Lensing by Refraction…not Gravity?


Hubble looks for dark matter in colliding galactic clusters using theory of gravitational lensing. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/CfA/M.Markevitch et al.; Lensing Map: NASA/STScI; ESO WFI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Magellan/U.Arizona/D.Clowe et al., of the Bullet Cluster.

Big Bang cosmology has it’s challenges – it also has it’s challengers.

Re-posted courtesy of Thunderbolts.info.

The EU community is a challenger to the standard gravitational model, believing space-time to be a misinterpretation of the Universe. The things we see in the Universe – from large scale filamentary structures connecting galactic clusters, to Earth’s climate and meteorology – are plasma phenomena driven by electromagnetic forces. In fact, as discussed by Wal Thornhill in his EU2015 conference presentation, “The Long Path to Understanding Gravity” , even gravity can be seen as a manifestation of electromagnetic forces.

EU Theory is not the only challenger to standard gravity theories, however. Many gravity-based theories also challenge the mainstream from within their community. It is unfortunate we have a separation of communities at all, since it is scientific progress that suffers. Nevertheless, alternative ideas still abound and the theories often comport more with EU Theory than with their parent gravitational model.

Professor R. C. Gupta at the Institute of Engineering & Technology in Lucknow, India has presented such a theory in a paper entitled,

“Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light.”

The paper asserts that the theory behind gravitational lensing – one of the evidentiary “proofs” of General Relativity – is wrong, and that the lensing effect is caused by refraction through the “atmospheres” of stars and galaxies.

The paper also presents the mathematical basis for refraction, and shows refraction closely predicts the same lensing effect as attributed to gravity.

It is a plausible theory based on the presence of plasma atmospheres that we know pervade stellar and galactic formations at every scale. The paper shows that a stellar, or galactic atmosphere will bend light, just as it is refracted by crystal, or water as the light passes from low density medium to a higher density medium.

It is the kind of simple answer based on classical physics and the known behavior of electromagnetism that EU Theory rigorously requires, unlike the General Relativity concepts that require magical unseen mass and energy.

The idea that refraction causes the lensing effect traditionally attributed to Relativity has also been proposed by Dr. Edward Dowdye, Jr., a physicist and laser optics engineer formerly with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Dowdye derived the mathematical solution for lensing using refraction instead of gravity, as he presented at the EU2012 conference.

Ed Dowdye points to the fact that observations of solar lensing are in the plasma ionized atmosphere of the Sun, as predicted by refraction, and not at varying elevations from the mass of the Sun as predicted for gravitational lensing. He also points to the lack of gravitational lensing observed in the stars rapidly orbiting the Milky Way’s galactic center. He writes, “..evidence of gravitational light bending at the site of Sagittarius A*, as is predicted by the light bending rule of General Relativity, is yet to be observed.”

The standard model theory predicts a massive black hole at the galactic center. Astronomers have observed stars in fast elliptical orbits around the galactic center for over a year, some having completed entire orbits. Although the stellar orbits are cited as indirect evidence of a black hole, and the validity of General Relativity, they do not exhibit the predicted optical distortion to indicate gravitational lensing.

To test for refraction as the cause of lensing, Dr. Gupta’s paper suggests no lensing effect will be seen near a body without an atmosphere. This may be difficult to observe given plasma pervades space to a greater degree than often recognized. Even our distant planet Pluto has been found to have a substantial atmosphere and a cometary tail of plasma streaming from it.

Another test is to look for chromatic aberration in the light bent through refraction. Diffraction is a natural consequence of refractive lensing, spreading the colors, as in a prism. General Relativity predicts no diffraction with gravitational lensing, since gravity warped space-time should bend all wavelengths equally. General Relativity theorists suggests the lack of diffraction in lensing is evidence their theory is correct. Yet Einstein Rings are blue.

An Einstein Ring is a special case of lensing when the focal point of distant light is directed  at the observer to create a ring of light around the intervening galaxy. The blue color is an indication of diffraction.

Predictably, instead of looking at classical physics for answers, General Relativity theorists are developing ad-hoc theories to explain how light is diffracted by gravity to make the Einstein Rings blue. At the same time, of course, they maintain no diffraction as evidence lensing is gravitational, and not refractive. How contradictory. But that is what happens when a theory relies on math instead of observation.

Dr. Gupta asserts we don’t know the refractive index, or the density of the matter light passes through, so may not be measuring the small diffusion that results in all cases. Let’s hope Dr. Gupta gets the attention he deserves to test his theory.

Remarkably, the paper goes on to postulates that gravitational attraction is only between material bodies – bodies with mass – and that light waves have no mass, so cannot be affected by gravity.

The long held assumption of General Relativity, that the speed of light, c is constant, is also challenged by his theory, as is the cause of gravitational red/blue shift in light witnessed from distant galaxies.

These ideas are also predicated on refraction, because the energy of light  is not changed by refraction.

Max Planc’s equation for quantum energy is,
E = hν
Where E is the quantum energy of light, h is the Planck constant and ν is the frequency of light.
Frequency ν is expressed in terms of the speed of light c, as ν = c/λ, where λ is the wavelength of light.
Hence, E can be expressed as,
E = hc/λ

General Relativity assumes c to be constant, and red/blue shifts occurs because light gains gravitational energy from a body as it passes through its gravitational influence (E goes up). With c constant, and the total energy of the light rising, the wavelength of light must go down (blue shift). Conversely, the energy is reduced as light escapes a gravitational field and the wavelength goes up (red shift). Wavelength varies inversely with frequency if c is constant, because ν = c/λ.

What this paper postulates, is that no energy is gained from gravitational forces by a mass-less light wave. So E remains constant, and no change in frequency occurs; and E = hν stays constant as light passes a massive body in space.

Instead, c, the speed of light is slowed by the medium it passes through, and hence wavelength, λ decreases (blue shift) since λ = hc/E. Conversely, red shift occurs when light leaves a dense medium into the vacuum of space, because c increases, so λ increases.

That’s an easy concept to grasp. General Relativity does not like to use such simple and classical explanations. It requires mind-bending concepts of things we can’t see, or explain – like gravitational distortions in space-time.

General Relativity is the stalwart theory behind almost all theoretical astro-physics. Einstein proposed gravitational lensing as one of three tests. The standard interpretation of red-shift as a measure of recessional velocity  is another. Refraction theory could pull both of these legs out from the old, rickety three-legged stool.

EU Theory can agree with refraction as a cause for lensing. It suggests, however, that the “atmosphere” for refraction is the classic ether of James Clerk Maxwell’s field theory, as derived by Oliver Heaviside.

As Wal Thornhill explains in “Towards a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century”, the Electric Universe theorizes neutrinos form the ether and provide the mechanical substrate of the universe. Neutrinos have mass, albeit infinitesimally small, and envelop stars and galaxies in a density gradient which causes refractive lensing.

At the time Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity, the pervasiveness of plasma was not known, nor had neutrinos been observed. It was thought there was no medium to cause refraction in the vacuum of space. Now, we know about the electromagnetic plasma environments of stars and galaxies. We know neutrinos pervade space. It is inconceivable, in accordance with the classic physics of light and optics, that light passing through a medium does not experience refraction.

Gravitational lensing is used to study the presence of “dark matter” in galactic clusters. If refraction is the actual cause of lensing, a major assumption driving the dark matter search would be swept away. Critics suggest it is because of such assumptions, that after decades of searching, dark matter remains dark – because it does not exist.

This issue matters to all of us, as pointed out by John Moffat, an eminent doubter of dark matter and the concept of a constant speed of light, within the mainstream community.

“It may be that ultimately the search for dark matter will turn out to be the most expensive and largest null result experiment since the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect the ether.” – John Moffat

The search for dark matter is more than 80 years old. The presence of all the known, observable, detectable, normal matter — the stuff in the standard model — cannot account for the gravitation “observed” according to General Relativity. Despite abject failure to find dark matter, General Relativity theorists are convinced it is out there.

If the gravitational model theorists would consider the neutrino as the normal matter that pervades space and provides the structure for field theory to act upon, and that charge separation is the driving force shaping our Universe – they might explain the things they keep scratching their heads over without the invention of stuff that is not known, observable, detectable, normal matter.

Likewise, a listen to Dr. Gupta’s refraction theories might lead to successful experiments that would enlighten our understanding of the Electric Universe, as well.

In the words of one of the great philosophers of Saturday Night Live, Roseanne Roseannadana, “Let me tell ya Jane, it’s always something. It’s just one thing, after another…”

Rarely is any phenomena the result of any one thing. Lensing is an optical phenomena that can be arrived at from many different angles – no pun intended. That one can derive it’s effect with an equation based on the gravity of a body light passes, per General Relativity, or through the known optical effect of refraction through changing densities of the medium it passes through, whether that medium is an atmosphere of ionic material, or an ether of neutrinos, points to the fact that we are missing something at the fundamental level in the relationships of gravity, mass and matter.

It also points to the maleability of mathematics to describe anything – even dark matter, black holes and square pegs in round holes.

As Dr. Gupta has shown similarly with known optical science, answers are found with classical physics. We just need a science community to look at it.


2 thoughts on “Lensing by Refraction…not Gravity?”

  1. This seems to ignore the dual nature of particles as expounded by de Broglie. Perhaps when a photon passes a mass it exhibits its particle nature and hence has a mass rather than being a wave? In that case, General Relativity would seem to me correct.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s