Thought experiment for people regarding the concept of Absolute Time. Absolute means NO EXCEPTIONS. We are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars. We are NOT looking back in time 1.25 seconds when we see the moon. We're Not looking back in time 3 minutes... when we see Mars. We're Not looking back in time 8.33 minutes when we see the Sun. If an astronaut lit a matchstick on Mars, the distant observer would see predator heat waves at the top of the matchstick in real-time while the matchstick started to blacken towards the astronaut's fingers. But there would be no orange light from that chemical reaction or flame seen. If the matchstick burnt out before the packet of orange light from that particular chemical reaction made it to Earth… then the distant observer would just see a disembodied orange flash of light with a lag. But the Earth-bound observer would never actually see the flame associated with the orange wavelength it put out. The wavelength of color emitted by the flame is not a recording of reality. If the orange light is 650 Thz, that means there are 650 trillion individual and separate bursts of orange light pulsating in 1 second. NOT that "the same light" is "waving" 650 trillion times a second and that light is a recording of reality. There are 650 trillion brand-new lights flashing in 1 second. Each Hertz is a brand-new emission and packet unto itself. Time does not re-emit 650 trillion times a second, nor is a photon a particle or a packet of reality acting like the frame of a reel of footage. The orange light that already left the flame will continue to propagate out until it meets the electrons making up the distant observer. But remember, it is never the same light within that packet. And the electrons making up the observer will absorb all of those different lights within that packet and re-emit brand-new lights that produce the product of illumination. A photon is a massless packet of energy, spherically expanding at the rate of c from the source it comes from. Illumination is the result of that energy being absorbed and RE-emitted by any other electrons that did not output that primary packet. But time is not associated with the same light. It's never the same light and time does not re-emit between packets. Time is not relative. Do NOT allow your mind Carte Blanche to think along the lines of relative time. DROP IT for this thought experiment. We are thinking along the lines of ABSOLUTE TIME/ Galilean VARIANCE. What does absolute time mean? It means time is constant in ALL frames of reference. Any frequency shifts between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the speed of light. But relativity forbids the speed of light from Ever changing, so relativity (Lorentz INVARIANCE) invented the concept of the 4th dimension and space-time. Because Relativity doesn't allow light speed to shift.. they interpret the same frequency shift between atomic clocks as being conclusive, irrefutable evidence that time and reality itself shifts. Rather than say it's just that ONE clock being affected by Earth's gravity and the oscillation of that ONE cesium clock is being altered compared to other clocks. People don't realize that in relativity... time dilation is SYMMETRICAL! Not even most relativists know their own theory. If Clock A and Clock B are synchronized and together... and then they accelerate apart... Einstein said Clock A would see Clock B as being slower itself. And Clock B would view Clock A as slower than ITself. NOT that only one observer would see back in time and the other would see forward or not at all. No... BOTH observers are supposed to see each other BACK in time relative to each other according to Einstein and the consequence of the math. It doesn't make ANY sense!! But relativists toss that part of time dilation under their 4th dimensional rug. The rug is woven from threads of gold that only the smart people can see apparently. So... here's a thought experiment/ Gedankenexperiment for absolute time. NO paradoxes... no nonsense or confusion. What do you see in a club? You see disco lights changing and a color wheel effect. You see everyone in REAL-TIME. Not just because they are so close to the lights. Light is not a recording of reality. Light is simply color. Illuminating reality in a certain color. Just because you can't see something yet or the color hasn't reached you doesn't mean it isn't happening in real-time. Zoom out and look at the people in the club through binoculars a mile away. You are still looking at them in real-time. The colors are shifting with a delay in the club. Now look at the club through a telescope from the surface of the moon. You're still looking at the people in real-time. But now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 1.25 seconds because it takes light 1.25 seconds to travel from the Earth to the moon. Now look at the club through an even bigger telescope from the surface of Mars. You're still looking at the people in real-time, but now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 3 minutes because it takes light 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars. fr you are a third hypothetical observer zoomed out and watching the person from Mars AND seeing the club on Earth... you're still seeing everything happening in real-time as well. But you see the colored wavepackets traveling with a delay to the observer on Mars. And the disco color wheel effect is just lagging before it affects the observer from Mars and the observer on the Moon. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out! There is only now to observe. But there WILL be a lag and delay for a given color/wavepacket to reach distant observers. But all points in space are already illuminated by other starlight. So if you're too far away... you'll just see the club in real-time but without any disco lights. Just see them in white light because that's the source already illuminating the scene. This is where it gets the most difficult because people think light itself is a recording of reality that replays a scene from where it came from. But another punch in the gut of relativity is that in order to see REFLECTED light... that would require a TWO-WAY transit. Which means the light would have to be sent out... record the scene of a distant event and then RETURN in order to REplay the event. Which means it would take 6 minutes to see the club from Mars by that logic and 2.5 seconds to see the club from the moon by that logic. The difference in tick rates between clocks has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Wait.. what?! How can that be? Because a clock itself doesn't represent all of time and reality. The difference between clocks is a "Transverse relative time shift." If the only light in the universe was from the lighter… the only way a distant observer would be able to see the astronaut on Mars is if the astronaut held down the button of the lighter for longer than 3 minutes. It takes 3 minutes for the packet of light to travel from Mars to Earth. The distant observer would never be able to see Mars, unless the light stretched from Mars all the way to Earth, and illuminated the path between Mars and Earth. And that would take 3 minutes for the boundary and first part of that wave packet to reach Earth. But if the distant observer wanted to observe Mars in real-time… then that packet of light would have to be on for longer than 3 minutes. So if the astronaut on Mars flicked the lighter at 12:00, the distant observer on Earth wouldn't see anything until 12:03. If the light was on for 3 minutes and 10 seconds, and the distant observer is 3 light minutes away... the distant observer would be able to see Mars in real-time for 10 seconds starting at 12:03. In the 20 second video clip of the rotating planet with shifting colors... just imagine you're a couple light minutes or light seconds away. You're still seeing the planet spin in real-time. But there is simply a delay of switching colors. You are Not looking back in time. It's just a color wheel effect from a great distance away. That's it!! There are many major flaws which tarnish people's critical thinking on this thought experiment. 1. Light does NOT ricochet or bounce. Electrons absorb, emit and re-emit ALL electromagnetic radiation. The electrons, making up the glass of a mirror will absorb the incoming light and re-emit a brand-new light as an equal and opposite reaction. NOT that "the same light" bounced off the mirror and continued on within the same frame of reference.  2. Light is NOT a recording of reality. 3. It is NOT the same light being observed from a source. It's never the same light. Each Hertz is a new light. Think of half of a sine wave as being its own emission. On an oscilloscope, a stimulus generates a peak which initiates an equal and opposite trough. Or vice versa. That repeating process is not "the same light." If you cut and paste that sine wave to another sine wave, the boundary between the waves will always be in phase. (thus refraction) 4. The speed of light is NOT the same in ALL frames of reference, no matter what. 5. Light is NOT made of particles and waves that flip back-and-forth. 6. Time is NOT connected to the speed of light. Time remains constant regardless if you accelerate towards or away from a clock. The clocks themselves will indeed be off! But that's an affect on the electrons making up the atomic clock affecting the oscillation of the isotope which is ASSUMED to ALWAYS be the same. So ANY difference in oscillation is treated as a literal distortion in space-time. 7. Space and time are not linked at all. That is a mathematical artifice under Lorentz invariance. Time is relative under Lorentz invariance. But time is absolute under Galilean VARIANCE. When people hear or see the word GALILEAN... their brains switch to auto pilot to "aether theory" and "classical physics." What people don't realize is that aether theory used Galilean INVARIANCE. Rather than space-time being used as an excuse to explain the difference in frequencies between atomic clocks... it was originally aether being used as an excuse to keep the speed of light the same. But None of those things are valid! We are thinking under the framework of Galilean VARIANCE! Completely new revolutionary model returning to Isaac Newton and Classical physics but without the corpuscular theory (particle) theory for light... without a particle-wave duality... without an aether... without a 4th dimension. Just good ol elementary math within 3D Euclidean space. Everything happening in real-time, right now. This reformulation of Galilean transformations was offered by Dr. Edward Dowdye in 1991 called The Extinction Shift Principle. Effectivity as opposed to Relativity. If light required a two-way transit, in order to travel out… Record an event, and travel back to replay the recording…  then it would take 6 minutes to see the astronaut on Mars instead of 3.  Remember… They say the SAME light is a recording, and must travel there and travel back in order to REplay. Relativity says time is relative: t' ≠ t time is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and t = tₒ / √1 - v²/c² but Galilean Variance says time is not relative: t' = t (Time IS the same from all frames of reference) and τ_tr = τₒ / √1 - v²/c² Relativity says c' = c (The velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference) but Galilean variance says c' ≠ c (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and that c' = c ± v (The velocity of light in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Relativity says E = mc² (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = Δmc² = mₒc² (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mₒ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Star light and illumination: Flicking a Lighter on Mars visual example:show more

Was an Einstein a charlatan or was his relativity nonsense honest?

Both. Einstein idolized Karl Marx and was propped up by the media and scientific community. Einstein was declared right even before any discussions were had regarding the May 19th 1919 solar eclipse observation(s). There were 2 observations that day, but Eddington dismissed all the data from his own team in Brazil because their data tore his apart. But Eddington wouldn't have any of it. He and Erwin Finlay and others were zealots, hell bent on pushing relativity through to make themselves right. Either because they truly believed it, or other greedy purposes, or combinations thereof. People really started to believe it because of the Michaelson-Morley interferometer experiments and then the Hafele-Keating experiments and other clock experiments. EVERY experiment they do with clocks... it CLEARLY shows a difference. But they take that difference as being a literal distortion of space and time rather than just viewing it as an effect on those particular clocks. They fell for the illusions and were enabled by the money and fame they got for their erroneous take on all evidence and data collected. Now they just plug in Lorentz invariant equations into computer simulations... do some much needed mathematical corrections for their convoluted metric tensors... and they render visuals and animations that don't represent reality ONE BIT! (or byte) It's like a hall of mirrors within a labyrinth of mirrors, within a larger maze. And Einstein is a fly trying to get out of the window. Bashing his head into illusion after illusion. So people around Einstein enabled him even though he questioned himself more than others around him. But now... people have mutated the entire model that has a mind of its own and a world full of cult followers willing to pay money for all things relativity related. The basis of every science fiction story and more. It's a money maker! But the good news is that we have enough firewood in the form of PhD certificates and diplomas to heat the world now in the cold winters. So it's hard to say which parts of relativity are honest and which parts are gross negligence verses purposeful deception and fraud. You'd figure the "smartest people in the world" with near unlimited resources would surely be able to see the contradictions and discrepancies. But all they do is make up a new variable under Lorentz invariance and add it to the list of BS. Can't figure out why the galaxy rotates? Add dark matter! etc etc etc. It's all egregious erroneous nonsense... that just so happens to actually yield the correct predictions and solutions of scenarios. Indeed relativity can conclude that clocks tick different in orbit verses the ground. Indeed relativity can conclude that stars change position during a solar eclipse. But then relativity invents nonsense as a reason/explanation/theory as to how those things happen and how those end results arise. Clocks shift... everyone can see that. But because relativity's mathematical route can accurately predict the shift rate... that MUST mean that the interpretation as to why the rates shift is accurate. That's their logic. But Galilean variance can accurately predict the shift rate and position of stars, and perihelion of mercury and binary pulsars too. ALL of it can be accurately predicted also. And that was not possible until 1991!! For 120 years, relativity was THE ONLY method to accurately predict and yield the correct results on paper. And because of that... the world has been wrongfully programmed into thinking that math itself is the end all be all validator. Relativity can predict it... therefore relativity's reasoning MUST be correct as to how the end results arise. But it isn't so!! Math has an amazing ability to get to the right answer even when you use a convoluted route. Relativity is like the common core of physics. But then denies that there is ANY other method to get to the right answer. Einstein himself said that if ANY methods could EVER yield the correct predictions and solutions as relativity, that relativity would no longer be needed and would eventually collapse. So ANY mention of alternatives are shut down, ridiculed, swept under the rug and people are prevented from hearing about it. Because "if it were true... the experts would have known by now." BS!!! They wear a veil of Lorentz invariance and are INCAPABLE of taking it off to see reality for what it is under a Galilean variant model.

Your story makes no sense at all. Photons need time to travel from A to B. Period. Yes, we see back in time because of the moment the photons started to travel lays ALWAYS into the past. Realtime is in the eye of the observer. You lack fundamental sience knowledge.

Photons indeed have a delay. But a photon is not a recording of reality. That is the discrepancy. We are not looking into the past. That is a relativistic proposition. If the velocity of light shifts… Then everything we see is in real time. What do you have to say about the alternative to the invariance of the wave equation which states light shifts and time is absolute? Relativity (Lorentz invariance) says: ∂²/∂x² + ∂²/∂y² + ∂²/∂z² - 1/c² (∂²/∂t²) = ∂²’/∂x’² + ∂²’/∂y’² + ∂²’/∂z’² - 1/ν’² λ’² ∂²’/∂t’² But Galilean variance yields the solution without needing relativity, without extraneous corrections… And differentiates between the actual scenario versus the illusions! ∂²Φ/∂x² + ∂²Φ/∂y² + ∂²Φ/∂z² - 1/c² (∂²Φ/∂t²) = 0 The IMAGINARY 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, (because it's coming from the source) but at velocity c' from another frame of reference ≠ c relative to the rest frame. The ACTUAL OBSERVER would find Φ’ = Φ’ₒSin2π (ν’t’ + 1/λ’ x’) That works to be a solution of the wave equation of the SECONDARY wave at velocity c relative to S’ (S' meaning, the source viewed from another frame of reference) Important Note... There is NO Time Dilation in Euclidean Space under the electrodynamics of Galilean variance. There is an equivalent "Transverse Relative Time Shift" between CLOCKS but not a dilation of reality itself. The clocks speed up or slow down because of the gravitational potential GRADIENT. The difference in frequencies between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the velocity of light. But because relativity forbids the velocity of light from ever-changing, people wrongfully assume the face of a clock represents reality itself. The data transmitted between satellite and ground does not dilate at all though. Both the IMAGINARY and ACTUAL OBSERVER would find that the velocity of the wave being observed is always: ν'λ'= [ν(1± cv)][λ(1± cv)-1]= νλ = c (the subsequent re-emissions are ultimately from the electrons making up the observer himself) Differentiating the equation for Φ twice after t and x, the IMAGINARY 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 ACTUAL 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 in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Both mathematical frameworks yield the same predictions and solutions now thanks for Dr. Edward Dowdye's reformulations. But both frameworks are mutually exclusive and interpret the entirety of the scenario of how the end results arise completely differently. As Albert Einstein himself wrote in a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich in August of 1913: "Wenn die Lichtgeschwindigkeit auch nur ein bißchen von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle abhängig ist, dann ist meine ganze Relativitätstheorie und Gravitationstheorie falsch." "If the velocity of light is even a little bit dependent upon the velocity of the light source, then my entire theory of Relativity and theory of Gravitation is false."

Why don't you contact this dude: @TOEwithCurt He is truly a good faith interlocutor and interviewer, capable of unpacking and understanding everything you are laying out here. Plus, he has had on his Podcast a wide range of pioneer thinkers.

layperson here, are there experiments that corroborate this? thank you for clarifying that pre-existing light would make the astronaut visible in real time and that absent that, the astronaut would not be visible.

There are no current experiments to conclude this for a few reasons. 1. EVERY time you interfere with an incoming packet of light... your own electrons absorb that primary packet. The energy of that primary photon (emission of light) diminishes to zero as your electrons absorb the energy. But as the energy of the primary diminishes, those same electrons re-emit a secondary light which crescendos as an equal an opposite reaction. Like a teeter totter. As the primary energy lowers, the secondary energy raises in proportion. That process happens at the speed of light, c, serving the ILLUSION that the "same light" bounces off a mirror or that "the same light" is interpreted by an observer or measured by a sensor. It's never the same light! The act of measurement extinguishes the very primary you try to measure. All observers are only capable of measuring and observing the re-emitted light from the electrons making up themselves! THAT is the illusion. So every time ANYONE measures light in an interferometer, or satellite, or atomic clock, or detector or sensor... it is NEVER the same light that is intended on being measured. The light from a bulb in the ceiling of your room is traveling at c, 186,282 miles a second. If you're sitting still under the bulb on your ceiling, that light is traveling at the rate of c compared to you. Let's say a flashlight is moving towards you at half the speed of light. That's 93,141 miles per second racing towards you in space. The light from that flashlight is traveling at the rate of c RELATIVE TO THE BULB OF THE FLASHLIGHT. But TO YOU... that incoming light is traveling at c PLUS the speed of the flashlight itself. So That particular light from that incoming flashlight is traveling at 279,423 miles a seconds compared TO YOU! But here's the kicker... even though that light is traveling 279,423 miles a second... you will STILL measure it as being 186,282 miles a second. EVERYONE will ALWAYS measure ALL light as being c. Why? Because the electrons making up your own body and all the measuring devices will absorb that incoming light at whatever velocity/speed it's traveling towards you... and those electrons will EXTINGUISH the primary and RE-produce a secondary. The secondary ALWAYS travels at the rate of c relative to the electrons that produced the re-emission. But relativity thinks it's ALWAYS the "the same" light! And that same space and time itself stretches and distorts around light which is why it's always measured as c. They use the excuse of space-time distortions using Lorentz invariance to explain THE SAME observations and SAME experiments and SAME data! You can conduct experiment after experiment for 120 years, doing things 10,000 times collecting data. But it's the INTERPRETATION of that data that will have completely different conclusions as to what we're looking at. Is Relativity Right? Demonstrating the impossibility of experiments making certain conclusions: That's the first problem. 2. We don't have the technical capability to test some of these things until we establish on the Moon and/or Mars. In order to see a 6 foot tall person standing on the surface of the moon in real-time using a refracting telescope from Earth... it would require a lens about 450 feet in diameter. The largest telescope in the world has a lens about 3.3 feet in diameter. In order to see a 6 foot tall person standing on the surface of Mars in real-time using a refracting telescope all the way from Earth... it would require a lens 11.5 MILES in diameter. But, if we did have that capability... what I'm claiming is that we would be able to see an astronaut hold up a hand-written sign and read YES or NO in real-time, faster than a radio transmission could be sent from Mars which would take 3 minutes to get a Yes or No using ANY form of electromagnetic radiation. Since that travels with a delay at the velocity of c. But in Absolute time... what we see is what we get in real-time regardless of distance. Because light is not a recording of reality. A photon is not a packet of reality that replays like the frames of a Hollywood movie dependent upon the rate photons "hit you"... which they can't decide if it's a particle or wave or not... they think it's the same light... they think it's a recording.. and more fallacies. So... there Are indeed tests we can perform though. Might not be able to measure the exact velocity of an incoming wavepacket due to our own electrons absorbing and "extinction shifting" the light... but one observer Can see a simple "flash" before another observer. I have a few other tests too that I include in my book. Which I am now 680 pages in at 158,000 words, explaining all of this in GREAT detail, with all the math and substantiation (proofs) under Galilean variance. Here is a shorter presentation for context: The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity In the book I keep it simple for lay people, I get super technical for doctorate level and include plenty of memes making fun of Einstein for everyone in between. haha 😅 As Albert Einstein himself wrote in a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich in August of 1913: "Wenn die Lichtgeschwindigkeit auch nur ein bißchen von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle abhängig ist, dann ist meine ganze Relativitätstheorie und Gravitationstheorie falsch." "If the velocity of light is even a little bit dependent upon the velocity of the light source, then my ENTIRE theory of Relativity and theory of Gravitation is FALSE."

Spooky action at a distance not so spooky. 👻

Combine with the concept of spring-loaded electron pairs and the mystery is solved. But embracing that solution means, dropping the relativistic interpretations. Since mass does not literally increase with acceleration or velocity, there is no light speed limit, there is no literal superposition of particles, there is no particle-wave duality and the velocity of light is not the same, and all frames of reference.

I love this post. Timing>Time