A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 30th 04, 08:54 PM
Stephen Mooney
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
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

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
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

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
Old May 31st 04, 04:30 AM
radical reptile
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics

Have some more beer.

Old May 31st 04, 04:30 AM
radical reptile
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics

Have some more beer.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics Stephen Mooney SETI 0 May 30th 04 08:53 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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.