Está en la página 1de 30

20 seconds to say 1 Mantra.

(plus 1 second between Mantras)
21 seconds per Mantra/pause.

There are 86,400 seconds in 24 hours.

That’s 4114.28571 Mantras per day.

That’s 1,501,714.29 Mantras per year.

(31,536,000 seconds)

… for 30 years = 45,051,428.6 mantras.

(946,080,000 seconds)

1 Twin leaves Earth and travels at ‘light speed’ for 30 years.

The other Twin stays on Earth for 30 years.
Both Twins start repeating the same Mantra with the same timing
before they separate.

When both Twins finally meet after 30 years…

they will have said the SAME number of Mantras, with the SAME
timing.
Yet one Twin might LOOK drastically younger.
And both clocks will be drastically different.
Because the potential gradient of surrounding influence affects the rate
of decay and the rate of a clock in relation to other clocks outside of
A gravitational potential gradient within a plasma atmosphere has
absolutely nothing to do with relativity or space curvature. Here is
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08_C.htm

And the bi-product of achieving the technology to travel that fast

without inertia, G forces etc. means there would be an excess of
“electrons” to prevent oxidation/decomposition at the same rate as the
Twin on Earth. Therefore, the Twin traveling at light speed would
APPEAR younger, yet still be the same age.

Like picking 2 apples from the same tree.

1 apple sits in the Sun while the other is vacuum packed in the
refrigerator.
After 30 days… the apple left in the Sun will have decomposed at a
faster rate than the apple in the more isolated condition.
1 apple will LOOK younger even though they are the same age. Because
they decomposed at different rates from surrounding or lack of
surrounding influence.

Time/ Reality was not distorted between the 2 apples or the 2 Twins.
Time is Not relative between observers whatsoever.

Time is the same from all frames of reference… and the velocity of light
is dependent upon the velocity of the light source. (meaning, time stays
the same while the speed of light shifts).

NOT that the velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference
and that time dilates.
Einstein said that if other solutions could yield the same conclusions as
relativity… That relativity would not be needed and would eventually
collapse.
Here is one such alternative solution to the Invariance of the Wave.
Invariance of the Wave based from classic Physics and Galilean
transformations.
Yielding the same results without needing relativity, corrections… And
without illusions!

6ZKLb5OMkm5ycQ-
0HxOA?key=YkdQbFc3YzZqOUFhWVFYdGxfUF9QWU90VlZOUkJ3
∂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, not
the velocity of light)

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'
c ≠ c'
c' = c ± v
Time is the same from all frames of reference, Not the velocity of light.
Classic Physics vs Relativity
Reality vs Fiction

Part 1 - Light and Space

Re-Emissions and Dr. Edward Dowdye

Part 2 - Time and Gravity

Real-Time vs Space-Time:

Plasma Physics - Flaws & Corrections:

OUFhWVFYdGxfUF9QWU90VlZOUkJ3

Why Should We Question Relativity? (FAQs)

http://www.extinctionshift.com/FAQ.htm
Relativity suggests that Light and Time are directly linked. That if light
takes 100 years to reach us... that we will be seeing 100 years in the
past. The entire notion of Relativity as it pertains to Time… states that
the velocity of light is the Same from ALL frames of reference.. but that
Time can dilate.
But Time is NOT relative. And Classic Physics suggests that if there is
complete darkness… and it takes light 100 years to reach us from a
source... that you won't see that source for 100 years... but as soon as
that light reaches you.... you will see that source IN REAL TIME. RIGHT
NOW! NOT looking in the past as the source was 100 years ago. And
then seeing the progression of history within the light in the order by

It's just that the light allows you to see what's going on RIGHT NOW
when you couldn't see before.
The light is simply illuminating the current scenario.

Like turning on a light switch in your own room. Can't see anything in
real time before you turn on the light. But when the light reaches you...
you see everything in real time. Immediately.

Doesn’t matter if the location is lit with a dim red light or a bright blue
light or soft white light, etc.

Illumination allows you to see reality as it’s happening Now.

And all locations in the universe are already illuminated from existing
starlight. Therefore… anywhere we look with the naked eye, or a
ground based telescope… what we see is happening right now in real-
time. Regardless of distance!

That is yet another difference between Relativity's perspective and

Classic Physics. Relativity says that you will observe the history of the
event within the light, and in the order by which the photons hit you.
And if you travel the speed of light, you can’t see or experience any
events or reality or age because you are traveling at the rate of
“photons” which they claim “experience zero time”, etc. Because
Relativity says Space and Time are linked. (with velocity and gravity too)

Classic physics says you will observe the location once that location is
illuminated. And you will observe that location in Real-Time.
Time is the same from ALL frames of reference in Classic Physics.

And if you travel faster than the speed of light, you will just observe a
location in real-time… just that you will be approaching or receding very
quickly. Because ‘c’ is a constant and not a limit. And mass does not
fluctuate or increase with velocity.

When we see stars and galaxies, we are NOT looking back in time!
And some of the signals/ radio bursts attributed to distant bodies are
not even coming from those systems at all. They are hearing and
measuring signals that are coming from sources that are long gone.

Since the sources that would have emitted any signals we receive
would extinguish or coordinates drastically changed by the time we
So if we look in that particular direction… thinking a signal came from
there… We might detected something from a long time ago yet we are
looking at an existing body in real time. So they think what they are
looking at is creating a given signal.

What they hear and what they see are not necessarily linked. Since
what you see is NOW and what you hear are delayed transmissions.
The discrepancies with Time between distant locations… what we see
in real-time verses a delay in a transmission between those same
locations… those discrepancies cannot be reconciled or explained by
Relativity. We See distant locations in Real-Time, even though
Relativity says we should be seeing the location as it was in the past.

What we see with our eyes is always Real-Time… but any transmissions
are delayed. Reality itself is Not a transmission. If you were able to see
an astronaut on the surface of mars with your naked eye through a
ground based telescope in your backyard… you could see them hold up
a cue card and read the message in real-time.

minutes later if the astronaut recorded and sent the message through
radio. (Which propagates at the speed of light)
So proponents of Relativity are forced to dismiss the argument totally.

And when they are challenged… they get quite angry and label the
argument as “crackpot” or “pseudoscience”, “pet theories”, “fringe”,
“Dunning-Kruger”, “nonsense”, “flat earth” and outstandingly
ridiculous excuses to avoid discussing the data.

They ridicule, ignore, dismiss, whine and complain, “show me the

math” but then refuse to look at the data while claiming victory.
They have lost their way in science.

Experiments collect evidence to suggest your understanding of a

process is accurate… until more evidence is collected to contradict that
understanding.
Experiments can never prove a theory. Experiments can only disprove a
theory. Hypothesis is formed and a theory is developed to explain that
hypothetical scenario. When new evidence is gathered… you abandon
the former theory and develop a new hypothesis based upon the new
information.
Yet articles and news media constantly claim their latest experiments
“prove relativity.” While dismissing any other alternative explanations.
The evidence of clocks ticking differently is due to them being in different
parts of a potential gradient. (Which has nothing to do with some fictional
4D space-time curvature) Has nothing to do with "time"/reality dilating.
Reality is experienced in the NOW by everyone in the universe
simultaneously. Regardless of speed or direction.

No looking into the past due to distance and light and space-time, etc.
The claim that "photons don't experience time" is quackery and untrue.
That is Relativistic nonsense saying that reality itself is experienced by
observers dependent upon the order by which photons hit you.

And if you travel faster (in any direction...) that time will slow down for
you. Because they link time with reality with speed with space with light
with gravity. And none of them are linked at all. (except for Reality/Time...
or Real-Time)

If someone travelled at light speed at sea level.. there would be no

difference between clocks. If you are stationary at sea level there is no
difference either.

If someone travelled at light speed in an orbit at the altitude of Mt.

Everest... there might be nanoseconds of difference between clocks
compared to sea level. Because the clocks are in a different potential
gradient. Nothing to do with velocity.
If you are stationary at Mt. Everest altitude, there will still be
nanoseconds difference compared to sea level.

If someone travelled at light speed in an orbit equal to the distance of the

center of the galaxy... the clocks will be off by millions of years... yet there
would be NO difference in reality between locations. Just that the clocks
would be subject to different surrounding potentials which affect their
particular rates.
If you are stationary relative to Earth at that distance, there will still be
millions of years difference in the TRANSMISSIONS and time it takes to
any sync with a clock on Earth at sea level.
Propagation and Re-Emission of Light:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/details01.htm?fbclid=IwAR2Ul9ffJFm8