Most people have only been introduced to
one or two theories about light space
and time. But even as Einstein said, we
can't solve our problems with the same
thinking we used when those initial
problems were encountered. I want to
encourage people not to get too
defensive when discussing alternatives
or new perspectives. Psychologically
people tend to defend the first model
they encounter or are brought up with.
Even if that model isn't as accurate as
it could be. So, rather than looking at
things from the perspectives of Einstein,
Lorentz, DeSitter or Ritz... I wanted to
talk about a few differences between
relativity and classic physics. And a
different model of light based from the
work of Christian Huygens and retired
NASA physicist Dr. Edward Dowdye.
In order to grasp the significance and
importance of Dowdye's work, we have to
have some background and context to what we are comparing to. Before relativity,
electromagnetism and gravity was
understood under 3D Euclidean space
geometry. There was no curved space. No
distortions. And using only Galilean
Transformations and actual observations.
There was space... and then there was time.
They were not linked and were treated
separately. The more complex technology
evolved... the higher speeds achieved
required more detailed explanations.
Before Einstein, there were a number of
Aether theorists like Nikola Tesla,
Steinmetz, Larmor and Lorentz who
attempted to introduce a luminiferous
Aether to explain not only the constant
of light... but the constancy of light. (2
different things) But then came along
Henri Poincare' and Minkowski who
started to interject forth dimensions
and space distortions and
unsubstantiated assumptions. We will be
dealing with NO ad-hoc assumptions.
No requirement of ANY media for light to
propagate. No need for any aether or space
distortions. No 4D. Just dealing with 3D
Euclidean space. Wanted to say one quick
thing about aether. Now, I used to believe
in aether. But now I think... if you can
define it... then it isn't Aether.
I think aether is like the word "quantum"
or "magic". An esoteric and convenient
cop-out to avoid talking about particle
physics and dynamics on scales smaller
than what Max Planck's models would
allow. Anything not understood is
automatically labeled "quantum" or "magic"
or "aether".  I think there are fine and
ultrafine particles of matter like what
George's LeSage speculated. I think there
are gases that pervade space that are
not recognized like what Walter Russell
presented on his periodic chart from
1926. Showing 24 elements before hydrogen.
Thousands of years ago, ancient Greeks
thought plasma was "Aether". But as
scientific understanding grew and tools
evolved... our terminology advanced and
understanding also grew. So what used to
be "aether"... evolves into a now definable
and definitive variable. Aether is
undefinable. It's debatable that even
Nikola Tesla and Charles Steinmetz
viewed an electrostatic potential as
being "the aether". So... if there are
particles not recognized... and gases not
recognized... and semantics about
electrostatic influence over great
distances... Then those are real factors
that we can talk about. Therefore, the
more that we learn... the less "aether" plays
any role at all. Sound. light, electricity,
(and most likely gravity) are all
spherical propagations. Like a
spherically expanding shock wave outward
in all directions from a point source.
Within that spherical boundary are
concentric shells like Russian nesting
dolls. The distance between each
concentric nested sphere is equal to a
wavelength of light.
"Light" is defined as the visible spectrum
range for humans which would be
shockwaves of nested concentric spheres
that are coherently spaced between a
certain nanometer wavelength. As those
spheres expand through you/ past you/
around you... you experience those nested
shock waves as a wavelength of light at
the rate of 'c'. Or, at the rate of about
720 miles an hour at sea level for sound.
Although sound requires a medium to
"travel"... electromagnetic radiation and
light does Not require any medium to
propagate. But, if there Is a media
present it will be affected and present
the already existing packet. There IS
media throughout the cosmos in any case...
but it's not required for This Emissions
Theory. And in This theory... there is no
particle-wave duality. Since ALL
emissions are spherical propagations. If
you were to take a cross-section of
those nested spheres... and trace a path on
one plane from the point source... you
would see that "wave" on the X and Y axis.
But it's not a wave... that's just a
cross-section of the nested expanding
spheres. Like dropping a pebble in a pond
and seeing the ripples expand. That's a
2D representation of a 3D sphere. You're
only seeing a cross-section. But that
"wave" is in regards to a 2D graphical
representation of a rectilinear path
from the source... of an actual 3D
expanding sphere. Now, the next natural
question is... "What is expanding? What is
waving?" And again... there is no "thing"
expanding. As an analogy, a shockwave
isn't "made of" anything.
It's a disturbance OF and IN a media. but
so people can start to visualize
Huygen's Principle and how light
expands... this is a great next step. Rather
than thinking of squiggly lines that
travel through the air. A wave is what
something DOES, not
something IS. But light is a massless
disturbance. "It" is not "made of" anything!
You can pick anywhere on that spherical
boundary and call it "a photon". You can
look at the center of that expanding
sphere as "a photon". You can call Anywhere
within that spherical boundary, "photons".
If people have a problem with that term...
use "wave-packet". When you flick a lighter,
a sphere of light propagates outward in
all directions... analogous to a shockwave.
So, call it what you want.
Here is where we begin to see subtle
differences between models... which lead to
major implications. ANYtime the
straight-lined path of light is
disturbed or interfered with... that
portion of the expanding sphere is
absorbed by the media or the atoms
making up matter. Whatever interfered
with it... that portion of the sphere
ceases to exist gets absorbed by the
interference itself. The energy from that
primary wave-packet diminishes to zero,
and is extinguished.
The so-called "reflection" of that
shockwave is a brand-new secondary wave-
packet altogether. Being re emitted from
the surface of the wall, or whatever
absorbed that primary. NOT that the primary wave ricocheted. THIS is one of the MAIN
points with the Greatest implications
for illusions throughout the rest of
science.
"If the velocity of light is even a tiny
bit dependent upon the velocity of the
light source, then my entire Theory of
Relativity and Gravitation is false." That
is a quotation of Albert Einstein from a
letter to Erwin Finley, of August of
1913. When we look at a mirror... that is
not the same light bouncing back. Light
does NOT ricochet. In reality, a wave-packet is absorbed by the atoms making
up the surface of a mirror... a wall, matter,
cosmic dust, a plasma atmosphere... ANYthing...
Any media of Any kind... The wave-packet
ceases to exist... and a brand-new
secondary wave-packet is simultaneously
re-emitted at a tangent from the
interference itself. Giving the Illusion
that the original wave packet ricocheted
and continued on. Now, inelastic and
elastic collisions of particles apply
to ricochets. Snell's Law,
Fermat's Law and the math to DESCRIBE
the tangential Re-Emissions are valid
and apply. But wavefronts and shockwaves
are absorbed... cease to exist... and
whatever interfered with them becomes a
secondary emitter! Reproducing a
brand-new wave packet. (and that secondary
wave is traveling relative with the
secondary emitter or the interference).
Which means, technically, reflection does
not exist. And neither does refraction,
diffraction, deflection, length-contraction, dilation, dispersion. Doppler
Shift OR Redshift! Because ALL of those
examples assume that a primary wave-
packet ricochets off of the surface... or
is interfered with... and then continues on.
But wave-packets propagate Until they
are interfered With... and then they cease
to exist at the point of interference.
And the surface of the mirror Re-Emits a
brand-new light as an equal and opposite
reaction.
So, Relativity and most ALL previous
Emissions Theories subscribe to the idea
that the SAME light has always existed
since some "Big Bang." And that the same
light is bouncing around forever.
Ricocheting, deflecting, contracting... and
then continuing on. And that light and
time follow the same rules and that
they're linked. But light and time are
Not linked. And this is THE reason why
Relativity and ALL previous Emissions
Theories, and current models, say that the
speed of light (or that the velocity of
light) is the SAME from all frames of
reference. This is absolutely Not the
case. But it certainly SEEMS the case!
Because of Illusions of Re-Emissions.
The light emitted from a flashlight will
Always travel at the rate of 'c' relative
to the flashlight or the source. But the
light emitted from a flashlight being
held in your hand is Not traveling the
same speed as the light emitted from a
flashlight moving Towards or Away from
you... at a different speed. So here are a
couple examples.
Re-Emissions ALWAYS propagate at the
rate of 'c' relative to the interference
that absorbed the primary light. Serving
the Illusion that the velocity of light
is Same from all frames of reference. But
it is physically impossible to measure
the velocity of ANY primary source. So by
the time any sensor or detector or an
observer sees the light... it is a Re-Emitted secondary or tertiary packet.
It's a brand-new light altogether. So,
that sphere is expanding from the
flashlight at the rate of 'c'. But if the
flashlight is moving Towards you at 100
miles a second... then that sphere of light
is moving towards you at 'c'... plus 100
miles a second. If the flashlight is
moving away from you at 100 miles a
second... then that sphere is expanding
from that flashlight at 'c'... minus 100
miles a second. But you will only observe
the re-emission
by the time it reaches your eye. (Or it
goes into your eye).
When Albert Einstein published his
General Theory of Relativity in 1915, he
proposed three critical tests, insisting
in a letter to The Times of London that
if any one of these three proved to be
wrong... or that if there were any
alternative methods to yield the same
conclusions and predictions... that
relativity would not be needed and would
eventually collapse. Here are three such
credible challenges and alternatives
which yield the same conclusions.
And here is a more detailed list of
other solutions and predictions
concluded using Galilean transformations
and pure classic physics, from Dr. Edward
Dowdye's 'Extinction Shift Principle'.
Relativity subscribes to the idea that
mass fluctuates meaning mass increases
as it gains velocity. But Classic Physics
says it's an illusion of a charged mass
traveling at a given rate... but within a
surrounding and increasing electrostatic
potential. The accelerating surrounding
potential is mistaken as the mass
fluctuating. The equation presented here
yields the equivalent of relativistic
mass.
Relativity subscribes to the idea of
Lorentz Transformations with
Relativistic Corrections but Classic
Physics uses Galilean Transformations
with no need for corrections. Relativity
subscribes to the idea of space
curvature, distortions and fourth
dimensions. Classic physics subscribes to
3D Euclidean space, the rules of
Pythagoras...with three orthogonal axis. X, Y,
and Z.
Relativity subscribes to space-time
being directly connected. Classic Physics
says there is space... and then there is
time. They are not linked.
Relativity subscribes to the idea that
the definition of "Gravity" is the
curvature of space-time.
Einstein said Gravity is NOT a force!
That there is NO attraction or
'gravitational pull' in relativity. Like a
bowling ball on a mattress. The curve in
the mattress does not exert Any work or
Any force on ANYthing... on or around the
mattress. Classic physics suggests that
gravity IS a force. And this particular
Emissions Theory says that Gravity is a
spherical propagation. Analogous to
massless "gravitons" which propagate like
light. And that there is an 'Aberration
Effect', or, Re-Emission of Gravity due to
surrounding media and relationship of
Earth's constant motion relative to the
Sun. (And being offset by 20.5 arcseconds).
Relativity subscribes to the idea that
'Gravity bends light'... and according to the
inverse-square away from a body. Classic
Physics shows that light ONLY bends in
space DIRECTLY AT the thin solar limb, or
plasma limb of a Star... due to refraction.
(Or rather... a Re-Emission as we learned.)
But not even Eddington could explain why
light DOES NOT bend in the corona or in
the vacuum of space. DISPROVING space
curvature... While proving refraction of
light from a gravitational potential
gradient within a plasma atmosphere... and
again ONLY at the solar limb... at one
solar radii. The rectilinear path of
light follows a 'least-time path'
according to Fermat's Principle. Like a
straw bending in water from a different
refractive index. You don't use
gravitational lensing to describe why a
straw bends at the meniscus, or the
surface of water. That would just be
silly...
Just like you don't use "Gravity" to
describe why light deflects ONLY at the
solar limb of a star. And why background
stars Appear to shift their position
during a solar eclipse. But again, ONLY AT
the solar limb and with NO DISTORTION.
Only changing the position. Just want to
focus on this image for one moment... On
the left is what Relativity and
Eddington say we SHOULD see... But on the 
right is what both Eddington and his
second team in Brazil Actually observed
on May 29th, 1919. Refraction ONLY AT the
solar limb. Validated by Every satellite
and Observatory around the world since!
So they have All of these equations to
describe how Gravity bends light... but
only ONE of them is correct. The equation
describing light bending ONLY AT the
Solar limb. But again, that bending is
because of refraction and not "gravity". So
they have slightly different equations
to describe light bending farther and
farther away from the Sun. And they attribute all
of their equations to gravity. A
different equation at each distance away
from a star to describe how they THINK
light SHOULD bend at a given distance
away... But none of them are real! They
describe something that doesn't exist in
reality, nor something that has Ever been
observed in the history of Science or
Astrophysics. It's invented mathematics
that only exist on paper. ONLY the
equation describing bending of light
DIRECTLY AT the solar limb applies in
reality. But they create all of these
simulations based on the other equations.
And faulty equations will give you
faulty simulations. But... this is how some
people do science now... They create math,
and then they create a
computer-generated simulation. And then
they'll say their theory is validated
because it worked out in their
simulation. Then they take pictures and
screenshots from their simulation and
post it on the News saying they took it
for real through telescopes. But some of
it is just all assumptions! So, what
they SEE is one thing... and what they
CLAIM is completely different. Why the
disconnect?!?
Okay... so Relativity
subscribes to the idea that the velocity of
light is the same from ALL frames of
reference. And that time dilates. But
Classic Physics says it's the opposite.
Time is the same from all frames of
reference... while the velocity of light
shifts... dependent upon the speed of the
primary source. But here is an alternative to
the Invariance of the Wave where time is
the Same from all frames of reference
rather than the speed of light. Which
means, when we look at distant galaxies...
NONE of that light is the original light
from that source. That light is Re-Emitted
MANY times before an observer in our
galaxy can detect it. Which means, we
might NOT be looking into the distant
past. (Wrap your head around That one!) 
If the idea is to simplify our
understanding using Occam's Razor... then
I'm confident that if Einstein were
alive today, he would dismantle his own
theories based upon the tools and data
collected in the 21st century. And would
form a new hypothesis. And then develop a
new theory to explain that hypothetical
scenario, based on the new information.
And he would also shame those who put
him on an infallible pedestal. Relativity
did its job for 100 years... as patchwork
for Classic pPhysics until a proper
Emissions Theory could be developed to
account for the SAME predictions and
Same observations but in a more elegant
and simple fashion. There are more
different ways to interpret the same
information. Look at a mirror, and see
it's reflecting the same light... or
Re-Emitting a brand-new light. Look at a
streak of light in the sky... and think
it's Santa Claus, a "UFO", or a meteor. Look
at a ring of light at M87 and think it's
a "black hole"... or a Plasmoid. Or a giant
galaxy-sized smoke-ring, Can look at the
rotation of a galaxy and think "dark
matter" is the cause... or electric and
magnetic factors like a Homopolar Motor,
Lorentz Force or Fleming Rule. So when
people encounter someone who challenges
Relativity...
they automatically think "Flat Earth",
Dunning-Kruger, or just to "read a physics
book buddy". So... I went ahead and read
those physics books... and then compared
them to some alternatives. And after near
fourteen years of intense research...
Occam's Razor has led me to lean towards
Classic Physics, Plasma Physics, Galilean
Transformations 3D Euclidean Geometry,
the work of Dr.. Edward Dowdye,
Hannes Alfven, Winston Bostick, Nikola
Tesla, and many more Nobel laureates, PhD
holding professionals and dissenting
minds. I'm also well aware of Walter
Russell's work. And his interpretation
that "Light doesn't travel." But I think
that can be refined.
That doesn't mean 'light doesn't
propagate'. It means the SAME light
doesn't travel around.Iit is Re-Emitted. Or, as
he said, "Reproduced from wavefield to
wavefield." Which is a more esoteric way
of saying, "Re-Emitted from media to media.
Or even someone like Ron Hatch who wrote
a book called 'Escape from Einstein'.
Detailing how GPS does NOT need
relativity whatsoever. But Ron's
interpretation was slightly different
than Dr. Edward Dowdye's position. Yet the
same points apply. Going over the details
of how Relativity isn't needed for GPS
and an alternative to Time Dilation
might take another equally long video.
But I have a few links, equations,
diagrams and material you can scrutinize
that I'll link in the video below. (Or in the
comment section... or wherever this is
posted) All of this is really just the
tip of the iceberg so people can gain
context and learn about the history of
different models. That there are Indeed
credible alternatives... and equations
which yield the Same solutions and
predictions. And to learn about the
existence of Dr. Edward Dowdye and his
brilliant contributions to Science and
Astrophysics.
This video is for people who are
interested in credible alternatives to
Relativity and mainstream models as to
how light behaves and propagates. Looking
at the SAME data and interpreting it in
different ways...
Yielding some of the SAME conclusions...
but with a different approach. I tend to
have a lot more visual material than
audio in my videos. So you can replay it...
pause it... or put it on mute... and those who
don't speak English can still glean
information and learn without words.
Thank you for Watching.
