. Because there is no gravitational time dilation. The radio wave delay is caused by refraction inside the atmosphere of the planets, which causes the radio wave to slow down near them, as it travels through their atmosphere. Hence refraction will effectively slow the radio waves near massive objects like planets. So, just like in the case of gravitational redshift, einsteinian pseudo-physicists have confused an effect produced by refraction with one of gravitation. 
Which proves once more that general relativity is a false pseudo-science, based on a complete ignorance of refraction.

This is just another example of how refraction is confused with gravitation by these so called scientists, who don't know basic refraction physics. They just have to know that v=c/n, where n is index of refraction, which is learned in highschool, and do the math (altough they need to know the indexes of refraction of the atmospheres of the planets used, and each index is variable because of the different layers which make up their atmosphere). Instead they use c everywhere, instead of v=c/n when light enters the planets atmospheres, and illogically 'prove' that time is slowed down by their gravity, as predicted by general relativity. All that they prove is Einstein's prediction that
'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity'.

I had a close look at Shapiro Delay years ago. I think he isolated & allowed for delay due to refraction (near the Sun).
Shapiro Delay can be said to support GR, but of course (as u say) it duznt, koz spacetime etc duznt exist (& (as u say) time dilation duznt exist).
Shapiro Delay is (imo) due to photaeno congestion, it aint due to gravity (imo). But that is another topic.

[mariuslvasile]

I had a close look at Shapiro Delay years ago. I think he isolated & allowed for delay due to refraction (near the Sun).
Shapiro Delay can be said to support GR, but of course (as u say) it

I really doubt that he did. On wiki it clearly says he used c for the speed of light, and nothing about refraction. Nor on other sites which present it, and his original paper is not public it seems. Can you give the source where you read this ?

[balsysr]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[balsysr]

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

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[crawler]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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

[crawler]

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.

[mariuslvasile]

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

[crawler]

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 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.

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 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.

'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.

[mariuslvasile]

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.

[crawler]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.