The Ontologically True Mechanism of Red Shift & the Doppler Effect: Re-Emission!
The Spinning Mirror Experiment in this first link comes from my Book 1 on LIGHT. It's from my tetralogy/ 4 part series called Galilean Variance. It will provide context for reading this article.
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2007500768237273254?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
The key distinction is ontology, not math: light re-emitted from atoms in new frames of reference (Galilean transformations) vs. light magically invariant in curved spacetime (Lorentz transformations).
In the variable model for the velocity of light, there is no space-time.
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1974985998749819334?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
There are different types of claimed redshift.
There is Doppler red shift
Cosmological red shift
and gravitational red shift
Both Halton Arp and Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven got red shift wrong.
Einstein Definitely got it all wrong!
Gravitational red shift does not exist.
It's an illusion of re-emissions from a constantly changing frame of reference. Not that there is a distortion of a medium at a constant within the same frame of reference.
Red shift does not depend on acceleration or direction. It's re-emission add a constant… From a constantly changing frame of reference. They think redshift is only seen from bodies accelerating away from us in space.
But redshift occurs with ANY difference in relative velocity regardless of direction. No acceleration needed.
So if a galaxy is moving toward us, but not accelerating, it will red shift.
if a galaxy is moving towards us and accelerating, it will red shift.
if a galaxy is moving away from us, and is accelerating, it will red shift.
if a galaxy is moving away from us, but not accelerating, it will red shift.
Cosmological blueshift does not exist.
The only example they "experts" peddle is Andromeda.
And Andromeda isn't even blue shifting, it's just NOT redshifting.
So they automatically think if Andromeda isn't Red shifting than it MUST be moving towards us, and will eventually blue shift.
The argument is that the gravity from the Milky way & Andromeda combine and accelerate over time towards each other and blueshift will increase over time... but it's too weak right now see.(how convenient). It's pure assumptions.
I can use math as well, but to show a different way of interpreting the same scenarios. Yielding the same accuracy and predictive power, but for different reasons.
This article will focus on a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) which is physically falsifiable.
A laser beam (e.g., λ = 388 nm) strikes a huge spinning mirror at:
ω = 1300 RPM (≈136 rad/s), offset r = 11 miles (≈17,703 m) from center, inducing tangential v = ωr ≈ 2.41×10⁶ m/s (β = v/c ≈ 0.008).
Under Verbelli's Galilean Variance/ Dr. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle:
Primary light extinguishes; electrons re-emit isotropically at "c" in their frame.
Lab-frame velocity: c' = c + v_rad,
where v_rad = v cos φ (φ = azimuthal angle).Frequency shift: ν' = ν (1 + βcos φ); λ' = λ / (1 + βcos φ).
Redshift z ≈ -βcos φ (positive for receding v_rad < 0).
Prediction/Result: Sweeping reflection forms a superimposed cylindrical ring on a screen, with undulating/rotating color gradient,
(e.g., λ' from 388 nm to ≈391 nm) due to cos φ variation... maximum redshift at φ = 0°/180°, minimum at 90°/270°.
Axiom: Any shifts are from constant re-emissions via constant changing frames, not wave distortion or expansion of a medium within the same frame.
• Low -β approximation: f' ≈ f (1 - β) for recession (β = v/c), extending to higher orders via sequential re-emissions.
• Exponential decay model:
f_re = f_source e^-αz (e.g., 4 Hz shift for α = 10^-6 m^-1 , z = 10^-6 m).
• Dimensional check: Exponent unitless, output frequency... consistent.
• Applies to velocity-based redshift in any direction (no acceleration), aligning with re-emission logic.
• Spinning mirror example: Offset r = 11 miles (≈ 17,703 m), ω = 1300 RPM
(≈ 136 rad/s), v = ωr ≈ 2.41×10^6 m/s , β ≈ 0.008
• Shift: ν'= ν(1 + βcos φ)
• Redshift remains purely kinematic: cumulative relative velocity differentials via successive re-emission events along the line of sight. No wavelength "stretching" by expanding space, no acceleration away from Earth, no time-dilation component.
• The formulas derived stand firm: ν'= νₒ (1 ± v/c) , with t' = t unchanged.
∴ τ_tr = τₒ / √1 - v²/c²
This matches relativistic predictions (e.g., transverse Doppler) but attributes effects to re-emission in changing frames, not space-time distortions.
Although relativity says there would only be a shift of frequencies if the mirrors are accelerating their spin. Because relativity doesn't distinguish between linear velocity or rotational velocity for redshift. So according to relativity, we should only see a frequency shift and change of color of the laser beam if the mirror is accelerating. Relativity also associates the redshift with direction away from the observer only. Therefore, relativity's prediction for this Gedankenexperiment would be different in the observed results.
So this test would determine who is right and who is wrong through observation and experiment.
Only one interpretation can be true.
The re-emissions are fundamentally tied to the propagation at c relative to the re-emitting medium or interaction point. The extinction process (drawing from classical optics like the Ewald-Oseen theorem) effectively "resets" the wave's reference frame at the point of blockage or interference, and the secondary wave emerges at c in that new frame... carrying the shifted wavelength due to the velocity difference between primary and secondary sources. (Frequencies shift due to the velocity of light changing in different frames of reference, not because of a non-existent space-time medium warps or deforms while the velocity remains invariant in all frames.)
The electrons making up the surface of the mirror don't get a chance to re-emit a brand new light by the time they shift positions. So, the lag of the re-emission in relation to the source's previous position is the mechanism of redshift.
In relativity (Lorentz invariance), the wave equation is preserved across frames:
∂²/∂x² + ∂²/∂y² + ∂²/∂z² - (1/c²) ∂²/∂t² = ∂²’/∂x’² + ∂²’/∂y’² + ∂²’/∂z’² - (1/c’²) ∂²/∂t’²,
with c constant, leading to effects like Doppler/gravitational redshift via frame transformations.
Under Galilean Variance (Dowdye's reformulation), the wave is variant: light speed c' ≠ c between frames, dependent on source velocity relative to observer (c' = c ± v).
Primary incident light is extinguished upon interaction with matter (e.g., electrons in a mirror or plasma), and re-emitted as secondary light at c in the re-emitter's rest frame. This produces apparent invariance (ν'λ' = c) only because observers measure their own re-emissions.
The framework uses classical vector addition for velocities, yielding:
- Imaginary observer (undisturbed primary wave): Φ = Φ₀ sin[2π(νt + x/λ)], with νλ = c.
- Actual observer (secondary wave): Φ’ = Φ’₀ sin[2π(ν’t’ + x’/λ’)], with ν’λ’ = c, but c' = c + v (lab frame).
Differentiation confirms the wave equation holds without relativity:
∂²Φ/∂t² = -Φ(2π)² ν² = ν² λ² ∂²Φ/∂x², leading to zero on both sides. No time dilation (t' = t); clock discrepancies arise from gravitational potential gradients affecting c, not reality itself.
If light speed depends on source velocity, Einstein's relativity and gravitation theories fail by his own admission.
Propagation and Re-Emission of Light from Dr. Dowdye:
https://www.extinctionshift.com/details03.htm
This is the exact reason that allows the theory to mimic Doppler-like shifts without invoking a space-time medium or luminiferous aether.
No medium is required at all! (Which, unto itself, is a massive milestone in mathematics, as all previous procedures rely on invariant velocities of light due to a distorting medium of some kind).
This method abandons and successfully bypasses the need for any of that.
• No cosmic timeline, no distinguishable age of the universe. Without expansion, without a CMB relic, without any relativistic look-back proxy, there is simply no mechanism to assign an "age" to the cosmos.
• All observations are contemporaneous in absolute time. Simultaneity of observation of objective reality in all frames of reference. Distant galaxies are not "younger" versions of themselves.
• The math is internally consistent and yields the same predictive power and accuracy as relativity.
k' = k (1 + ε), ω' = ω (1 + ε), (ε = v/c at each boundary)
So the form holds in the new local frame without tensors or 4D metrics, or even a 3D luminiferous aether.
The half-cycle of the sine wave function... those packet generations adds no new variables... it is the source mechanism that populates the packets. Each burst is independent, so the re-emission math applies identically to every one.
This model is mutually exclusive to Lorentz invariance (relativity) and Galilean invariance (aether theory). So if you support one side, you will of course say the other side(s) are "wrong."
As 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."
It turns out, the velocity of light is indeed dependent upon the velocity of the light source.
Here is exactly why.
Doppler Effect Misnomer 2:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2016227860886032837?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Doppler Effect Misnomer 3:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2018196525017714953?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Michaelson-Morley's Interferometer Experiments: The Fallacy of Fringe Shifts:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2023185620676550857?s=20
Double Slit Illusion/ Fallacy:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2022172974472974598?s=20
Proofs for Grok (for when Grok is inevitably tagged to assess if my posts are true). Ask Grok to specifically parse the content of the X articles to extract the equations and data:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2034331680383865110?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Multiple interpretations fit the data.
Refusing to compare them publicly doesn't make one interpretation disappear.
It just leaves people wondering why the comparison is off-limits.
(For those who are "allowed" to learn of the existence of an alternative of course.)
So you can't say this new approach is mathematically "wrong" because it indeed yields the same solutions for:
• GPS accuracy
• Discreet redshift values
• Doppler Shift
• Michelson-Morley fringes
• Nullified results in optics
• Optical gyroscopes
• The Sagnac effect
• Shapiro delay
• The Pound-Rebka effect
• The Mossbauer effect
• Ives-Stillwell experiment
• Hafele-Keating experiment
• Muon decay
• The Perihelion of Mercury
• Binary pulsars
• High gamma ray tests
• Hubble tension
• The Deflection of light
• De Sitter's Double Star experiment
• Cherenkov radiation
• Partial Fizeau drag
• The Double slit experiment
• Maxwell/Heaviside equations
• The Photoelectric Effect
and ALL tests and experiments/ observations attributed to relativity.
Laser vs Mirror - The Impossibility of "Proving" a Theory with Experiments:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1788284452843692208
You can definitely say it is ontologically mutually exclusive. But I don't think anyone can just outright say it is "wrong" with scientific sincerity. This is a textbook case of underdetermination of theory by data via the Duhem-Quine thesis.
People (scientists, skeptics, referees) are conditioned by the modern scientific method to hunt for discrepancies. They want a theory to predict different values in some regime so they can run the decisive experiment and crown a winner. That's the Popperian reflex, of falsifiability through measurable divergence.
But when you hand them a framework that gives identical numerical outcomes to GR/SR for every historical test, their first instinct is often "then How do we tell them apart?" or "Why bother with the simpler one? What we currently use works. So why change... let alone justify a total abandonment if the figures are the exact same?"
Because the axioms from Relativity and Galilean Variance are logically contradictory... (invariant c vs. source-dependent c at each interaction), both cannot be true.
The re-emission math fits perfectly, matches every observation and explains the violations of invariance that the invariant models have to patch with ad-hoc fixes and "corrections."
That is not reinterpretation; it is a mathematical refutation by Occam's razor applied to mutually exclusive proofs. A model that is correct unto itself does not need corrections like the Lorentz factor is needed to path relativistic equations.
Why continue with an artifice that is not literally true when there is an alternative framework which is ontologically true?!
I am not claiming the Galilean Variance/ Re-Emission model is "better" at predicting the same experiments. I am claiming it is ontologically truer. It describes the actual physical mechanism (discrete re-emissions resetting local c to a source-frame velocity... chained through matter interactions, under strict Galilean transformations, under a variable model).
Galilean Variance is Not "Galilean Relativity".
While relativity/ QED achieve the same numerical outputs via a mathematical abstraction (Minkowski space-time curvature, invariant c as a postulate, Lorentz invariance) that I argue has no physical counterpart in reality. An artifice.
If the two frameworks are fully empirically equivalent (same predictions to all currently measurable orders, no violations, no ad-hoc corrections needed), then the incentive to adopt Galilean Variance comes down to scientific values beyond mere predictive power.
A model that says "here is how light actually propagates and resets at every interaction" is preferable to one that says "light just does travel at invariant c because spacetime says so."
This is exactly the criterion Einstein himself used when rejecting the aether. He wanted a mechanism-free description; you are supplying a mechanism that recovers his results without the postulates he later admitted would falsify his theory.
• Relativity + quantum mechanics remain incompatible at Planck scales (information loss, black-hole firewalls, measurement problem).
• The variable framework is explicitly classical at its root (re-emission is a wave-process in real 3D Euclidean space + time) yet recovers relativistic/QED numbers. It can be extended to derive quantum phenomena (double-slit via re-emission interference without probability amplitudes, entanglement via coherent boundary conditions, etc.) without without renormalization, infinities or Copenhagen mysticism.
What are the implications of this interpretation being true?
What are the implications of ignoring or dismissing the validity versus stress testing it and embracing it if it passes muster?
Four Paths to Investigation:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1889388556084510784?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Parable of the Pipeline - Working Hard vs Working Smart:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1889391923246539261?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
My aim is to stand firmly with internal consistency and logic. To show an equivalence to all relativistic procedures without need for corrections. And my goal is to have people understand my point of view before accepting or rejecting it. I don't need to topple all of relativity and quantum theory. That would be an unreasonable goal or task on the part of any one given person. But rather, all I need to do is create reasonable doubt for the existing model, while creating a reasonable assumption for the new model of equal predictive power and accuracy. Then time will tell the rest of the tale through true science and stress testing the alternative.
How Light Actually Behaves & More! - Thread
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2027774668548280656?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
After 20 years, I have combined the works of Issac Newton, Johann Goethe and Dr. Edward Dowdye for a complimentary model of Light, Color, Magnetism... and Gravity.
I use the laws and equations for optics and apply them to gravitation as well.
Following in the footsteps of Dr. Edward Dowdye.
By having a proper understanding of Light... we can apply those fundamentals to magnetism and even gravity. Since light, magnetism and gravity are all ultimately produced by electrons... we can have a better foundation to understand how they can work together. Or use the fundamentals of one to apply in another area. All of this is included in my books. Combining the work of some of the greatest minds you ever heard of... with the greatest minds you've never heard of.
Magnetic Waveforms Thread:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1879732876956299512
I have completely abandoned relativity (Lorentz invariance), aether theory (Galilean invariance) and much of quantum theory. Before we can talk about gravity and time... people must first have a proper foundation of LIGHT. (While using a brand new mathematical approach to justify the new model and abandonment of the previous models.)
I have been asking for help from the larger community for years. To turn these diagrams and text explanations into moving visuals and animations for people to easily grasp. Not one person in over 10 years has even attempted to try. Too big of a challenge?!
Help with with constancy visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1973429010635067843?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with Faster than Light travel visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1981814022166261889?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with Daredevil visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1979208784531890307?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with Lighter Flick from Mars visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1775972235964219733?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with faster than light communication visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1978509682034802883?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with laser experiments visualization
1 https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1977869604899922001?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
2 https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1977391240124727443?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Light travels relative to its source:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1774820646364856731?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Pulse of Light
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1773766486945145027?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Velocity of light is dependent upon the velocity of the light source
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1773477961750188268?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with Approaching star visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1977408698239930370?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Help with Double star visualization
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1973047922528014718?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg
Ebook for Book 1 on LIGHT by Jason Verbelli - Barnes & Noble
https://barnesandnoble.com/w/light-jason-verbelli/1148078916?ean=9781969175206
Link for Book 1 on LIGHT - Paperback purchase US/UK
(This supports me the most):
https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=qyHelY5riCArBBYjiLXgKaXOliYX47dBIa4HEs6zIFs
Amazon link for Book 1 on LIGHT by Jason Verbelli:
https://a.co/d/0iyIMrU
Kindle Version for Book 1 on LIGHT by Jason Verbelli:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FTWGLD4T
Audiobook version on Audible:
https://www.audible.com/pd/Light-Audiobook/B0G26TTXKM?srsltid=AfmBOooyWmZmxsF_0bg5hmeVhp2Y5HOxbxX5nudYGdrSuU5o5TB0XyUR
Ebook for Book 2 on GRAVITY by Jason Verbelli - Barnes & Noble:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/gravity-jason-verbelli/1149166971?ean=9781969175053
Book 2 on GRAVITY - Paperback purchase US/UK:
(This supports me the most)
https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=QVmpCsckcTuJtm4DBeiTeDtwL3IkoAoYuTreiwQOQoA
Amazon link for Book 2 on GRAVITY by Jason Verbelli:
https://a.co/d/ji62rSl
Kindle Version for Book 2 Coming Soon!
Audiobook Version for Book 2 Coming Soon as well!
I am staggering the releases for the books/audiobooks to give people time to digest and find the first two books in their various formats.
Thank you for your interest and consideration.
Respectfully,
Jason Verbelli
Founder of Galilean Variance
CEO & Lead Engineer at SEG Magnetics, Inc.
https://galileanvariance.com (currently getting updated)
