Debunking Physics and Discovering Forever

The Universe is best seen as a self-creating and self-organizing process that doesnât require a designer, intelligent or otherwise. Everything that constitutes the Universe, and thatâs everything, is the product of physical process and is composed of a material substance that we can call matter. That thing called energy is a manifestation of matter and is composed of matter. Everything also has a cause. To consider the possibility of acausality, that things can happen without a cause, is to embrace a magical and non-scientific perspective. Although the Universe is intricately complex, itâs strictly materialistic and determined in every detail.

Physics, with its reliance upon mathematics and other abstractions, is not a truly fundamental or strictly materialist perspective. Itâs best described as an abstractionist paradigm. This paradigm is prepared to sacrifice materialism and causality for the sake of its quantifications. Much of what is claimed to be solid scientific evidence is, in fact, merely interpretation within the conceptual framework of the abstractionist paradigm. The true scientific and materialistic nature of the Universe resides beyond the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to this nature are the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.

I conducted a simple electrostatic experiment. When I rubbed a glass rod and placed it near a suspended pith ball it attracted the pith ball. Physics sees this attraction as the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of what is charge and how does it cause attraction. I decided that charge was an absorption and emission phenomena and 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.

The simple electrostatic experiment also led me to realize 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 idea of dislike charges. 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.

Having noted that the physics formula for electrostatic attraction takes the same form as that of Newton's law of gravity, I immediately realized that all attraction in the Universe is the result of the absorption of emission. This includes the attraction between particles called the strong and weak nuclear force. The only difference between the different attractions (or forces) was that of scale. The physics definition of illumination (light) includes it falling off by the square of the distance from the source in the same way as Newtonâs law sees gravity falling off by the square of the distance.

Noticing that physics was still trying to understand the mechanism of gravity, I tried to inform the physics establishment of my discovery. They didn't want to know. I decided to investigate the original gravitational experiment conducted by a chemist named Henry Cavendish. A request for a copy of Cavendish's original article from Philosophical Transactions of 1798 to the head of Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University resulted in it arriving in the mail within a couple of weeks. I was surprised to have even received a response.

Henry Cavendish took over the work 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 it was seen as the first experiment to determine the value of a factor which physics calls the gravitational constant.

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. So what about this gravitational constant that Cavendish demonstrated was not constant? It's a measure of electrostatic attraction.

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 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 cannot interpret it that way. The physics establishment was not about to allow me to upset one of their cherished beliefs.

I can now turn to the question of the nature of light. The space between objects is composed of the emission of objects. Light is just another name for emission. The emission of objects travels through interaction with the emission of other objects. A photon is a fusion of emission, which absorbs and emits. 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 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 also nonsense. The idea of anti-matter goes the same way as the massless idea. Particles that dissipate when they approach each other do so because of the density of the emission of the particles. Not because one is matter and the other is anti-matter.

The idea that the Universe begun with a big bang, is more physics nonsense. In 1929 the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed that the cosmic redshift phenomena was indicative of the ageing of photons as they traveled across the Universe. My position is that emission travels through interaction with emission. Emission that encounters emission of lesser density will be increased in wavelength (redshifted), and that encountering emission of greater density will be decreased in wavelength (blueshifted). The background microwave radiation, that is said to be leftover from the big bang, is merely indicative of the fact that space is composed of emission that is variable in its density. The Universe is not expanding.

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 an instrument called an interferometer. Michelson and Morely where looking for a static medium (called an ether) which caused drag on the movement of the Earth. They could not detect any drag, and that's because it doesn't exist. The Earth via its emission field absorbs the emission that impacts upon the Earth. The emission of the Earth is also via this emission field. The emission field is not static in relation to the movement of the Earth.

Albert Einstein came up with the idea of curved space to account for gravity. The Sun, for example, is said to curve the space around it due to its mass. It's said that this idea has been proven by the fact that the emission from distant galaxies is bent around the Sun. Is curved space the best explanation of for 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 and that of illumination (emission). Emission 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.

Another of Einstein's ideas 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 at a different rate than the clock on the surface of the Earth. This is not due merely to the different in the motion of the clocks. Itâs 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. This is assumed by physics to be the same irrespective of the context of emission in which the clock is place. Here we have another law of the Universe. The rate of atomic decay is relative to the density of impacting emission. A spacecraft 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 its atomic structure.

It's known that Isaac Newton's theory of gravity is limited in its capacity to represent gravity. It required Relativity theory to express the situation with the advance in the perihelion of Mercury. However, the relativity is with the emission capacity of Mercury and the density of the emission of the Sun as Mercury passes the Sun at perihelion. At this point Mercury attains a state of decreased absorption of emission, which results in a slight decrease its attraction to the Sun. This is the reason for the advance in its perihelion.

Physics actually consists of three theories. The classic theory founded by Isaac Newton (Newtonian Mechanics), Relativity theory founded by Einstein, and Quantum theory founded by Bohr. With regard to Newtonian Mechanics I need only point out that it's generalization that relates to technology and that all motion in the Universe is a product of attraction, repulsion, or propulsion. I have already debunked Einstein's relativity interpretations, 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.

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."- âThe Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technologyâ. 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.

As emission travels across the Universe through interaction with emission it eventually completely dissipates, which is just another way of saying that it fades. The physics establishment has yet to grasp this obvious answer to âOlbersâ paradoxâ. This states that if the Universe is infinite in all directions and is full of stars and galaxies then the night sky should be flooded with light, and yet itâs not.

I came across an idea called the Virtual Universe Hypothesis. This sees the Universe popping into existence by what is called "quantum effects". I immediately realized that the Universe has a groundstate, and that from this groundstate stars and elliptical galaxies emerge. This groundstate is a structure of dissymmetry or inequivalence, a dissymmetrical duality, which entails rotation. It forms the core of everything and accounts for the rotation of particles and planets and stars and galaxies. I had arrived at the bottom of the Universe and the process of construction which derives from this groundstate.

It occurred to me that the construction process called nuclear fusion entailed the absorption of emission within a context of impacting emission that was increasing in density. Immediately I 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 textbook descriptions and the billions of dollars being spent on nuclear fusion reactors. These physics people claim that they can get more energy out of a nuclear fusion reactor than they put in. The reactor includes an emission field to contain the process. What they do not realize is that the emission field also fuels the fusion process. You can never get out more than you put in.

After a little consideration I came to the conclusion that stars begin from the groundstate as a process of absorption exceeding emission and are increasing in matter. As a consequence they are not readily visible and can be thought of as a blackhole. Stars can't 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 at this point the star explodes before it can invert its process. These are seen as the burst of gamma radiation detected from all directions in the cosmic sky.

Up to the point of inverting from absorption exceeding emission, to emission exceeding absorption, the process of a first stage star has created hydrogen from emission. Given the right pressure from the impacting emission this hydrogen ignites and a readily visible star is born. Our Sun is fueled by the absorption of emission, and this includes the emission from the planets within our solar system. This entails a feedback loop that is open to the emission impacting upon the whole solar system.

The increasing emission of the Sun has recently been discovered. On the 19th of July 2004 the Melbourne Age carried a news items headed âBrighter sun sheds light on new extremes in weatherâ. This item quoted one Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research: ââ¦the sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1000 yearsâ¦â I have known that the emission of the Sun increases over time since I conducted the simple electrostatic experiment.

Our Earth, on the other hand, is a body with absorption exceeding emission and is increasing in matter. The Earth absorbs emission through it emission field and this is drawn into the core via the poles and fuels the core and maintains the rotation of the Earth. It also generates the movement of the 16 tectonic plates. There is also the matter of the emission of the Earth increasing over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth increases over time and was less in the past than it is now.  In the time of the dinosaurs gravity would have been less, and this needs to be taken into account when considering the mobility of the large dinosaurs and the ancestors of modern birds.

Instead of seeing the planets orbiting the Sun in the abstract turns of motion, which is the case with physics, we can see their orbiting as at least partially due to them being pulled around by the rotation of the Sun via their connection to the Sun through their emissions fields. This is a totally physical connection. If the rotation of the Sun were to increase then the orbiting of the planets would increase. This leads to the realization that the rotation of our Sun is proportional to its rate of emission. As the rate of emission increases, the rate of rotation increases. This derives from the groundstate, which rotates through absorption and emission and increases in rotation with the increase in absorption and emission. Keplerâs laws of planetary motion are a representation of this fact.

When physicists observe the spectral signature of the emission from a heavy element in the laboratory, and then observe that spectral signature in the emission from a star, they assume that the spectral signature means the presence of that heavy element in the star. However, the spectral signature is partly due to the increase in the wavelength of the emission with distance. The idea that stars contain heavy elements is, therefore, erroneous.

The Pioneer spacecraft recently left the solar system, and NASA has claimed that itâs accelerating and they donât known the cause. Once again, the signal from Pioneer is increased in wavelength and makes it appear as though the spacecraft is accelerating.

Something physics is always going on about is the idea of dimensions. They claim that the dimensions of height and width and depth and time are causes. With the three dimensions of height and width and depth, it's the case that any one of these dimensions is dependent upon to the existence of the other two. We can say that any one of these dimensions is derived from the existence of the other two. The so-called dimension of time is in fact not a dimension in the sense of height and width and depth. Time is a measure of the rate of the process of an object. Time does not exist in-and-of-itself. To talk about time as an independent dimension is nonsense. The Universe, as a process, is the construction of time. Itâs also the process of the construction of space, because space is emission and everything is constructed from emission.  And that includes the space between objects.

Physics has a concept called inertia, which is seen as an inherent property of an object that is proportional to its matter, and that opposes a change in the motion of the object. The change in the motion is that of slowing down. Many physicist talk about inertia as if its a magical property of an object. The reason that objects slow down is because they are subject to attraction through the absorption of emission. If the object is above the surface of the Earth attraction will make it accelerate towards the Earth. If the object is moving across the surface of the Earth, attraction will act to slow this movement through attracting it towards the center of the Earth. There is nothing magical about inertia. Itâs simply the result of attraction, which is the result of the absorption of emission.

Itâs clear to me that the Universe is infinite in its expanse and exists forever.  Within this infinite expanse and forever there are infinite things, but not infinite types of things. If there were infinite types of things we would not see things as different types. You could say that we only see things as different types due to the way that our brains function, and that these types may not have an external objective reality. This is usually referred to as the anthropic principle. Firstly, the way in which our brains perceive external reality has served us quite well. Secondly, as we are a construct of that external reality there is every reason to believe that our brains have a correspondence with that reality and that what we perceive is the real thing.

What the Universe can construct must exist and re-exist infinitely. Everything has a finite number of possible types. There are a finite number of possible types of particles and wavelengths and elements with a finite number of possible isotopes. There are a finite number of possible types of galaxies and stars and planets and solar systems. This also pertains to the biological domain with a finite number of possible types of organisms. Everything has an infinite number of finite possibilities and histories. The fact that you exist means that you will exist/re-exist forever. This is merely a consequence of establishing a conceptual base of materialism and determinism and applying it rigorously.

PS. It may be that the process of the Universe, as the construction of individual types of things, can be represented by an hierarchical structure of numbers and arrows such as that to be found below in the bmp or exe files below. The numbers would represent the number of possible types. Such a representation would be both descriptive and predictive and constitute an integrated paradigm of science.