partial excerpt from the post:
ON THE MATH OF THE EXTINCTION SHIFT PRINCIPLE
The math of the extinction shift principle is simple up to the level of secondary school education compared to the enormous complexity of Einstein's field's equations combined with Lorentz transformations. The logic of relativity alone is so confusing, it scares a lot of laypeople from studying physics and maths.
I performed some simple examples on Dr. Dowdye's extinction shift principle on secondary and tertiary objects both moving toward and away from the original light source at different velocities, and got back the constant speed of light in return.
The extinction shift principle is a property of bodies of light recently discovered and it has potential implications for all we know about light including redshifts, double slits, gravity, chemistry, plasma physics and space travel.
There are obviously multiple ways to discredit relativity and the false universe expansion.
My book Observing Our Universe demonstrated the special observer cannot apply to cosmology.
The expansion is easily discredited by explaining the mistake with Hubble's Constant, which is not constant.
The book also observes the velocity of light, the propagation of synchronized electric and magnetic fields, does not change with the velocity of the light source.
The OP responded with a link to the extinctionshift web site and its chalkboard.
I saw that Dowdye chalkboard just before my comment above.
Quasars have measured red shifts of z > 1.
This happens when a proton having that velocity in the direction away from us captures an electron, becomes a hydrogen atom and emits its Lyman-alpha wave length.
With z > 1 then velocity of c-z becomes a negative velocity for light. However, we still observe the wavelength though red shifted in the spectrum of the light as expected.
I cannot test this but it clearly explains the observations.
The reporting is confusing but I believe the jets from M87 are also measured at z> 1 so they are getting an awkward explanation to explain that unexpected measurement.
Intuitively, the velocity of propagation of these fields should not vary with the source at the moment the propagation begins. The rate of these rising and collapsing fields should not be variable in a vacuum.
The OP response:
Dowdye in his EU presentation said the dust in between affects the light and corrupts the signal. But the signal in the detector has shifted through numerous obstacles before reaching us.
I must point out that conclusion offered at EU clearly conflicts with the evidence.
A quasar spectrum has many emission lines. The metallic ions usually have a z < 1. I explained this quasar behavior in several posts about Arp's quasars in May.
The hydrogen Lyman-alpha is the only emission line with this extreme z value.
If the EU mistake were true, then the entire spectrum of light must shift the same. It does not!
This EU theory is just like the discredited tired light theory.
In your post, you observed a constant velocity of light. That is correct.
Extinction Shift is not tired light. Dowdye's book has a page where he explained Doppler shift. Dowdye's resume is as professional in his field as Don Scott is.
excerpt from OP subsequent reply:
" it is funny when they say it means accelerating distance away from the observer."
I used a few pages of the book to explain it and its history. This mistake should have been fixed in 1936 when Edwin Hubble noticed it.
After a while, I added another comment:
I realized Dowdye's mistake. The velocity of the light source cannot affect the velocity of the light it emits.
1) imagine a gun on a swivel on top of a fast airplane,
2) the gun shoots bullets in the direction the plane is flying, or in front of the plane.
3) the gun shoots bullets in the opposite direction, or behind the plane.
The bullets will be faster with (2) than with (3).
This is because the bullets move by F = ma, but the force is applied to a body already in motion. The bullet is ejected from a moving gun.
The reason why light cannot be affected by the velocity of its source is simply: light is NOT a particle, It is the propagation of E-M fields at a fixed rate.
Light changes its velocity instantaneously at a change in medium. There is no decel / accel transition delay for a change in propagation.
A mass changing its velocity requires a force.
Light does not behave like matter.
That was one of Einstein's mistakes, the belief matter cannot exceed the velocity of light. They are unrelated. One is motion or possessing kinetic energy (which changes with velocity), the other is propagation of energy, which is fixed by its frequency of oscillation.
The velocity of light must be fixed in a vacuum.
If Dowdye proposes otherwise, then I believe he is wrong.
I do not see his Doppler effect explanation to read how it differs from mine in my book, which always conforms to the conversation of energy.
To be clear, I fully agree with his work on plasma bending light. That is a completely different behavior.