  Gravitational redshift effects undoubtedly exist; moreover, the experimental
setups which confirm the existence of these effects - the most famous of which
being the Pound-Rebka experiment - are well-known. Nonetheless - and perhaps
surprisingly - there remains a great deal of confusion in the literature
regarding what these experiments really establish. Our goal in the present
article is to clarify these issues, in three concrete ways. First, although (i)
Brown and Read (2016) are correct to point out that, given their sensitivity,
the outcomes of experimental setups such as the original Pound-Rebka
configuration can be accounted for using solely the machinery of accelerating
frames in special relativity (barring some subtleties due to the Rindler
spacetime necessary to model the effects rigorously), nevertheless (ii) an
explanation of the results of more sensitive gravitational redshift outcomes
does in fact require more. Second, although typically this 'more' is understood
as the invocation of spacetime curvature within the framework of general
relativity, in light of the so-called 'geometric trinity' of gravitational
theories, in fact curvature is not necessary to explain even these results.
Thus (a) one can explain the results of these experiments using only the
resources of special relativity, and (b) even when one cannot, one need not
invoke spacetime curvature. And third: while one might think that the absence
of gravitational redshift effects would imply that spacetime is flat, this can
be called into question given the possibility of the 'shielding' of
gravitational effects by charge. This argument is shown to be valid and both
attractive forces as well as redshift effects can be effectively shielded (and
even be repulsive or blueshifted) in the charged setting. Thus, it is not the
case that the absence of gravitational effects implies a Minkowskian spacetime
setting.
