science

There is an essay posted at http://materialistparadigm.blogharbor.com
which introduces a
new science paradigm. This paradigm is materialist and reductionist,
is derived from
observation, and will be found to correspond to all scientific
evidence.

I'm presently pursuing the detailed application of the paradigm,
specifically in the area of
physics. The paradigm specifies the process which underpin the forces
of physics, and in
particular the nuclear fusion process. The formation of the elements
is specified in terms
of absolute pressure and temperature.

The development of the paradigm required some radical thinking. I
disregarded the values
of the units of measurement of physics and seen the Universe as a
self-measuring process.
The 7 basic and 25 derived units of measurement of physics are
represented on the
paradigm as 7 and 25.

The paradigm is an hierarchical structure of numbers and arrows.
Plotting the numbers of
the paradigm has resulted in a couple of interesting graphs. These
plots and a single page
bitmap of the first part of the paradigm and/or a small exe file of
the whole paradigm, is
freely available by emailing me at

Yours
Stephen Mooney

"Stephen Mooney" wrote in message
om...
There is an essay posted at http://materialistparadigm.blogharbor.com
which introduces a
new science paradigm. This paradigm is materialist and reductionist,
is derived from
observation, and will be found to correspond to all scientific
evidence.


Quote from the first para of the site
"In 1798 Henry Cavendish published a paper in Philosophical Transactions
reporting the results of an experiment. This entailed measuring the
attraction between two objects on an apparatus called a torsion balance.
Cavendish discovered that when he heated one of the objects the attraction
between the objects increased.

References please? and confirmation if available.

"Stephen Mooney" wrote in message
om...
There is an essay posted at http://materialistparadigm.blogharbor.com
which introduces a
new science paradigm. This paradigm is materialist and reductionist,
is derived from
observation, and will be found to correspond to all scientific
evidence.

Quote from the website
"Establishment physics, with its reliance upon mathematics and other
abstractions, is an abstractionist paradigm. This paradigm works quite well,
however, it's limited in its capacity to explain the totally connected and
materialistic nature of the Universe"

Please could you make this something less of a non-sequitor? i.e. explain
'specifically' which bits of the universe are unexplained by 'establishment
physics' and which bits are 'better' explained by your new science paradigm.