Discussion:
Debunking Physics and Discovering The Process of the Universe
(too old to reply)
Stephen Mooney
2004-06-17 10:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Debunking Physics and Discovering The Process of the Universe
Stephen Mooney

It started when I rejected the big bang theory. The idea that the
Universe begun in a time before
time and a space before the existence of space was just to much to
accept. The first thing I
discovered was that not all physicists believe in the big bang theory.
The second thing I
discovered was that the theory is based on interpretation and is not
what you could call a
scientific fact. Many physicists ignore this distinction. They claim
publicly that the big bang
theory is a scientific fact. Debunking the big bang theory led me into
investigating and debunking
many of the other interpretations of physics which are portrayed as
scientific facts. It also led me
to discover the process of the Universe. But first, the big bang
theory.

In 1929 the astronomy Edwin Hubble noticed that the light from
distance galaxies was increased
in wavelength, and that the further away a galaxy was the greater the
increase in the wavelength.
This is what physicists call redshift. He interpreted this redshift as
indicating that the galaxies are
accelerating away from our point of observation. He further speculated
that this must be the
result of a big explosion throwing everything out from the center.
Now, the first thing to notice
here is that Hubble assumed that the galaxies with the greatest
redshift were the more distant
ones. How could he possibly know this? He couldn't. He simply assumed
that the more distant
galaxies have the greatest redshift, and most of the physics
establishment followed this
assumption like sheep. They followed like sheep because if Hubble was
right then they could use
this redshift to measure cosmic distance. Just as you should never
stand between a politician and
a pot of money, you should never stand between a physicist and what
they assume is a means of
measurement. It didn't take me long to realize that physicists are
people who are obsessed with
measurements and mathematics and who will sacrifice all logic for the
sake of this obsession.

Soon after Hubble proclaimed the redshift phenomena indicated that the
Universe was expanding
an astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky came out against Hubble's
interpretation. Zwicky
proposed that the redshift was indicative of the light from the
galaxies losing energy as it traveled
across the Universe. This became known as the tired light theory. But,
it was to late. The 'new
means of measurement' genie was out of the bag and no alternative
explanation was going to be
considered.

You would think that before a scientific discipline embraced a
particular interpretation it would
have a thorough understanding of the nature of the particular
phenomena. But, physicists are not
like 'real' scientist. Their obsession with measurements and
mathematics takes precedence. For
them, if it can't be measured and expressed with mathematics then it's
not worthy of
consideration. For physics, light is both a measurable wavelength and
a measurable ball like
thing called a photon particle. They happily embrace what they call
the wave/particle dual nature
of light. Now, in the real Universe something either is or is not a
particular thing. It can not be
two different things at the same time. On investigation you soon
realize that the wave aspect of
light is actually a function of its measurement. It's not really a
wave, it's merely measured as a
wave with a particular piece of technology. So, is light really a ball
like thing called a photon
particle which travels through empty space?

I pursued this question by conducting a simple electrostatic
experiment. When I rub a glass rod
and place it near a suspended pith ball it attracts the pith ball. As
someone once said, 'why is it
so'. Physics sees this electrostatic attraction as the result of
dislike charges. This begs the
question of how these dislike charges result in attraction. On this
physics remains silent. They
have a mathematical way of expressing the attraction and in accordance
with their obsession they
don't desire anything else. I, on the other hand, want more than a
mere mathematical expression
of effect. I decided there and then that the attraction was due to the
pith ball absorbing emission
from the glass rod and that everything in the Universe absorbs and
emits as a product of its
existence. There is a jump for you. From a very simple physics
experiment to a conception of a
fundamental aspect of the Universe. The simple electrostatic
experiment also led me to believe
that for one object to absorb the emission of another required those
objects to have different
levels of absorption and emission. This can be equated with the
physics idea of dislike charges.
Now we can see like charges being objects with an equivalence of
emission and repulsion being
the result of the objects pushing away from each other via this
equivalence of emission. I had just
conceived of another new law of the Universe.

If emission is composed of matter then the absorption of emission
would be the absorption of
matter, just as emission would be the emission of matter. From
somewhere in my brain came the
idea that everything has either emission exceeding absorption or
absorption exceeding emission
and that as a consequence everything is either increasing or
decreasing in matter at a particular
time. Just to make things a little more interesting I decided that
this absorption/emission
relationship could reserve itself within an object so that stability
would entail absorption
exceeding emission followed by emission exceeding absorption in rapid
succession. Essentially,
a state of fluctuation. By now, inventing new laws of the Universe had
become rather mundane.
It just happened as a result of rigorous investigation. No big deal.

Having noticed that the physics formula for electrostatic attraction
takes the same form as that for
Newton's law of gravity, I immediately made another jump and realized
that all attraction in the
Universe is the result of the absorption of emission, including that
between particles called the
nuclear force. The four independent forces idea was more physics
nonsense. I had done it again.
From a simple little experiment to a conception of a Universal law. I
also noticed that physics
was still trying to understand the mechanism of gravity. I tried to
tell the physics establishment
about my discovery but they didn't want to know. Some even accused me
of being a crank. Stuff
them, I thought, and I decided to investigate the original
gravitational experiment conducted by a
chemist named Henry Cavendish. I wrote to the then head of Cavendish
Laboratory at Cambridge
University seeking a copy of Cavendish's original article from
Philosophical Transactions of
1798. Within a couple of weeks I received a copy of Cavendish's
original paper in the mail.

Henry Cavendish took over the endeavor of one John Michell who
"contrived a method of
determining the density of the Earth, by rendering sensible the
attraction of small quantities of
matter". Michell built what is called a torsion balance. This entails
suspended weights and a
means for measuring the attraction between the weights. If today you
claimed that you could
determine the density of the Earth from the attraction between two
weights on a torsion balance
you would be put into the category of a crank. And yet, the Cavendish
Experiment is claimed to
be one of the great physics experiments. Later is was seen as the
first experiment to determine the
value of a factor which physics calls the gravitational constant (G).
On reading the Cavendish
paper I was struck by two results. The first entails repulsion.
Cavendish discovered that "the arm
moved backwards, in the same manner that it before move forward".
Gravity is not supposed to
involve repulsion. The second result was that after heating one of the
weights "the effect was so
much increased, that the arm was drawn 14 division aside, instead of
about three". Heating one
of the weights increased the attraction. I had no problem with this.
The heating increased the
emission of the weight and when this was absorbed by the other weight
it increased the
attraction. This is also against the physics law of gravity. Despite
the fact that the Cavendish
Experiment is seen as a great physics experiment the results are
ignored because they do not fit in
with their measurement and mathematics obsession. So what about this
gravitational constant (G)
which Cavendish demonstrated was not constant? It's obviously
nonsense. But, then, so are all
the other constants of physics.

A short time after my "consideration" of the Cavendish paper one
Malcolm Longair (who later
ironically become the head of Cavendish Laboratory) toured Australia
demonstrating the
measurement of some of the constants of physics. He held a public
lecture at Melbourne
University and I attended. He conducted the Cavendish Experiment and
proclaimed that the value
for the gravitational constant (G) was within acceptable limits. At
the conclusion of the
demonstration he stated that physics encourages questions and critical
appraisal. I went up to him
and quietly pointed out that the Cavendish Experiment was nothing more
than a demonstration of
electrostatic attraction. At this he went bright red in the face,
threw his arms in the air, and
aggressively claimed that you can not interpret it that way. Or words
to that effect. The physics
establishment was not about to allow a nobody like me to upset one of
their cherished beliefs and
delusions.

I can now turn to that question about the nature of light and empty
space. The space between
objects is composed of the emission of objects. Light is the emission
of objects and it travels
through interaction with the emission called space. A photon is a
fusion of emission which
absorbs and emits. It is the emission aspect which is detected as a
wavelength. As a fusion of
emission, photons can dissipate when they encounter particularly dense
emission. When a photon
is projected against a glass screen it can dissipate though the screen
and re-form on the other side
or bounce off the screen if it (the photon) is a particularly dense
fusion of emission. The physics
idea of photons being all the same is simply nonsense. Photons must
vary in their density as
fusions of emission. And emission is composed of matter so that
photons as fusions of emission
are fusions of matter. The idea of photons as massless (matterless) is
more physics nonsense.

The redshift phenomena is indicative of the way in which light travels
through interaction with
light. Light encountering light of lessor density will be increased in
wavelength (redshifted), and
light encountering light of greater density will be decreased in
wavelength (blueshifted). Fritz
Zwicky was a lot closer to the reality than Edwin Hubble and his big
bang theory.

Some physicists will claim that my explanation is not possible because
the idea of space being
composed of emission has been experimentally proven false. This
entails an experiment conduct
by two fellows named Michelson and Morely. It involved using a
instrument called an
interferometer. Michelson and Morely where looking for a static medium
(called an aether)
which caused drag on the movement of the Earth. They could not detect
any drag, and that's
because it doesn't exist. The emission of the Earth and that which
impacts upon and is absorbed
by the Earth is not static in relation to the movement of the Earth.

Once I had disposed of the big bang theory I turned my attention to
some other physics
interpretations. As we all know, Albert Einstein come up with the idea
of cured space to account
for gravity. The Sun, for example, is said to cure the space around it
due to its mass. It's said that
this idea has been proven by the fact that the light from distant
galaxies is bent around the Sun. Is
curved space the best explanation of this phenomena? No. The best
explanation is that the
emission of the Sun decreases in density with the increase in distance
from the Sun. How about
the density of its emission falling off by the square of the distance
in accordance with Newton's
law of gravity. Light passing near the Sun absorbs the emission of the
Sun and is bent in the same
way as an electron is bent in an electromagnetic (emission) field.
There is no need to believe in a
curved space made of nothingness.

Another of Einstein's idea's was that time can be seen as an
independent dimension and can, in-
and-of-itself, slow down and speed up in relation to motion. It's said
that time slows down with
acceleration. Once again, physics claims that this has been proven by
experiment. If you take two
identical clocks and place one on the surface of the Earth and the
other on the top of a high tower
the clock at the top of the high tower will be moving faster than the
clock on surface due to the
rotation of the Earth. The clock at the top of the tower runs slower
than the clock on the surface
of the Earth. This is not due merely to the different in the motion of
the clocks. It is due to the
difference in the density of the emission impacting upon the clocks.
The density of emission at
the top of the tower is less than at the surface of the Earth. We are
talking about atomic clocks
which keep time through their atomic decay which is assumed by physics
to be the same
irrespective of the context of emission in which it's place. Here we
have another big discovery
and another law of the Universe. The rate of atomic decay is dependent
upon the density of
impacting emission. A space-craft traveling in the extremely low
density of emission between
galaxies would disintegrate because there would not be enough
impacting emission to maintain
the integrity of it atomic structure. The hero worship of Einstein
didn't allow the physicists to get
beyond his relativity interpretations and make this discovery.

Physics actually consists of three theories. The classic theory
founded by Isaac Newton,
Relativity theory invented by Einstein, and Quantum theory invented by
Bohr. The classic theory
of Newton isn't really much of a problem in that it generally relates
to matters of technology and
doesn't claim to be anything other than abstractionist. I have already
debunked relativity theory,
and Quantum theory is based on the idea that energy (emission) is
emitted in discrete packs or
quanta. It is quantised. This begs the question of how these quanta
are formed. Quantum theory
starts with the quanta idea and so doesn't ask this question. I
quickly realized that emission was
quantised through encountering emission. The emission from an atom of
hydrogen, for example,
was quantised through encountering the emission impacting upon the
atom. The reason that the
quanta idea works is because there is an impacting emission. By now
you should be thoroughly
convinced that we live in an environment of impacting emission.

A conceptualization of Quantum theory is called the 'Uncertainty
Principle'. This states that
"There is a fundamental limit with which a position co-ordinate of a
particle and its momentum
in that direction can be simultaneously known. Also, there is a
fundamental limit to the
knowledge of the energy of a particle when it is measured for a finite
time." From the Larousse
Dictionary of Science and Technology. Some physicists claim that these
two situations are
evidence that the Universe is inherently uncertain. It is, of course,
nothing of the sort. The
problem resides with Quantum theory and its idea that particles of the
same type have the same
emission (energy), and the fact that when measuring emission (energy)
the absorption and
emission of the instrument becomes involved. The measurement
instrument is not passive as is
assumed.

I made one more big discovery. As light travels across the Universe
through interaction with light
it must eventually completely dissipate. I came across an idea called
the Virtual Universe
Hypothesis. This sees the Universe as popping into existence by what
is called quantum effects.
Once again I had an immediate flash of inspiration. The Universe has a
groundstate and from this
groundstate stars emerge and are constructed through the nuclear
fusion process. This
groundstate is a structure of inequivalence which entails rotation and
fluctuation. It forms the
core of everything and accounts for the rotation of planets and stars
and galaxies. I had arrived at
the bottom of the Universe and the construction process called nuclear
fusion. I could see that
nuclear fusion entailed the absorption of emission within a context of
impacting emission, and
that it was the fundamental process of the Universe. Everything else
is derived from this process,
including biology. How about biology being fused from amino acids
within a context of
temperature and pressure. I immediately had a look at what physics had
to say about nuclear
fusion. It was patently obvious that they didn't have much of a clue,
despite all the text book
descriptions of the assumed nature of a star. Here were these people
with a nuclear fusion reactor
claiming that they could get more energy out than they put in. The
reactor includes an emission
field to contain the process. What they do not realize is that the
emission also fuels the fusion
process. You can not get out more than you put in. And that goes for
everything.

After a little consideration, of approximately one tenth of a second,
I came to the conclusion that
stars begin from the groundstate as a process of absorption exceeding
emission. As a
consequence they are not readily visible and can be conceived of as a
blackhole. Stars can not
collapse under their own gravity to form a blackhole because gravity
is not a magical (action-at-
a-distance) attribute of mass but the result of the absorption of the
emission of mass (matter).
There goes another of those cherished beliefs of physics. At some
point the density of impacting
emission results in the first stage star inverting into an emission
exceeding absorption star like
our Sun. If the impacting emission is two great a first stage star
explodes before it can invert.
These are seen as the burst of gamma radiation detected from all
directions in the cosmic sky. Of
course, this means that our Sun is fueled by impacting emission and
is decreasing in matter.

Our Earth, on the other hand, as a body with absorption exceeding
emission, would be increasing
in matter. I see the Earth absorbing emission through an emission
field and much of this being
drawn into the core via the poles and fueling the rotation of the
Earth. There is also the matter of
the emission of the Earth increasing over time. Surely this means that
the gravity of the Earth
increases over time and was less in the past than it is now. Then
there is the matter of how
increasing emission might relate to global warming and ozone
depletion.

My conclusion from all of this is that the Universe is infinite in all
directions. The question is
whether the construction possibilities of the Universe within this
infinity are infinite or finite.
That is a matter for you to consider. You might also consider whether
these observations and
discoveries can be turned into a useful scientific approach or
paradigm. The answer resides with
being able to quantitatively specify the fusion process. I have been
working on something of a
specification myself.* However, progress will require people and
resources and that requires
getting the attention of the science establishment. It's over to you.

* I thought that the article I would write would be called 'Debunking
Physics and Inventing the
Theory of Everything'. Every time I think I know what will happen next
I find that something
else happens. I'm constantly surprised by the course of events. And
I've learnt to like being
surprised.

PS. Surprized again. It has just occurred to me, in a flash, that my
next essay will be titled The
Nuclear Fusion Process as the Theory of Everything. The metal block
that I had in pursuing the
application of my specification (paradigm) has just cleared with the
realization that atomic
structure is not made of particles, but that particles are made from
the emission of atomic
structure within the context of impacting emission. I think this is
the point at which I say
something like, Eureka! How sweet it is.
Dirk Van de moortel
2004-06-17 11:08:25 UTC
Permalink
"Stephen Mooney" <***@dodo.com.au> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[random snip]
Post by Stephen Mooney
Now, the first thing to notice
here is that Hubble assumed that the galaxies with the greatest
redshift were the more distant
ones. How could he possibly know this? He couldn't.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
Try to understand everything before you scroll down
to point Z.

[random snip]
Post by Stephen Mooney
But, physicists are not
like 'real' scientist. Their obsession with measurements and
mathematics takes precedence. For
them, if it can't be measured and expressed with mathematics then it's
not worthy of
consideration.
What do you think Zwicky was?
A mathematician/astronomer.
What do you think Fred Hoyle was?
Another mathematician/astronomer.
How do you think Zwicky and Hoyle formulated
their alternative views?
With pure mathematics.

[compassionate snip]

Dirk Vdm
Harry
2004-06-17 13:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
[random snip]
Post by Stephen Mooney
Now, the first thing to notice
here is that Hubble assumed that the galaxies with the greatest
redshift were the more distant
ones. How could he possibly know this? He couldn't.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
Nice overview!
Michael Varney
2004-06-17 10:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Mooney
Debunking Physics and Discovering The Process of the Universe
Stephen Mooney
It started when I rejected the big bang theory.
Your stupidity, or simply a consequence?
Go away retarded crackpot.
Bilge
2004-06-17 17:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Mooney
Debunking Physics and Discovering The Process of the Universe
Stephen Mooney
It started when I rejected the big bang theory. The idea that the
Universe begun in a time before time and a space before the existence
of space was just to much to accept.
Well, then physics probably isn't for you. The big bang is just the
tip of the iceberg and physicists are pretty much stuck with having
to provide the most plausible explanation for observations that is
consistent with more than just one observation. Any explanation favored
by nature has to be consistent with every observation, even if no one
is particularly keen on it.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...