Frequently Asked Questions {FAQ} from the Community of Physical Science

since the 1991 edition of the book, lectures, seminars and the 15 April 2001 creation of this web-site

on the

Extinction Shift Principle


To all who believe in the teaching of the truth

and are interested in science based on facts

and supported by observational evidence.



  1. Relativity is such a beautiful theory. It is esthetic. Much has been predicted out of it. Why look at any other theory?

  2. What's wrong with Relativity?  Why should you want to replace it?

  3. Relativity has been well accepted. Why should I be interested in any alternatives?

  4. Don't the experiments prove Relativity?

  5. Why don't you like Relativity?

  6. Don't the experiments show that the velocity of light is constant in all frames of reference?  Does the Maxwell's Equations require a constancy of the velocity of light?  (Here, the word constancy does not refer to the constant c itself. See the next pages for details.)


  1. The esthetics and beauty of a theory can only be appreciated when the theory is well understood and grasped. It is the desire and aim of this emission theorist to get at the truth; that which directly corresponds to what is actually going on in nature.  I believe the esthetics and beauty of my Extinction Shift Principle will be apparent to all who grasp it's fundamentals.  Relativity cannot be correctly understood or appreciated in all honesty without first understanding or appreciating the alternatives, that which places Relativity at risk.
  2. The Theory of Relativity accomplished well what it was set out to do.  Einstein did his job well.  It must be understood that the Theory of Relativity serves only as a correction to the incorrectly formulated principles of classical Physics which deviate from the reality of the measurements when the velocities and the energies are sufficiently high.  If the correct principles desired by nature are sought after, then the alternative would certainly be necessary. Relativity would no longer be necessary.
  3. The majority of the scientific community does not and cannot decide upon a correct theory. A true scientist should want only the truth and seek that which corresponds to the true laws of nature.  The majority or consensus should not be the deciding factor when it comes to a disputed theory.
  4. The experiment can never prove a theory. The experiment can only decide upon an incorrect theory when there are one or more alternatives or equivalent theories.
  5. I have never indicated any dislike for Relativity or Einstein.  A like or dislike for Relativity or any theory for that matter, is not the issue here at all. In order for one to fully appreciate this proposed alternative, one must have a profound appreciation for the significance of the consequences. The framework of the Euclidean Space Geometry must be taken seriously. The Lorentz Transformations and all the space-time mathematics were all born out of Euclidean Space Geometry requiring the necessary orthogonal conditions to come up with the so-called constancy-of-the-velocity-of-light artifice used for deriving the equations for the relativistic addition of velocities. A pure theoretical assumption.
  6. The past century of countless experiments show that the velocity of light is only apparently constant and is only apparently independent of the motion of its source. Again, the experiment does not prove a theory. A common and fatal mistake made by the mainstream of the community of physicists is the assumption that the solution of the Maxwell's Equations require a constant in the velocity of light in all frames of reference { a constancy in the velocity of light.}  This emission theory presents clear mathematical illustrations and proof that, as a consequence of Galilean Transformations, a measurement or direct observations can yield neither the undisturbed wavelength nor the undisturbed velocity of a primary wave or primary photon. The reasons for this statement is due to the following pure classical principle of optics under Galilean Transformations in Euclidean Space:


  1. Why can't we use Lorentz Transformations?

  2. Why is it necessary to use Galilean Transformation?

  3. What about Willem de Sitter's rotating star or double star problem?  Doesn't that show that the velocity of light is constant in all frames of reference?

  4. Do you have an alternative to the Relativistic Addition of Velocities?


  1. The Lorentz Transformations require the assumptions of the modification of the Geometry of the Euclidean Space.  The universal time is not an assumption here, as the dilation of the time is required to complete the mathematical rigor of the space-time first introduced by Henri Poincaré in 1905.

  2. The Extinction Shift Principle is an emission theory derived from the fundamentals of the linear Galilean Transformations of Velocities of rectilinearly moving photons and gravitons in Euclidean Space. There is absolutely no need to distort the space or abandon Euclidean Space.  Also, there is absolutely no need at all to dilate the time or to even consider any time modifications at the convenience of a material world observer, such as all of us.  Time is universal in my theory. {See details on transverse relative time and the book for more details.}

  3. There is already enormous evidence that interstellar space, as well as intergalactic space is filled with non-emitting, forward scattering matter, i.e., a significant portion of the unseen matter of the universe. It is readily seen that the emitted photons from stellar systems have to be immediately re-emitted by this interstellar scattering medium, thereby extinguishing the primary photons, denying any attempt to observe any effect of a velocity differential.  This modern observation directly counters the argument of Willem de Sitter, that he put forth in year 1913, based solely on the observations of double star systems.  The evidence for the presence of interstellar refracting matter is seen in the high energy X-Ray sources, surrounded by this refracting matter.  This is very evident from the scattering (re-emissions) of the intense X-ray sources.  See topic # 05 on the evidence for intergalactic and interstellar secondary sources of emission (dark matter). The observed, highly intense scattered re-emission is in itself solid evidence for refracting interstellar media!

  4. This technique of Galilean Transformations of Velocities is in fact the alternative that works for both gravitation and electromagnetism. {See details under subtopic Galilean Transformations. The details addresses the lack of instructions on Galilean Transformations of Velocities in academia.}


  1. What makes your theory simpler, more acceptable than Relativity?

  2. Does your theory explain both General and Special Relativity?

  3. If your theory gets the very same bottom line results, the same equations and the mathematical equivalence of Relativity, then what are the benefits of using your Extinction Shift Principle

  4. What evidence do you have that suggests your theory is the correct alternative?


  1. The Extinction Shift Principle correctly predicts the outcome of the past century of all the important experiments in optics designed to test the constancy of the velocity of light, such as the famed Albert Michelson and Edward Morley Interferometer Experiment of 1887. The experimental outcome of this experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 that forced General Relativity to explain the results, the Babcock and Bergman experiment published in 1964, the Petr Beckmann and Mandics experiment published in 1965, to include the many observations in natures laboratories of astrophysics, namely, those of the planetary physics and the binary neutron pulsar stars are all explained using this pure classical approach. The results are obtained without having to apply the complex, but cumbersome principles of Relativity which serves as a correction to the incorrect classical principles.  The Extinction Shift Principle requires absolutely no corrections at all as it is based on pure classical principles using the correctly applied Galilean Transformations of Velocities only.  I have published the details on these optical experiments along with some other significant experiments in my book, illustrating direct applications of the Extinction Shift Principle.

  2. There is only one Extinction Shift Principle. One theory. A single set of Principal Axioms apply the very same rules of the Galilean transformations of velocities to both gravitation and electromagnetism in Euclidean space without having to distort space and time.  {See details on the Principal Axioms}. This is a first in pure Classical Physics to my knowledge and from very extensive research in this area.  

  3. The benefits are unbounded, as the progress in Physical science depends heavily on the New Science without the academic censoring and the blocking of that which may deviate from the mainstream.  I have always stated that if a correct theory were suppressed, this would have the undesirable consequence of slowing down scientific progress and discouraging the new paradigms in science.

  4. There is much observational and experimental evidence for the correctness of Extinction Shift Principle which uses solely Galilean Transformations and which suggests that the velocity of light is indeed dependent on the velocity of the source.  This is counter to Relativity. {See the details and posted topics on this web-site.}  It is important to note that:  The basic assumption of this emission theory is that the velocities of ALL waves are exactly c relative to their most primary sources only; not constant in all frames of reference.  As a direct consequence of Galilean transformations of velocities and the Principal Axioms of the Extinction Shift Principle, any emitted undisturbed wave will have a velocity c relative to its most primary source only. A secondary wave will also have a velocity c relative to its secondary source only, i.e., the point of interference of the primary wave. Thus, the undisturbed re-emitted wave will always have the velocity c' = c+v in a different frame of reference other than that of its primary source, which moves with velocity v relative to that frame of reference. The velocities are not constant in all frames of reference. Again, a fatal mistake of the mainstream is the assumption that the Maxwell's Equations require a constant in the velocity of light in all frames of reference.  

  5. From Einstein's own words: "Wenn die Lichtgeschwindigkeit auch nur ein bißchen von der Geschwindigkeit der Lichtquelle abhängig ist, dann ist meine ganze Relativitätstheorie und Gravitationstheorie falsch." {August 1913} "If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false."