|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics
Stephen Mooney 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. For over two hundred years the physics establishment has either ignored, or tried to explain away, this result. This is because it does not fit in with the approach of establishment physics. 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. A new physics paradigm is needed. That new paradigm is based on these fundamental ideas: that everything is composed of a material substance which we call matter; that everything is subject to cause and effect; that the Universe is logically consistent; that the Universe is a process of self-organization through self-quantification; that the Universe has a groundstate at the ultimate microscale. * * * The heating of the object by Henry Cavendish resulted in increased attraction because all attraction is the result of the absorption of emission, and the heating caused the object to increase its absorption and emission. Attraction and repulsion are fundamental aspects of the Universe. The abstractionist paradigm represents attraction with the gravitational formula first put forward by Isaac Newton: attraction is proportional to the sum of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses. Of course, this does not express the absorption of emission mechanism which causes attraction. All objects are subject to attraction so all objects absorb and emit. As emission is composed of matter, there is a materialist connection between objects. Repulsion is seen as the result of objects pushing away via their emission due to them having an equivalence of emission. This is what the abstractionist paradigm refers to as 'like charges'. Attraction through the absorption of emission, therefore, entails objects having an inequivalence of emission. This is what the abstractionist paradigm calls 'dislike charges'. The emission of objects is not the old ether concept. This entailed a medium through which it was thought that emission (electromagnetic radiation) propagated. The famous Michelson-Morely interferometer experiment failed to detect any motion of the Earth through such a medium. The emission of objects is not a separate medium but the electromagnetic radiation itself. Objects either have a state of emission exceeding absorption or absorption exceeding emission, with this relationship being able to be reversed. As emission is composed of matter, emission exceeding absorption entails decreasing matter as absorption exceeding emission entails increasing matter. Every object is, therefore, either decreasing or increasing in matter at any particular instant of time. As the space between objects is composed of the emission of objects and is not a vacuum, everything exists within an environment of emission that varies in density. The density of the emission around an object decreases with the distance from the object in accordance with Newton's law, i.e. attraction falls off by the square of the distance. This also means that every object is surrounded by an emission field constructed from the emission of the object and the emission which is impacting upon the object. The absorption of emission occurs via an objects emission field, just as its emission is via its emission field. Einstein's curved space as the cause of gravitational attraction is a generalization. The decreasing density of the emission of the Sun with the increasing distance from the Sun can readily be equated with the curved space idea. The light from a distant galaxy passing near the Sun is bent through absorbing the emission of the Sun. Light travels through photons, which as fusion's of emission absorb and emit and dissipate and reform, within the emission that is space and not as non-absorbing/emitting and non-dissipating/reforming particles moving through an empty space. It's the absorption/emission aspect of photons which finds correspondence with its detection as a wavelength. The physics idea that light is both a particle and a wave ignores the fact that the wave aspect is merely that of its technological detection. Claiming that light is really a wave is like claiming that a piece of wood measured with a rule is really one centimeter. Photons are not all the same as quantities of the fusion of emission. Physics claims that the speed of light is a universal constant. However, it could only be constant within a given density of emission (a given density of space). The speed of light could not be a universal constant. The other 36 constants of physics, also could not be universally constant. The acceleration due to gravity (g) is relative to the object. The value of g for the Earth is greater than the value of g for the moon. The further light travels from its source the greater is its emission over absorption which entails increasing dissipation that is detected as increasing wavelength. The increasing wavelength of light with the distance it travels was pointed out by the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1928 in refutation of the idea that the increasing wavelength of the light from distant galaxies was a Doppler Effect brought about by the galaxies accelerating away. The cosmic redshift phenomena is not indicative of galaxies accelerating away. There is no evidence for a big bang. From sub-atomic particles to planets and stars and galaxies, all attraction is the result of the absorption of emission. The four distinct forces idea of physics is redundant. The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission of the Sun, with this attraction being counter-balanced by the Earth's orbital motion. The Earth's absorption of the emission of the Sun forms a material connection that results in the Earth being pulled around by the rotation of the Sun. Much of the absorption by the Earth is drawn into the core of the Earth via its emission field and the North and South poles, and generates the rotation of the Earth. As gravity is the result of the absorption of emission, and not merely the matter (mass) of an object, how could it be possible for a star to collapse under its own emission (gravity) to form a blackhole? It's not possible. Stars do not collapse to form blackholes. The Universe entails a groundstate which forms the core of all matter, and which entails rotation due to it having unsymmetrical absorption and emission and structure. It's this which accounts for rotation from sub-atomic particles to galaxies. Matter is collected or fused emission, which is only stable within parameters of the density of impacting emission. A spacecraft endeavoring to travel between galaxies would encounter extremely low density of emission (space) and dissipate as a structure. Inter-galaxy space travel is simply not possible. Stars form from the emission that is space and grow through absorbing that emission. The microscale and the macroscale are, thus, connected. They begin as a process of absorption exceeding emission and are not readily visible. This corresponds to the idea of a blackhole. At some point their absorption/emission inverts and they become readily visible. Our Sun is fueled by absorbing emission and is a process of emission exceeding absorption so that it's decreasing in matter. The density of the emission impacting upon a first stage star is critical to whether or not it inverts into the readily visible (emission exceeding absorption) second stage. The bursts of gamma radiation observed from all directions in the cosmic sky are first stage stars exploding. Apparently some people assume that the physics description of the formation and nuclear fusion process of a star is a fact. It's not a fact. It's merely a description within the abstractionist paradigm of physics. It's most certainly not evidence against stars being fueled by absorbing emission. The electromagnetic field around an nuclear fusion reactor does not merely contain the fusion process but interacts through absorption/emission with the process. The so called over-unity phenomena is a result of a generator absorbing the impacting emission and, thereby, having an output which appears to exceed input. An object on or near the surface of the Earth is attracted to the Earth through its emission being absorbed by the Earth via the Earth's emission. As the Earth appears to be a process of absorption exceeding emission it must be increasing in matter. If the emission of the Earth were to change its gravity would change. As the matter of the Earth is increasing the emission of the Earth would be increasing and hence the gravity of the Earth would be increasing and, therefore, it would have been less in the past than it is now. This should be taken into account when considering, for example, the agility of large dinosaurs millions of years ago. The increasing emission of the Earth should also be taken into account with regard to the increasing average temperature of the Earth. Is the increasing average temperature, Global warming, related to the increasing emission? Also, increasing emission would be greatest over the poles, particularly the South pole. Is this related to the depletion of the ozone layer over the poles? Within the abstractionist paradigm, time is treated as a thing-it-self. This is the fallacy of 'misplaced concreteness'. Time is not a thing-in-itself, but a measure of the mechanism or process of material things. When physics conducts an experiment and presents the results as indicating that time either slowed down or sped up, it fails to identify the material mechanism or process which slowed down or sped up and the context of emission within which this occurred. For example, the difference between the time keeping of identical clocks at the top and bottom of a tower is due to the difference in the density of the emission which impacts upon the clocks and not the mere difference in the motion of the clocks. Motion, like time, is not a thing-in-itself. Only material things can have motion, and all motion occurs within the emission called space. A particularly extreme example of how the abstractionist paradigm has eschewed the nature of the Universe is the Uncertainty Principle. Everything has a cause, because the alternative is that things can happen without a cause (by magic) and this is clearly unacceptable. Everything having a cause also means that everything is determined and is, thereby, certain. Any uncertainty must relate to our lack of knowledge and/or our inability to accurately describe the Universe and not be an inherent aspect of the Universe. The Uncertainty Principle is an example of blaming the Universe instead of accepting the limitations of your paradigm. The Universe is a self-organizing and self-quantifying materialist process that is infinite in all directions, and the structures of the Universe exist within the parameters of a groundstate and the explosion or dissipation of stars and galaxies. However, can there be infinite types of structures within this infinity? How can the idea of infinite types of structures be reconciled with the observation that galaxies and stars and planets appear to come in a finite number of types? For me, the number of types of structures (although a very large number) are finite giving rise to the idea that anything which can be constructed by the Universe must exist and re-exist infinitely. The quantitative representation of the self-quantifying materialist nature of the Universe, a materialist paradigm, is a structure of numbers and arrows. The abstractionist paradigm is represented through the number 4 representing the forces, 7 the basic SI units of measurement, 25 the derived units of measurement, 37 the constants, and 1, 4, 9, 16, etc the energy levels of a one dimensional potential well. Essentially, the abstractionist paradigm is contained within the materialist paradigm. Of course, everything is represented on the materialist paradigm. The number 81 represents the stable elements, 91 the naturally occurring elements on Earth, 92 the elements, 11 the principal properties of the elements, 4 the basic types of galaxy (spiral, elliptical, irregular, globular), 7 the stars spectral classes, 13 the types of star (including proto-star), and 21 the sub-atomic particles that have been discovered. The paradigm is the specification of the nuclear fusion process. The numbers 3, 4, 7, 9, etc, represent the elements being fused from the emission called space. It's a prediction of the paradigm that lithium, for example, will be found to entail 7 isotopes. As Thomas Kuhn pointed our in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, once the new paradigm has been embraced it quickly becomes normal science. Normal science entails research through rigorous observation, experiment and discussion, guided by the prevailing paradigm. The application of the materialist paradigm will follow the normal science route. However, there is one big difference. The materialist paradigm identifies with numbers that which we do not know. In this way it guides research and the rate of our acquisition of knowledge will be an accelerating phenomena. *You can obtain an exe file of the paradigm from |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
new paradigm for physics update | Gary Forbat | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 20th 04 06:47 AM |
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 206) | John Baez | Research | 27 | June 7th 04 06:37 PM |
Physics News Update -- Number 658, October 21, 2003 | Rich | SETI | 0 | October 22nd 03 09:35 PM |
Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf | greywolf42 | Astronomy Misc | 13 | August 30th 03 10:23 PM |