Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2014, 04:54 PM
Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Science and rationality are the ultimate means for understanding the Universe. A great benefit of Science is its capacity to overcome its mistakes. Science, in the form of establishment Physics, has made mistakes in conceptualisation and interpretation. Establishment Physics is reliant upon the use of mathematics and measurements. It’s an Abstractionist Paradigm that’s not truly fundamental, and so fails to adequately represent the nature of the Universe. Going beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm gives rise to a new foundation for understanding the Universe, and our place within the scheme of things.

* *

The majority of the Physics establishment believe in the Big Bang theory. This proposes that the Universe begun from an extremely small and dense clump of matter that exploded, and that the Universe is continuing to expand as a result. How this clump of matter exploded, is not explained. Sometimes the majority get it wrong.

In 1929 an Astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble observed that the light from some galaxies was increased in wavelength relative to the light from some other galaxies. Light has a wavelength that goes from the short end of the spectrum to the long end of the spectrum. The short end involves blue light while the long end involves red light. When light is shifted to the long end of the spectrum it’s called redshifted. To account for the difference in the spectrum of the light, the proponents of the Big Bang theory assume that the redshift is due to the galaxies accelerating away.

The redshift in the light from galaxies is seen as a Doppler Effect, which also relates to the change in sound waves as an object accelerates towards or away from our point of observation. The big bangers also assume that a galaxy with a high redshift is further away than one with a lower redshift. Although the galaxy redshift could be caused by galaxies accelerating away, there’s a much simpler explanation.

In response to Edwin Hubble’s observation, a Swiss Astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky proposed what he called the “tired light” theory. This states that the increase in wavelength of the light from galaxies is due to nothing more than the light losing energy and increasing in wavelength as it travels across the Universe. It’s a simple fact that as light travels it fades and increases in wavelength.

There is something called Olbers paradox. This states that if the sky is full of galaxies and stars then it should be flooded with light. The sky is full of galaxies and stars. The reason that it’s not flooded with light is due to the fact that they’re at various distances from us and their light fades and increases in wavelength as it travels towards us. The further we look out into the Universe, into regions which appear to be empty black space, the more galaxies and stars we discover.

The Universe is a self-organizing, totally connected, and a strictly determined infinite cycle of the construction and de-construction of matter. It never had a beginning and will not have an end. It’s infinite in distance and duration, space and time.

Although there are obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things (infinite variability) then we wouldn’t observe the discrete types that we do observe. This leads to the realization that everything that can exist must exist an infinite number of times in the past and the present and the future. There are an infinite number and yet finite versions of myself writing this sentence. You don’t need to believe in a mythical religious god to obtain eternal life, because it’s a given fact of existence. We live and die forever.

In a Universe that’s infinite in distance and duration but finite in its possibilities, everything is inevitable. Everything is precisely as it because it couldn’t be any other way. However, that does not mean that we can predict everything. Prediction requires information, and we can never have all the information that we need to predict everything.

The “tired light” explanation doesn’t suit the majority of the Physics establishment, because it leads to debunking their idea of measuring cosmic distance with the light from galaxies and stars. How can you distinguish between the brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the point of observation from the light of the galaxy or star? By assuming that the brightness doesn’t change over time? By assuming that the wavelength of the light doesn’t change over distance? The desire to measure cosmic distance over-rides any rational consideration. This delusion, or fantasy collusion, has been going on for nearly one hundred years. You can’t distinguish between the brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from our point of observation from the light of the galaxy or star.

Physics imposes its laws upon the Universe without adequately understanding why those laws exist. It also begins with the idea of four separate fundamental forces. There is the strong and weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity. Each of these is conceptualized as occurring by way of force carrying particles. This entails coupling, which for the nuclear and gravity forces is the result of attraction. For the strong nuclear force, the attraction is between neutrons and protons forming a nucleus and is seen as involving a particle called a pion. The weak nuclear force involves the attraction between electrons and a nucleus, and is seen as by way of w and z particles. For the electromagnetic force the particle is called a photon. For gravity, the particle is the graviton. Then there is the fact that the Physics establishment believes that gravity only involves attraction and not repulsion.

The force carrying particles theory doesn’t represent the most fundamental explanation. It’s better to begin with electrostatic attraction and repulsion. Physics sees electrostatic attraction as being caused by dislike charges, and repulsion by like charges. I see attraction as being caused by the absorption of emission (electromagnetic emission) by bodies with inequivalent emission. Repulsion, on the other hand, I see as being caused by the emission of bodies being equivalent and the bodies pushing away from each other via this emission. Like charges equates with equivalent emission, and dislike charges equates with inequivalent emission.

Emission forms a spectrum which includes the visible part we call light. It’s my contention that the attraction that underpins the nuclear and gravity forces has the same cause: the absorption of emission. There’s only one fundamental force in the Universe, and that’s the absorption and emission of the emission by bodies from the absolute microscale to the absolute macroscale. In terms of Occam’s Razor, “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” Or, in the words of Aristotle, “The more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for its operation.” The difference in the strength of the forces is due to the difference in the absorption and emission capacity of bodies. We could call the nuclear forces microscale gravity.

Given the absorption and emission process or mechanism, the space between bodies is composed of the emission of bodies and is not an absolute vacuum as is sometimes assumed by Physics. The emission of a body forms a field around the body. Absorption and emission is via this field, which falls-off in density with the distance from the body. An emission field and a gravity field are one and the same thing.

The process of the absorption of emission is actually a process of absorption and emission, so that there is not necessarily a persistent gain of absorbed emission by the body being attracted. When the emitted emission encounters the impacting emission it creates a density of emission which also absorbs and emits. In this way densities (waves) of emission are constructed all the way back to the source of the impacting emission. The convergence of emission of different or equivalent wavelengths is a fundamental aspect of the Universe.

Physics sees emission (light) as both a wave and a photon particle without trying to explain how each is connected to the other. It’s simply accepted that emission forms a wave/particle duality. Emission can be fused into a particle through attraction between sub particles. It’s the dispersion and de-construction of these photons that makes up the emission/gravity field of a body. As emission encounters the increasing density of an emission/gravity field, the dispersion and de-construction becomes attraction between the sub particles through the increased absorption of the increasing density of the emission/gravity field. Photons don’t travel as individual particles over long distances through an empty space from a source such as a galaxy or star.

In 1964 two astronomers named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered, by way of radio telescope, that the space (emission) between galaxies was composed of microwave emission which they assumed to be left over from the Big Bang. This is called the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation (CBMR). A better explanation is that this is simply the result of the emission of galaxies and stars.

Philosophically, I’m a Physicalist. I see everything as composed of that substance we call matter. As a consequence, I reject the idea that energy is anything other than made of matter and a product of the motion of matter. I also reject the idea of anti-matter. When two particles approach each other and are mutually de-constructed, it’s not a case of matter meeting anti-matter. It’s a case of the emission of the particles acting as pressure on each other and causing their mutual de-construction. If the two particles had an equivalence of emission they would repel each other. They must have an inequivalence of emission, and have attained their maximum absorption capacities.

Emission is made of matter so that the absorption of emission is the absorption of matter. For the Physics establishment, emission (light) is matterless (massless). This is a consequence of their abstractionist approach, and should not be seen as meaning that emission is actually matterless.

If the space between bodies is composed of emission which is composed of matter, then how is it possible for us to see through this matter? We don’t see through space (emission). We see with space (emission). The image of a body is impacted upon our retina and that image travels to our retina by the same process as the emission between all bodies.

Contrary to the belief of some Physicists, matter is not inert at any level of its construction. All atomic scale matter decays back to a more fundamental element. At the sub–atomic level, an individual particle absorbs and emits and rotates and pulsates. If you observed an individual particle it would be seen to rotate and pulsate and have an emission field. Particles are essentially little pumps absorbing and emitting.

An electron being attracted to a nucleus would move towards the nucleus when it’s absorbing emission and then pushes away when its emission becomes equivalent with that of the nucleus. At its furthest point from the nucleus its emission capacity would have been exhausted so that it would once again absorb emission from the nucleus. Instead of electrons orbiting the nucleus, they form a field or cloud around the nucleus. The same back and forth absorption and emission process also applies to the attraction between protons and neutrons.

Isaac Newton established that gravity can be seen as proportional to the product of the masses of two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. This produced a mathematical representation of gravity as a force, but left it as a magical action-at-a-distance in that it offers no adequate explanation for the mechanism or actual cause of the attraction. In his Principia Mathematica of 1687, Newton states that, “…bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other.”

Physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration, but doesn’t offer an adequate explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission explanation, the acceleration is a product of the fact that the density of an emission/gravity field increases with the decrease in the distance to the body that is doing the attracting.

Bodies of different quantities of matter are seen as all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration. Once again, Physics doesn’t have an adequate explanation. Bodies absorb emission in portion to their quantity of matter from all directions, which results in them all being attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration.

Millions of dollars of public money has been spent on building gravity wave detectors. As a gravity wave and an emission wave are one and the same thing, this is a waste of money. Such is the consequence when you pursue something without first understanding its fundamental cause.

Physics claims that there must be missing “dark matter” that holds galaxies together and sees them form into clusters of galaxies. The galaxies and the clusters of galaxies are obviously held together through the absorption of emission via their emission/gravity fields. The missing “dark matter” issue is a product of the abstractionist procedures of Physics, and has nothing to do with physical reality.

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed an anomalous rotation in Foucault's Pendulum, in that it moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the “Allais Effect”. When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission/gravity field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The slight reduction in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth, results in less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster. This demonstrates that gravity can be partially shielded.

If you want assistance with obtaining a high or long jump record you should do it at aphelion, around the 4th of July when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, and during a solar eclipse.

The original torsion balance measurement to determine what Physics calls the universal gravity constant, designated with a G, was conducted by Henry Cavendish and published in Philosophical Transactions of 1798. Cavendish discovered that heating one of the bodies on the balance resulted in repulsion: “... the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before moved forward”.

Some many years ago, one Malcolm Longair, who was with Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, was giving a public lecture at Melbourne University demonstrating the measurement of some of the constants of Physics. He did the Cavendish torsion balance experiment for the gravity constant. He stated that Physics encourages everyone to question things. I went up to him after the lecture and said that I believed that the torsion balance experiment measures nothing more than electrostatic attraction. For me it demonstrated that everything absorbs and emits without needing to be “charged” in any way. The usual calm and collected Malcolm went red in the face, threw his arms in the air, and proclaimed loudly that that couldn’t possibly be the case. His protesting only confirmed what I had already come to realize. If you placed bodies of perfect equivalence of emission on a torsion balance, the result would be repulsion in contradiction to what Physics presently believes about gravity. If two planets or stars had perfect equivalence of emission they would also repel each other.

The bodies used on a Cavendish torsion balance vary in their quantity of matter between different apparatus. The absorption of emission between the two bodies occurs while they are absorbing emission from their surroundings. This accounts for the relatively consistent rate of attraction between the bodies.

For Albert Einstein, gravity is caused by curved or warped space. This idea works because curved or warped space equates with the increase in density of the emission/gravity field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.

The occurrence of the emission from a distance galaxy or star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is a case of particles being deflected (attracted) by absorbing emission from an emission/gravity field. This is the same process as an electron being deflected within an emission field.

With the absorption of emission explanation, it’s not possible for a star to collapse under the increase in its own gravity and form a blackhole, because its gravity is a result of its emission. The blackhole theory is based on seeing gravity as caused by matter, in-and-of-itself, with the absence of an adequate explanation for its mechanism or cause.

With the Earth being attracted to the Sun through absorbing its emission via the Earth’s emission/gravity field, part of this emission could reach the inner most core of the Earth. The inner most core could be a dissymmetrical duality. This could involve one large and one small state of matter, and could see the emission/gravity field being generated from this duality. As one part increases in matter through absorption exceeding emission, the other would decrease in matter through emission exceeding absorption. As one attains a state of maximum absorption the other attains a state of maximum emission. The process of absorption and emission then reserves, accounting for the reversing of the magnetic poles of the Earth. The same mechanism could apply to the Sun with its eleven year cycle of the reversal of it magnetic field.

A planet can be seen as a state of absorption exceeding emission, whereas a star can be seen as state of emission exceeding absorption. The attraction between two stars would be much less than that between a star and a planet, because stars would absorb much less emission than planets. Establishment Physics presently sees gravity as always proportional to the quantity of matter of a body, and so sees the attraction between two stars as greater than that between a planet and a star. The quantity of matter of bodies is allocated by Physics with their abstractionist procedure to make Newton’s universal law of gravity work. It’s simply not possible to determine the actual quantity of matter of a planet or a star.

Stars obviously contain a very large quantity of matter. Binary stars are a clear example of the weak attraction of bodies whose emission exceeds absorption. The two stars absorb emission from each other and from the surrounding environment of emission. One balances the other, keeping them in orbit around a central point. If the stars where attracted to each other simply as a consequence of their quantity of matter, then they would be drawn together completely.

I recall reading an article reporting on an experiment with a charged and an uncharged battery. The charged battery was reported as falling to the Earth more slowly than the uncharged battery. Then there is the case of an experiment conducted by one Don Kelly which demonstrated that “A special arrangement of magnets and coils fell slower in drop experiments when the special coils were energized.” (New Energy News, Vol. 5, No. 7, Nov. 1997) The results of these experiments demonstrate that the greater the emission of a body the less the absorption capacity. Newton’s universal law of gravity doesn’t reflect this reality. The universal law of attraction should state that “bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity.”

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon derives from a tidal bulge in the Earth due to its attraction of the Moon. It’s claimed that as the Earth tries to drag this bulge along its rotation is decreased, and that this loss of angular momentum is transferred to the Moon lifting it into a higher orbit. This could only occur if the angular momentum (rotation) of the Earth was responsible for holding the Moon in orbit. It’s not. What holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and stops it from crashing into the Earth, is it’s absorption of emission from the Sun counter-balancing its absorption of emission from the Earth. Only by the density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun increasing and/or the density of emission/gravity field of the Earth decreasing can we account for the Moon moving away from the Earth.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can also be explained by the increasing density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.

The rotation of natural satellites (moons) which are close to a planet has been eliminated so that they are locked to the rotation of the planet, whereas those which are further from the planets still have rotation. The satellites which are close to the planet are subject to the greater density of the emission/gravity field of the planet than those which are further away.

It’s assumed by Physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth would have been less in the time of the Dinosaurs than it is now.

The Physics Idea of “universal constants” is mistaken: just because you can measure something on Earth at a particular time, doesn’t mean that the result can be applied to anywhere and at anytime in the Universe.

As emission travels through interaction with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It could not possibly have a specific speed throughout the Universe as claimed by Physics. If you measured the speed of emission (light) at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission/gravity field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface.

An example of the abstractionist interpretation by Physics involves the variability in the rate of atomic vibration. An experiment conducted by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating in 1971 measured the rate of vibration of cesium beam atomic clocks. This involved placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and two others in airplanes above the Earth and travelling in opposite directions east and west. The clock in the airplane going east lost time, the clock going west gained time, and both did so relative to the clock on the surface. Relativity theory sees the difference in the times recorded by the clocks as due to “time dilation” through their relative motion. Physics treats time as a separate dimension and a thing-in-itself. Time is a measure of duration or process of real physical things. To treat time as a separate dimension and a thing-in-itself is to commit the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

The airplane going east was moving ahead of the rotation of the emission/gravity field of the Earth, the airplane going west was moving against the rotation of the emission/gravity field, and the clock on the surface was moving with the rotation of the emission/gravity field. It’s the clocks differing impact with the emission/gravity field of the Earth that accounts for any difference in their rate of vibration.

Another “time dilation” experiment involved placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and another above the surface. This involved a different type of clock, one developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It’s based on an electrically charged aluminum atom which vibrates between two energy levels, and is called a “quantum logic clock”. The clock above the surface vibrated faster than the clock on the surface. Physics claims that this proves that time, as a thing-in-itself, runs faster above the surface of the Earth than at the surface due to the clock moving faster with the rotation of the Earth than the clock on the surface. Both clocks absorb and emit, and this is connected to their vibration. The difference in the time keeping of the two clocks is due to the difference in density of the emission/gravity field in which they are located. The decreased density of the emission/gravity field above the surface of the Earth involves decreased emission pressure acting on the clock allowing it to vibrate faster.

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, has observed that the rate of atomic de-construction (decay) varies with the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest point from the Sun (aphelion), the rate of atomic de-construction is increased. This occurs because the density of the Sun’s emission/gravity field impacting upon the Earth is decreased. A spacecraft travelling away from our solar system would encounter decreasing density of emission and have an increasing rate of atomic de-construction, and eventually completely de-construct. We can’t be visited by aliens because their spacecraft would de-construct during the journey.

Physics sees the nuclear strong and weak forces as independent of the broader emission context in which they occur. The two nuclear forces, as the coupling of particles, involve the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. Every planet is subject to the increasing density of the emission of a central star. Equally, every solar system is subject to attraction to a source of emission within a galaxy and that involves the increasing density of that emission. There should be a new law of Physics, a law of atomic stability, which states that “matter is subject to the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission, and its stability is relative to the density of the impacting emission.”

Our solar system involves eight planets. The four inner planets can be categorized as solid matter, compared to the outer four which appear to be largely composed of gas. The gas of the gas planets must be retained by the planets by gravity. This would require a core large enough to generate the emission/gravity field which through its absorption would retain the gas atmosphere of the planets. A fundamental difference between the solid matter and gas planets is their distance from the Sun. This sees the solid matter planets being subject to a greater density of emission from the Sun compared to the gas planets. In terms of my proposed law of atomic stability, the solid matter planets would have greater atomic stability than the gas planets.

Global warming can be seen as connected to gravity through an increase in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The atmosphere of the Earth is retained by the Earth through the atmosphere’s interaction with the emission/gravity field. The atmosphere doesn’t just hang there by way of magic. Equally, it’s not magic that sees the density of the atmosphere decrease with the increase in its distance from the surface of the Earth is tune with the density of the Earth’s emission/gravity field. As the overall density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth increases, the density of the atmosphere increases through more of the chemicals which make-up the atmosphere being retained for a longer period of time.

As our solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy, it’s subject to attraction through the absorption of emission within the galaxy. This results in a gradual increase in density of the emission/gravity field within the solar system, which could result in an increase in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. An exploding star within our region could have an impact upon the Earth through increasing the density of the Earth’s emission/gravity field resulting in an increase in the average temperature of the Earth for a period of time.

The Earth has experienced extended cold periods called Ice Ages. We could see this the other way around. The cold periods could be the norm, interspersed with periods of increased temperature due to an exploding star within our region of the Milky Way galaxy. Such an event could have happened thousands of years ago, and have an impact on the Earth over an extended period of time.

Elliptical galaxies and the cores of spiral galaxies are composed of emission. As they can’t exist without being constructed, they must emerge from the CBMR through the absorption of emission. It would require sufficient density and persistent of impacting emission for an elliptical galaxy or the core of a spiral galaxy to emerge from the CBMR. This indicates that they must not emerge at an extreme distance from other galaxies.

The heavier elements are seen by Physics as being constructed from Hydrogen and Helium through nucleosynthesis in stars. But how is Hydrogen and Helium constructed in the first place, given that the primordial nucleosynthesis of Hydrogen and Helium in the Big Bang never happened? Could it be that Hydrogen and Helium are never constructed in the first place? Are they infinitely recycled through the construction and de-construction of stars? Does the atomic matter left over from an exploding star de-construct back to Hydrogen and Helium due to the low density of emission in accordance with my proposed law of atomic stability? Does this account for why there is an abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the Universe? If Uranium can de-construct (decay) back to Lead in the density of emission that is the context in which the Earth presently exists, then all the elements can de-construct back to Hydrogen and Helium in a context of extremely low density of emission.

The reason that globular clusters galaxies form in the outer regions of spiral galaxies is due to the presence of extensive areas of Hydrogen and Helium. The emission/gravity field of the galaxy is low in density in the outer regions, which means that the atomic matter that results from exploding stars or globular clusters would have less stability resulting in more Hydrogen and Helium. A contracting region of Hydrogen and Helium would see more stars forming near the centre, relative to the outer areas. It would resemble what we observe.

Some Physicists claim that the Universe involves inherent uncertainty because it’s not possible to measure things with absolute precision at the extreme microscale. Objects, at the extreme microscale possess both a particle nature and the wave nature dependent upon whether you are measuring the position or the wavelength of the object. The measurement of one of these properties affects the measurement of the other. As everything absorbs and emits, the emission and absorption of the measurement instrument interacts with the absorption and emission of that which is being measured. It’s nothing more mysterious than this purely physical process which underpins the inability to measure at the extreme microscale. Inherent uncertainty is simply not possible in a Universe that is governed by cause and effect.

There are probably as many Humans in the Universe who have discovered what’s presented here as those who have yet to do so. Those that have know the truth. The Abstractionist Paradigm is limited in its capacity to explain the nature of the Universe. They would understand that we can’t travel far outside of the solar system because of the proposed law of atomic stability. As a result they would have focused their attention onto their planet and themselves. I would like to think that they rigorously pursue a sustainable environment and the fair treatment of everyone.

* *

Mooney300@gmail.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
...............dat text wall.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
11-02-2014, 09:29 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Oh great.
Yet another loonie-toon who thinks he has discovered THE truth everyone else missed.
Is there a sign up somewhere, directing these insane idiots here ?
Now all he has to do, is prove all that bullshit.
Assertion is proof of nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 10:13 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
There should be a limit for words or characters in a post.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
As a certified card-carrying member of the Physics Establishment (reptiloid-approved!), this is full of more shit than a backed up septic tank.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
12-02-2014, 03:02 AM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
WHAT!

I lack the vocabulary required here.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 06:15 AM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
[Image: 795.gif]

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
12-02-2014, 06:25 AM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Paradigm shifty

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-02-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
(11-02-2014 10:13 PM)nach_in Wrote:  There should be a limit for words or characters in a post.

Especially in a first post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics
Only got a quarter of the way through, it was too long. I like it how you use tired light to explain Olber's paradox in that you wouldn't see the light because it would have red shifted too far to be visible, but in an infinite universe that would still mean an infinite amount of invisible electro-magnetic radiation heating up the planet.

Also, how does tired light explain the recent finding that the rate of expansion of the universe initially slowed down after the big bang but is now speeding up? Astro-fizzy cysts determined this by analysing the red shift of super-novas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: