E = Δmc² - Challenging Relativity with Dr. Edward Dowdye (LOTS of Math)

in #science2 months ago (edited)

EffMass 2.png

Credible Challenges to General and Special Relativity, Doppler Shift Theory and more from Dr. Edward Dowdye. Retired NASA Engineer, University Professor of Mathematics and Internationally recognized expert in Atomic Physics, Optics, LASERs and Satellites.

Dr. Dowdye Bio, some background and qualifications:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/author.htm

Proof = A Mathematical derivation to show how you arrived at the solution to an equation. Proof is a route to show how you got a mathematical answer.

Evidence = Information and data collected through experimentation and observation.

Hypothesis = A hypothetical scenario that is proposed.

Theory = An explanation of a hypothetical scenario based within the constraints and mathematical consequences/ proofs of a given model.

The scientific community has lost its way.
Apparently confusing the meanings of Evidence vs Proof vs Hypothesis vs Theory.

Experiments and observations never prove a theory.
Experiments and observations can only Disprove a theory/ explanation.
Experiments gather evidence to suggest an understanding is correct... until more evidence is collected to contradict that "understanding".

The mathematical proof for Galilean transformations is in direct opposition to Relativity.
Relativity is based from Lorentz Transformations and must abide by the proofs/ constraints provided by the math of that model. Which dictate mass increases with velocity... which dictate time dilates and the velocity of light stay the same in all frames of reference.
There are consequences and constraints a theory must abide by.

But the evidence collected through observation and experimentation disprove many claims made by Relativity.
And all we see now are articles and fantastic headlines claiming "EXPERIMENT PROVES RELATIVITY AGAIN." ..... these people have lost their way in science. It has become a cult.
There are too many discrepancies for Relativity to be reconciled.
People who dismiss these contradictions are willfully ignoring the opposing mathematical framework under the constraints of Galilean Transformations.

There is so much politics in science now… it has created an Idiocracy of doublethink... where people now accept ideas that are mutually exclusive to reality.
(Despite the contradictions and lack of logic.)

The following content sheds light on the alternatives... from the opposing framework and mathematics which dictate that mass does NOT increase with velocity... that time remain constant while the velocity of light shifts.
And the justification for those perspectives is listed below in great detail for all to scrutinize for free.

Relativity vs Effectivity
Space-Time vs Real-Time
Lorentz Transformations vs Galilean Transformations

Occam's Razor dictates the simpler solution is most likely the correct one.
Well... Galilean Transformations is elementary math with no need for relativistic corrections or mind-bending 4th dimensional thought experiments.

Introducing the brilliant work of Dr. Edward Dowdye.
There has not been a more beneficial reformulation of science and math like this since Issac Newton, Robert Hooke or Christiaan Huygens. Even Wolfgang Pauli and Walther Ritz fall short in comparison.

This Information Is Not To Be Taken Lightly!!

ExtinBook.jpg

Comp1.jpg

Comp2.jpg

Comp3.jpg

E = Δmc² - Illusion of Interchange and Mass Increase

Matter and energy does not literally interchange like how E = mc² is classically viewed.

(The more accurate version:
E = Δmc² = mₒc² because all matter is already in motion and the rate of change of that matter determines how much it absorbs or imparts)

Matter absorbs, retains and imparts energy. Not that matter literally "becomes" energy and that energy becomes matter. That is a misconception based upon a nonexistent particle-wave duality rooted in quantum quackery.

When matter explodes or vaporizes, it is fragmented. And the shrapnel is flung outward with the energy of the whole system exploding.
Until those smaller fragments achieve an equilibrium and remain undisturbed for the most part again. After shedding radiation and thermal energy and being pulverized. But the matter did not "become" energy during the process.

When a crystal grows, it uses the available matter from the surrounding environment to convert to different matter. Using smaller pieces as building blocks. Which requires energy in that process. And the energy is supplied in the solution and surrounding environment. But the energy does not become matter when a crystal forms.

When a plant absorbs the energy through photosynthesis… The light does not become matter. The light charges the leaf which gives the roots the energy needed to extract nutrients from the soil… Which then builds the mass of the plant.

"There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." --Nikola Tesla

Mass does Not increase with velocity!

The illusion is the result of the particle accelerator effect which shows the forces of the walls of the containment acting on the particles themselves.

EffMass.png

The walls of the containment absorb the energy within the containment system. And then re-emit it back onto the contained particles.

So the surrounding potential increases as they ramp up their power… which puts resistance on the particles… Which they confuse with the mass itself increasing and fluctuating.
When really it is the surrounding potential that is increasing.

And the potential is acting on the walls of the container which are affecting the particles contained therein. But in the void there is no containment walls.

There are gravitational potentials and electrostatic potentials from other bodies that a charged particle will pass nearby or pass through. There is still resistance in space. (But particle accelerators will give a false impression from contained lab experiments and misapplying that logic into open space.)

The mathematical consequence of Galilean transformations says mass does not fluctuate. So the scientific community has a duty to come up with a different explanation/theory on why particles SEEM to increase mass.
It is an illusion.

And the mathematical consequences of Galilean transformations expose that illusion. Which means in reality… There is no light speed limit.
The speed of Light is a constant from its source not a universal speed limit.

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 2.30.21 PM.png

REGARDING GPS CLAIMS

A gravitational potential gradient within a plasma atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or space curvature. Here is more information about the misconception of atomic clocks.

The electron configuration surrounding cesium atoms is slightly deformed from a different altitude within a gravitational potential gradient. Which elongates the electrons… effectively acting like a longer pendulum swing which records a longer second compared to another clock without a deformed/ prolated electron configuration.

The transient time at the same altitude is also different depending on which direction an airplane travels East to West or West to East.. Which also records a slight difference in tick rates.

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 2.31.34 PM.png

Here is more information about the misinterpretation of atomic clocks:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08_C.htm

Gravitational Potential Gradients and Refraction in Space:

Stars Bend Light by Refraction, Not Gravity:

Ron Hatch - GPS Co-Inventor Disputes Relativity. Recognized as a 50 year international expert.
Wrote a Book called "Escape from Einstein" which details how GPS has nothing to do with Relativity. But rather has to do with re-emissions from different frames of reference.
(although Ron Hatch still used the luminiferous aether medium as a distortion of a primary rather than re-emission of secondaries):
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

Dr. Louis Essen - An Atomic Clock Inventor Rejects Relativity:
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/

GPS, Relativity and PopScience Mythology:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 2.33.15 PM.png

Reflection Technically Doesn’t Exist. Light Does Not Ricochet.

The same light does not bounce off a mirror or pass through a prism and then continue on. It’s a brand new light at each point of interference. Each point of interference is a new Re-Emission. And every Re-Emission is a new frame of reference.

Electrons absorb and emit.
Yes or no?
All matter is made of atoms.
Yes or no?
All atoms making up matter have surrounding electrons.
Yes or no?
Visible Light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Yes or no?

Therefore, all electrons absorb incoming light… and that primary incoming emission ceases to exist once it is absorbed by the electrons surrounding an atom.

The electrons RE-EMIT a brand new secondary packet towards the nucleus of the atoms. By the time the matter of the atom receives the incoming signal… It is a completely different secondary packet.

Therefore… It is physically impossible to measure or observe any primary emission or light. Since it is absorbed and re-emitted by the time it reaches matter.

And every re-emission is a new frame of reference. Serving the illusion that the velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference. Because all detectors and observers are viewing the reemitted light that was absorbed by the electrons making up themselves.

The atoms of a mirror have surrounding electrons which absorb any incoming primary light… That primary ceases to exist… and the electrons RE-EMIT a new energy serving the illusion of “reflection” or that same light “bounces” at a tangent.

Same with a prism and All media.The same applies with sound, light and gravity.All are absorbed, re-emitted, have frequencies and ranges/ a spectrum.

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 4.11.22 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 4.12.38 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-05-23 at 11.02.14 PM.png

Why Should We Question Relativity? (FAQs)
http://www.extinctionshift.com/FAQ.htm

All Relativity models, Aether models and past emissions theories require a medium to distort… which shifts a wave-packet or interferes with it, etc.
And that the wave-packets are always in the same frame of reference.

But Dr. Dowdye shows elementary math and physics which state that NO wave-packet can EVER distort. That a media absorbs a primary and re-emits a secondary from a new frame of reference… serving the ILLUSION of distortion of a primary which then continues on.Optics, Electrodynamics & Gravitation based from Re-Worked classic physics/ Galilean Transformations under Euclidean Space.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/short_present/ViewGraph_English.pdf

16 Peer Reviewed Papers from Dr. Dowdye.
Hosted by NASA and Harvard:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=dowdye&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&p_=0

Propagation and Re-Emission of Light:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/details01.htm?fbclid=IwAR2Ul9ffJFm8PuZBW3SytPkNQMB5n06zADeRRRrO9dXD87tiDD2MoxzgLu4

Alternative to the Perihelion of Mercury

D8.png

Peri1.png

Peri2.jpg

Alternative to the Deflection of Light in a Gravitational Field

SigLens.png

No Lensing 2.png

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 4.30.07 PM.png

66664316_10156352441208302_7561633672315535360_o.jpeg

Alternative to Gravitational Redshift

GravRed1.png

GravRed2.png

Shapiro.jpg

Addressing the Sagnac Effect and Optical Gyroscopes:

Sagnac2.png

Sagnac3.png

Sagnac4.png

Sagnac5.png

D9.png

D10.png

D11.png

D12.png

Re-interpreting Michaelson-Morlay Fringes
Morlay1.png

Morlay2.png

Doppler.png

Morlaymisc.png

D1.png

Alternative to Perihelion of Binary Pulsar PSR1913+16

PSR.png

PSR2.png

Gravitation and Energy Equations

Dowdye Equations 1.jpeg

Dowdye Equations 2.jpeg

Gravitational Lensing Fallacy
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm?fbclid=IwAR1L2zJ2TQSPHfMcIlCPrES6Y0MS69ZNPPHArr8Hlm20nLLYCikP3F2Fzkw

False Alarms 1.png

False Alarms 2.png

By that logic... That would be like saying this is gravitational lensing.

IMG_8029.jpeg

It's a camera artifact. And ONLY in that particular wavelength because it's a flaw in the satellite imagery itself.
Gravitational Lensing is an all or nothing phenomenon in Relativity.
Yet the phenomenon is ONLY in the select few spectra and examples touted by NASA to try and validate the totality of lensing theory. Which are ONLY in microwave, xray or radio.

Which DISPROVES the very claims they present in computer graphics, simulations, cartoons and artist interpretations representing space-time like a mattress that warps/ distorts light. (Doesn't happen)
Note that ALL wavelengths are supposed to bend and lens.
The curvature of space-time cannot pick and choose only radio or microwave or xray while the visible spectrum does not.

The visual on the left half of the next diagram and the right half are mutually opposed.
The left shows light bending according to the inverse square away from a body in ALL Wavelengths of the EM Spectrum. What Eddington stated overnight that made Einstein "proven" in all the newspapers...

But on the right is what is actually observed and tested in reality with Megawatt Neodymium YAG LASERS, deflection of radio pulsars and emissions from quasars, etc.
As well as observations during solar eclipses.
Light bending happens ONLY at 1 solar radius due to refraction. Yet the gravity drops off according to the inverse square.
According to Relativity, light should bend according to the inverse square away from the Sun and Stars. But it does not. And has never been observed to.

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 6.36.58 PM.png

Not even Eddington could explain why light does NOT bend in the corona or in the "vacuum" of space.
ONLY refraction at the solar limb, at 1 solar radii of any body being observed.
There is no space-time or fabric of space or 4th dimensional continuum that distorts or warps.
There is no aether that distorts or warps. But Eddington was a zealot and so was Erwin Finlay. Proclaiming Einstein "proven" while dismissing Eddington's own 2nd team he sent to Brazil on May29th 1919.

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 6.43.20 PM.png

History and Misconception of Aether

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 copout 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 aether or magic, etc.

I think there are fine and ultrafine particles of matter like what Nicolas Fatio and Georges 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 a 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 we learn, the less "aether" plays any role.

Aether was proposed to try and explain how light propagates and how gravity influences over great distances. So they thought a 3D mass displaces a "luminiferous aether".

Like how you sit in a bath tub and the water level rises in proportion.
They viewed gravity as being an instantaneous action as a result from a 3D mass displacing an aether media. But there is no such media and gravity is not instant.

So in 1911, that 3D Aether media was replaced with a 4D curving space-time.
So instead of light propagating through "the aether"... they say it now propagates AROUND the curvature of space-time.
And they say the curvature of space-time is = gravity.

But none of that is real.
Light only refracts in space from the plasma around the surface of a star. Doesn't progressively "bend" away from a star.

And classic physics doesn't require ANY media for light or gravity to propagate.
So that's the error. And it’s futile to search for an explanation of a non-existent media.

All models based upon a 4D curving space-time or an Aether medium or any previous emissions theories are erroneous.

Aether is as destined to oblivion as Relativity. People latch onto it because they are not aware of Dowdye's alternative. Which justifies a reason to get rid of it.
There has been no true distinction between the issues of Relativity vs Aether theories vs past emissions theories.

People don't understand the discrepancies. They don't understand Relativity and Aether theories are pretty much the same thing. Since relativity was born out of the 3D luminiferous aether medium. That just mutated into a 4D media. They simply called it something different and started making up rules as they go.

So it has been a combination of LACK of:
1 … understanding the differences between the models and the history of how they came to be and the contradictions.
And.. 2 … mathematical justification to distance from both Relativity and Aether models.

Tesq1.jpg

Tesq2.jpg

Tesq3.jpg

Some of my own work based from Dowdye’s research.

Here is a compilation of videos I put together for more context:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC48DA25F1CBFA833

Plasma Physics - Flaws & Corrections:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UMtr6CvhttWXETJ48

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 2.42.22 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 3.44.31 PM.png

4 Min. Explanation/ Intro to discrepancy between Classic Physics vs Relativity
Reality vs Fiction

Part 1 - Light and Space
Re-Emissions and Dr. Edward Dowdye
I have studied Dowdye's work diligently and present an introduction to his research. While giving a history of Classic Physics vs Relativity:

Part 2 - Time and Gravity
Real-Time vs Space-Time:

"Time is the same from All frames of reference. Time is NOT relative!"

The justification for that statement is based from an alternative approach to the Invariance of the Wave Equation provided by Dr. Edward Dowdye.
Dr. Dowdye is a retired NASA Engineer, University Professor of Mathematics and Internationally recognized expert in Optics/ LASERs /Satellites.

Dr. Dowdye Bio, some background and qualifications:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/author.htm

Using Galilean transformations, he offers credible challenges to General and Special Relativity, Doppler Shift Theory and more.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/short_present/ViewGraph_English.pdf

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 2.44.52 PM.png

Invariance of the Wave Equation based from Classic Physics and Galilean Transformations.
Yielding the same results without needing relativity, corrections… And without illusions!
∂²φ/∂x² + ∂²φ/∂y² + ∂²φ/∂z² - 1/c² (∂²φ/∂t²) = 0

The HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER would find
Φ = ΦₒSin2π (νt + 1/λ x) to be a solution of the wave equation of the PRIMARY wave at velocity c relative to S, where νλ = c, but at velocity c'≠ c relative to the rest frame.

The ORDINARY OBSERVER would find
Φ’ = Φ’ₒSin2π (ν’t’ + 1/λ’ x’) to be a solution of the wave equation of the secondary wave at velocity c relative to S’.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!! THERE IS NO TIME DILATION IN EUCLIDEAN SPACE UNDER ELECTRODYNAMICS OF GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS!

Thus t’ = t (meaning, Time is the same from All frames of reference)
Both the HYPOTHETICAL and ORDINARY OBSERVER would find that the velocity of the wave being observed is always:
ν'λ'= [ν(1± cv)][λ(1± cv)−1]= νλ = c relative to its MOST primary source.

Differentiating the equation for Φ twice after t and x, the HYPOTHETICAL OBSERVER gets
∂²Φ/∂t² =−Φ(2π)² ν² = ν² λ² ∂²Φ/∂x²

and

∂²φ/∂x² + ∂²φ/∂y² + ∂²φ/∂z² - 1/ν² λ² ∂²Φ/∂t² = 0

The ORDINARY OBSERVER derives
∂²φ’/∂x’² + ∂²φ’/∂y’² + ∂²φ’/∂z’² - 1/ν’² λ’² ∂²Φ’/∂t’² = 0

t = t' (Time is the same from all frames of reference)

c ≠ c' (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference)

c' = c ± v (The velocity of light is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer or media. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer or media)

So...
The following hypothesis and theory is based from that Classic Physics interpretation of Time and Light...in direct opposition to Relativity.

Time is the same from All frames of reference… not the velocity of light.
Every source of light in the Universe provides Real-Time illumination of Reality regardless of wavelength, frequency, distance, gravity or velocity.

Light is not a recording of Reality.
Reality is not played back frame by frame dependent upon the order by which photons hit an observer.
A "photon" is not a packet of reality.
Light does not replay Time or History from a given event, source or location.
Light simply illuminates a location in Reality as it IS… right now... in Real-Time.

NOT that light shows you a distant location as it WAS... There is only Now to witness.

You can never experience or observe the past of a distant location. Even though you can receive a delayed SIGNAL or transmission from a distant location... a flash or burst from a source (that may or may have not already expired by the time you receive that delayed signal.)

But Reality itself is not a signal or transmission that can delay.

There are 2 options.. and everyone is aware of the first model from Relativity.

Saying that the velocity of Light stays the same to All observers while Time shifts.… but what would it REALLY mean if the opposite were true?
That Time stays the same to All observers while the speed of light shifts.

The following presentation outlines some consequences to what that means…
that Time is NOT relative to different observers.

And we are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars… regardless of distance and velocity.
What is thought to have happened 13 billion years ago… Is actually happening right now in Real-Time.

You can never view the past through direct observation.
Light is not a recording of reality.
Light simply illuminates reality as it IS.

Any images or observations collected are viewing what is happening in real time.
Whatever is being recorded… Is happening in real time. Whatever is being observed… Is happening in real time. Whatever Hubble has imaged… happened in Real-Time as Hubble captured it.

Any locations illuminated by Star light allows you to observe those locations in Real-Time… regardless of distance, velocity or gravity, etc.

Twin Paradox - Time Misconceptions and Faster Than Light Communication:
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/twin-paradox-and-time-misconceptions

Models of Gravity and Misconception of "Aether":
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/models-of-gravity-and-misconception-of-aether

Mathematical Consequences and The Atrophy of Communication
Galilean Transformations in opposition to Lorentz
Hypothesis vs Theory
Evidence vs Proof
Knowledge vs Wisdom vs Intelligence vs Smart
Education vs Propaganda
Truth vs Facts
Belief vs Knowledge
Credibility vs Trustworthiness
Telepathy vs Audible Language
(The Atrophy of Communication)
Universal Communication and Bypassing Deafness
Ultrasonic Dolphin Speak
The Language of Math and Observation
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/mathematical-consequences-and-the-atrophy-of-communication

Relativity - The Fools Gold of Physics:
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/relativity-the-fools-gold-of-physics

List of Credible Challenges to Dark Matter, Big Bang, Relativity & More:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSV...ew?usp=sharing

Thank you for your interest. There is a lot more.
Jason Verbelli
https://www.Facebook.com/Verbelli

Screen Shot 2020-08-24 at 5.33.17 PM.png

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.15
TRX 0.03
JST 0.026
BTC 13084.42
ETH 392.94
USDT 1.00
SBD 0.99