Debunking Physics and Discovering the Logic of the Universe

Document Sample
Debunking Physics and Discovering the Logic of the Universe Powered By Docstoc
					Debunking Physics and Discovering the Logic of the Universe
          (An introduction to the Materialist Paradigm of Science)

                             Stephen Mooney

  “With the best analogy, and observation, you can understand everything.”




                                     1
                                            Introduction
In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn pointed out that science can go through
major changes in perspective and approach. He called these changes paradigm shift revolutions.
Paradigm shifts usually come from outside of the science establishment, because within the
establishment individuals are locked into the establishment paradigm and pursue their careers in
accordance with that paradigm. To challenge the prevailing paradigm would see an individual
ignored or worse. With its unquestioning commitment to mathematics and other abstractions as the
fundamental logic of the Universe, establishment physics is an abstractionist paradigm. You will
often hear a physicist say that if it can’t be represented with mathematics and measurements, then it
can’t be physics. The hierarchical structure of numbers and arrows above is the first part of the logic
of the Universe, and represents a materialist paradigm that overthrows the assumption that
mathematics is the fundamental logic of the Universe. The paradigm applies as a specification across
cosmology and biology, where the numbers as quantities represent everything that can be constructed
by the Universe. I refer to the paradigm as a discovery, because every invention is the discovery of
an inherent potential.

                                        Debunking Physics
On my way to discovering the paradigm I explored physics through the desire to understand how the
Universe worked, and the place of Humans within the scheme of things. One of my few
preconceptions was the belief that everything is the effect of a cause which in turn is the cause of
another effect in an unbroken chain of determinism. I’m a determinist. I see the idea that anything
can happen or can exist without a cause as nonsense. The concept of “accident” has no scientific
validity.

Another preconception that I brought to my exploration was materialism. I mean that it the
philosophical sense of seeing everything as being made of a substance that we call matter. Physics,
when not talking about time as a dimension, is always talking about a thing they call energy. I recall
an academic once saying that the concept of energy was one that you couldn’t actually explain but
had to “feel” in some mystical sense. As a materialist I wasn’t having any of that mystical stuff.
Albert Einstein’s equation, E=mc2, didn’t convince me about this energy concept. For me, all that it
was saying is that energy is matter in motion and that it can be detected or measured with
instruments. I also reject the idea of mass being something other than matter given that even physics
defines matter as “The substance of which the physical Universe is composed.” The implication
within this definition that there could be a non-physical Universe I put down to a lack of rigorous
thinking. Let’s be quite clear. As far as I’m concerned, the Universe is totally physical and totally
composed of matter.

The big bang theory was a particular cause for me to explore physics. I thought it simply absurd to
think that there could be a time before time even begun. Then there was all the talk about time being
an independent dimension: more absurdity. It was obvious that this was a discipline desperately in
need of debunking.

As a determinist and a materialist, I accept all scientific evidence. However, I interpret all evidence
in accordance with a truly fundamental materialist and logical scientific perspective. If you want to
understand everything in a totally connected and consistent manner, you need to establish the most
fundamental position that can be obtained. A position that is so fundamental that it covers everything
from cosmology to biology.


                                                  2
As evidence is the central concept of science, what is evidence? We know the Universe through
observation, and we interpret that observation with a perspective that we have either acquired or
invented ourselves. To believe that observation is, in and of itself, evidence, is naive realism.
Evidence is the best interpretation, or explanation, of observation. If you have the best explanation in
one area of observation, then through logical consistency you can generate explanations in other
areas that have scientific validity without the need for further observation.

If you believe that science can only involve those things which can be measured or directly observed,
then you should not proceed beyond this point. I suggest you go away and measure something.

Gravity is the fundamental force of the Universe. Isaac Newton conceived of gravity as being
proportional to the sum of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance
between the masses. This produced a mathematical representation of gravity, but left gravity has a
magical action at a distance. Albert Einstein conceived of gravity as being caused by curved or
warped space. This too, is unacceptable because once again no explanation of a material cause is
contained within the idea of curved space. The latest thinking by establishment physics is that gravity
is caused by the exchange of particles called gravitons. These particles are seen as travelling through
what is assumed to be empty space. This exchange of gravitons theory is also inadequate.

In his Principia mathematics of 1687, Isaac 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.”

All attraction is caused by the absorption of emission, which involves the exchange of emission
between objects. All objects have emission fields, and the absorption of emission is via the emission
field of objects. An emission field is a gravitational field, so all objects have a gravitational field.
There is no more fundamental, materialistic, and scientific explanation for attraction than the
absorption and exchange of emission. This rather simple explanation for the cause of attraction has
far reaching ramifications.

The two nuclear forces, the electrostatic force, and gravity have the same mechanism. Establishment
physics sees these forces as separate. Establishment Physics is wrong. Everything from the smallest
sub-atomic particle, to the largest possible galaxy absorbs and emits what can be described as
emission or radiation or energy or light.

What is assumed to be empty space is composed of the emission (radiation or energy or light) of
everything. Even a dark room is full of emission that is below the level of the visible part of the
spectrum. Emission travels through interaction (absorption and emission) with emission, and can be
detected as wavelengths. These wavelengths are constructed through the convergence of different
levels of emission. Establishment physics does not ask, let alone answer, the question of how the
detected wavelengths are constructed. The emission of an object disperses as it travels through space
and this involves it encountering the emission of others objects. If the emission encountered is of less
density, then the result will be an increase in wavelength. From the perspective of the Earth, this sees
the detection of the increasing wavelengths of the emission from galaxies and stars. The
abstractionist paradigm, by way of Relativity theory, even accepts that when emission (light) is
traveling opposite to the direction of an emission (gravitational) field, its wavelength is increased and
its frequency is decreased.

For some, the fact that emission can be detected as both a particle (a photon) and a wave is
inexplicable. However, this dual nature is resolved once you see a wave of emission as composed of
dispersing or de-constructing particles and a particle as a fusion or construction of emission which is
made of matter and as having an emission field. If a photon was not made of matter then it would not
                                                   3
leave an impression upon a screen when projected towards the screen. The idea that emission (light)
is massless (matterless) is not a fact but a mistaken assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

We do not see through an otherwise empty space. We see with space in the sense of the emission of
objects, in the form of their image, traveling through the emission that is space and impacting upon
our retinas and being processed by our brains. The idea that the space between us couldn’t be
composed of matter (actually dispersed matter) because we wouldn’t be able to see through it, is
another example of naive realism.

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. Physics sees emission (light) travelling through space as a vacuum.
Space is not a vacuum. If you measured the speed of emission at a distance above the surface of the
Earth, where the emission field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the
surface. The fact that the difference would be very small and not readily measureable is beside the
point. Emission travelling from the Earth to the Moon would increase in speed as it left the Earth and
at the mid-point of their emission fields it would begin to slow down as it approached the Moon. It’s
merely an assumption on the part of the abstractionist paradigm that the speed of light is
“universally” constant. The abstractionist paradigm has an inadequate understanding of how
emission travels. The measurement called “a light year” is nonsense.

The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission of the Sun via the Earth’s emission
(gravitational) field. Part of the emission absorbed by the Earth's emission field reaches its core and
maintains the core’s active state.

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed that a pendulum moved faster during a
solar eclipse. This has become known as the “Allais Effect”, and has been unexplained by physics.
When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission (gravitational) field of the Sun
resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission field of the Earth. This slight reduction in the
density of the emission (gravitational) field, results in less downward attraction of the pendulum
allowing it to swing faster.

The gravity of the Earth would also be reduced when it's at its farthest distance from the Sun during
its yearly orbit. If you wanted a “gravity assist” in obtaining a high or long jump record, do it when
the Earth is at aphelion on the 3rd of July and during a solar eclipse.

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the
Earth and the Moon is increasing. Establishment 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. 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.

The only way that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth (the loss of angular momentum) could
cause the Moon to move away would be if the rotation of the Earth was responsible for the Moon's
distance from the Earth in the first place; which is not the case.

Is the Moon moving away from the Earth due to a decrease in the density of the Earth’s gravitational
field? Is it due to an increase in the density of the gravitational field of the Sun? Is it due to a
decrease in the density of the Moon’s gravitational field?

Establishment physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration and not merely uniform motion.
However, it offers no explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission
                                                   4
explanation, absorption leads to increased matter which results in increased absorption capacity, and
it’s this that underpins the fact that gravity involves acceleration and not merely uniform motion.

I came to the absorption of emission explanation of attraction through conducting a simple
electrostatic experiment. When I rubbed a glass rod it attracted a suspended pith ball. Establishment
physics sees this as being the result of dislike charges attracting, and offers no explanation of how
this comes about. I decided that rubbing the glass rod increased the emission of the rod and that this
emission was absorbed by the pith ball resulting in the attraction. If the glass rod were not rubbed, it
would still have emission and could still attract a pith ball through the pith ball absorbing the
emission.

Absorption and emission is the mechanism that underpins the abstractionist concept of charge, so
that as an explanation it’s more fundamental (and superior) to that offered by establishment physics.
It’s no mere coincidence that the formula for gravity takes the same form as that for electrostatic
attraction. Electrostatic attraction is gravitational attraction.

Establishment physics also states that like charges repel. Once again, no explanation of how this
comes about is put forward. Here I decided that like charges involves equivalent levels of emission,
and that objects of equivalent emission repel each other by pushing away from each other via this
equivalence of emission. Yes, “I decided”. Someone had to, given the obsession that establishment
physics has with mathematical representation and measurements. This leads to the conclusion that
only objects of inequivalent emission can be subject to attraction. If two planets had an equivalence
of emission, they would repel each other because gravity is merely electrostatic attraction at the
macroscale.

It was from this foundation that I realized that everything is either a state of absorption exceeding
emission, or of emission exceeding absorption. They are either increasing or decreasing in matter,
and either increasing or decreasing in emission. The idea of static, inert matter has no part to play in
explaining the dynamic nature of the Universe. The Earth is a state of absorption exceeding emission,
whereas the Sun is a state of emission exceeding absorption.

The Earth increases in matter over time, through the absorption of emission, and this sees its
emission increasing over time. As a consequence, the gravitational field of the Earth increases in
density over time. The physics mistakenly sees gravity as being uniform over time. In the time of the
Dinosaurs gravity would have been less than it is now.

The Moon’s movement away from the Earth can’t be accounted for by a decrease in the density of
the Earth’s gravitational field. Equally, it can’t be accounted for by a decrease in the density of the
Moon’s gravitational field. The only possible explanation is that the emission of the Sun is increasing
and exerting a greater attraction over the Moon relative to that of the Earth.

The rate of rotation of the Earth is decreasing. Increased gravitational attraction between the Earth
and the Sun, due to the increase in the emission of the Earth and the Sun, accounts for the decrease in
the rotation of the Earth. This can also be seen as caused by inertia.

Establishment physics defines inertia as “the property of a body, proportional to its mass, which
opposes a change in the motion of the body.” (Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology,
1995) You will notice that inertia is presented as a “magical” property of matter. Physics offers no
explanation of the mechanism that causes this “magic” to exist. Every example of inertia is an
example of attraction acting on a body. A body on the surface of the Earth opposes a change in its
motion due to gravity attracting the body downwards. The mechanism of inertia is, therefore, the
same as the mechanism of gravity, i.e. the absorption of emission. John Gribbin, in his Companion to
                                                   5
the Cosmos (1996), states that, “It is a curious and still not fully explained phenomena that … inertial
mass and gravitational mass ... are always exactly the same...” It's now fully explained.

The axial 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 natural satellites which are further from
the planets still have axial rotation. The satellites which are close to the planet are subject to the
greater density of the emission (gravitational) field of the planet than those which are further away.

Establishment physics sees the Sun beginning through the accumulation of matter attaining critical
mass and igniting. Apart from small variations in its emission due to such things as Sun spot activity,
establishment physics sees the Sun's emission remaining uniform over time. This can’t be the case.

The emission of the Sun has steadily increased while its matter has steadily decreased, and its
gravitational attraction capacity has increased. This stands in contradiction to the abstractionist
paradigm that would say a decrease in matter (mass) would result in a decrease in gravitational
attraction.

It’s my theory that stars and planets involve two stages of development. The first stage entails
absorption exceeding emission and the construction of the elements from a base of Hydrogen. This
first stage sees stars take the form of a solid planet. This is followed by the star/planet attaining
critical mass at its core and igniting into a second stage of emission exceeding absorption where the
constructed matter is consumed in the process of the star. Second stage stars end with dissipation.
First stage stars can explode through the impacting emission increasing to the point of precipitating a
nuclear explosion.

It’s simply not possible for either a first or second stage star (a planet or a star) to collapse under the
increase in its own emission (gravity) and form a blackhole. The theory of blackholes is rubbish. The
blackhole theory is derived from seeing gravity as being caused by matter, in and of itself, with a
complete absence of an explanation of the mechanism of the cause. The exchange of gravitons theory
was an attempt to give gravity a mechanism of cause.

The two stages of a star theory was derived from the realization that pressure can’t be applied to a
body which is a state of emission exceeding absorption, and as the bursts of gamma radiation needed
to be accounted for that lead to the two stage theory. So, the bursts of gamma radiation detected from
all directions in the cosmic sky are first stage stars exploding due to the increasing density of the
impacting emission.

A matter that further demonstrates the inadequacy of the physics establishment involves the
variability in the rate of atomic decay. An experiment conducted by J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating in
1971, measured the rate of decay of two identical atomic clocks. This involved placing one clock on
the surface of the Earth and the other in an airplane above the Earth. The clock in the airplane ran
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth. The clock in the airplane was subject to less density
of impacting emission than the clock on the surface of the Earth. As the density of impacting
emission increased the rate of atomic decay decreased. This proves that the stability of atomic
structure is relative to the density of the impacting emission, which is a fundamental law of the
Universe.

Establishment physics interprets this experiment as demonstrating the variability in time, because
they see time as an independent dimension and space as empty. Time is the measurement of duration
and/or the process of real material things. It's not a thing-in-itself. To treat time as an independent
dimension and a thing-in-itself is to commit the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.


                                                    6
Relativity theory sees the Hafele-Keating experiment in terms of the difference in the time of the two
clocks as being “due solely to gravitation and kinematic effects.” However, it also claims that the
difference is due to the speed of the airplane: “If the speeds were greater, the relative effect would be
greater also”. Then, the situation is finally clarified by stating that: “The result is, time runs faster on
the plane as it flies higher. This effect is due to gravitation and is independent of the plane’s
velocity.” (Edwin Jones and Richard Childers, “Contemporary College Physics”, 1993) The
difference in the time of the two clocks is due solely to the emission (gravitational) field being less
dense above the surface relative to at the surface, and has nothing to do with the speed of the
airplane. The idea that motion, in and of itself, can have an impact upon time is pure abstractionist
nonsense. The requirement that the situation be represented mathematically is responsible for physics
failing to appreciate that the experiment demonstrated a fundamental law of the Universe.

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, has observed that the
rate of atomic 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 decay is increased. It’s obvious that this
occurs because the density of the impacting emission is decreased. This observed fact stands in
contradiction to the establishment physics idea that the rate of atomic binding, expressed with what is
called the fine structure constant, does not vary over space and time. Of course, the observation by
Jere Jenkins goes to confirm the Hafele-Keating experiment.

A spacecraft travelling away from our solar system would encounter decreasing density of impacting
emission and thus have an increasing rate of atomic decay, and eventually completely de-construct.
Not even NASA has realized this as yet. It just goes to show how being locked into an inadequate
perspective can blind you to what is obvious from a more fundamental perspective

The emission impacting upon the Earth has increased in density over time so that the rate of atomic
decay on Earth has decreased over time, and is not the uniform rate as assumed by physics.

The establishment physics idea of “universal constants” is wrong. Just because you measure some
particular thing on Earth at a particular time, does means that the results of that measurement can be
applied to anywhere and at anytime within the Universe. The measurement they call the
“gravitational constant”, derived from the attraction between objects on a torsion balance, is nothing
more than electrostatic gravitational attraction. But, as the absorption and emission of the objects on
the torsion balance is relative to the density of emission impacting upon the Earth, their attraction can
be seen as a measure of the gravity of the Earth at that time.

Many of the units of measurement of physics are either arbitrarily defined, or are based on the
assumption that the thing to which they relate does not change over time. If you take time as being
defined by the rotation of the Earth, then as the rotation of the Earth is decreasing the length of a day
in increasing. In the Universe, everything is changing all the time.

Abstractionist paradigm physics sees the so called nuclear force as an internal process that is
responsible for the binding of particles into higher forms of matter. They even talk about the energy
required to maintain this binding. This whole theory is wrong. The nuclear force is actually the
nuclear fusion process of construction, which entails the absorption of emission within a context of
the increasing density of impacting emission. This involves the movement that results from
attraction, and is the fundamental process of the Universe that is specified with the materialist
paradigm as the logic of the Universe.

Global warming as a green house effect is connected to gravity through the increasing density of the
gravitational field of the Earth. The atmosphere of the Earth is retained by the Earth through the
atmosphere’s interaction with the gravitational field of the Earth. The atmosphere doesn’t just hang
                                                     7
there by way of magic. As the density of the gravitational field increases, the density of the
atmosphere increases through more of the chemical emissions which make-up the atmosphere being
retained in the atmosphere 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 would impact upon the density of the emission within
the solar system and the density of the gravitational field of the Earth. The physics establishment is
not even aware that the Milky Way Galaxy has a direct impact upon the solar system and the Earth.
An emission event within the galaxy in our region would impact upon the Earth through increasing
the density of emission within the solar system.

The Earth has experienced extended cold periods called Ice Ages. We can see this the other way
around. The cold periods could the norm, interspersed with periods of increased temperature due to
emission events within our region of the Milky Way galaxy. Such an event could have happened
hundreds and even thousands of years ago, have an impact upon the solar system over an extended
period of time. This impact would inevitably include an increase in the temperature of Earth through
an increase in the density of its gravitational field. Over the longer term, this would see the
temperature of the Earth increase and decrease within an overall increase due to the increasing
emission of the Sun.

If we see the increase in the retention of carbon emission in the atmosphere as being the result of an
increase in the density of the Earth’s emission (gravitational) field, then the following scenario could
occur. First the average temperature of the Earth increases then the ozone layer over the poles begins
to decrease in density resulting in holes over the poles. Ozone is known to be unstable and would be
particularly sensitive to an increase in the density of the emission (gravitational) field of the Earth.
As density of the emission (gravitational) field of the Earth began to decrease, the ozone layer over
poles begin to increase in density once again and the holes in the ozone layer begin to close. This
would be followed by a gradual decrease in the average temperature of the Earth. By determining the
time between when the average temperature of the Earth begun to increase and the time when the
ozone layer begun to decrease in density, the time when the average temperature of the Earth would
begin to decrease could be determined.

Two particles that approach each other through the absorption of emission can explode due to the
impacting emission acting as pressure. Establishment physics sees this situation as the mutual
annihilation of matter and anti-matter. The existence of anti-matter is a myth of the abstractionist
paradigm. I think they acquired the idea from a science fiction movie.

Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to planets and stars, have a dissymmetrical duality
at their cores. This involves one large and one small state of matter.

The gravitational field of the Earth is generated from a dissymmetrical duality at its core. As one part
of the duality increases in matter, the other decreases in matter. As the large one attains a state of
maximum absorption the other attains a state of maximum emission. The process of absorption and
emission then flips over accounting for the regular reversing of the magnetic poles of the Earth.

Within particle physics, the fact that particles created from collisions in a particle accelerator always
take a curved path is unexplained. These curved paths are accounted for by the dissymmetrical
duality (imbalance) at the core of all particles.

When electrons are deflected by an electromagnetic (emission) field, what is the mechanism that
causes this to occur? Once again, the abstractionist paradigm remains silent. The only possible


                                                   8
explanation is that the electrons absorb emission from the electromagnetic (emission) field and are
deflected (in the sense of attraction) in accordance with the density of the field.

The well known phenomena of the emission (light) from a distance star being bent as it passes near a
star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is also a case of particles being deflected
by absorbing emission from an emission (gravitational) field.

Physics claims that the wavelength of an electron is determined by its momentum, and that electrons
in higher orbits show contraction due to their smaller wavelengths. The wavelength of an electron is
determined by the extent of its emission which is determined by the density of the impacting
emission. Electrons in higher orbits are subject to less density of impacting emission and hence have
a higher orbital speed and decreased wavelengths as a consequence. With the abstractionist paradigm
they tend to get cause and effect back to front because they failed to correctly interpret the Hafele-
Keating experiment and apply it to the totality of atomic structure.

The orbit of a planet around the Sun can be accounted for by its absorption of emission from the Sun
and other planets via its emission field, and its orbital motion.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury can be explained by the increase in the matter of Mercury
during each orbit around the Sun. This increase in matter results in an increase in the density of its
gravitational field which sees it remain in close contact (at perihelion) with the Sun a little longer
during each orbit. This advance in the perihelion, also known as orbital precession, would apply to
all the planets. This also explains why the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular.

Rotation is an inherent aspect of the Universe, be it the rotation of a particle a planet a star or a
galaxy. An individual particle is a process of absorption and emission and is in a state of imbalance
due to the dissymmetrical duality of its core. As a consequence an individual particle would rotate,
vibrate, and pulsate.

We can see matter as made of particles, which in turn are made of sub-particles. These particles are
bound through the absorption of emission within a context of impacting emission. We can see this
emission in turn as being made of even smaller particles all the way down to the smallest possible
particle in the Universe. However, even this smallest possible particle would absorb and emit and
thus exist within a context of emission that is groundstate as the ultra microscale of the Universe.

How can you distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the
point of observation? By assuming that the brightness of a galaxy or star does not change over time?
By assuming that the wavelength of their emission (light) does not change over distance? By
assuming that emission (light) has a constant velocity as it travels through interaction with the
dispersing emission called empty space? It’s all nonsense; an exceedingly large fantasy collusion.
The desire to measure cosmic distance over-rides any rational consideration of the actual dynamic
nature of the Universe. You cannot distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and
its distance from the point of observation. The only way of measuring cosmic distance is through
triangulation. For measurements beyond our solar system, the result will always be “a very long
way”.

If you measure a wavelength in the emission from a star that corresponds to that of an element, does
this indicate the presence of that element in the star? As emission is constructed into wavelengths as
it travels, it can have the same spectral signature of the emission of an element but does not indicate
the presence of that element in the star. The spectral signature is the “emission symmetry” of the
emission of the element. The only way the emission from a star could represent the presence of an


                                                    9
element would be if it didn’t change in wavelength as it travelled towards the Earth, which is simply
not possible.

There is an area of the abstractionist paradigm called Quantum theory. This is really an observation
and not a theory. It's based on the fact that energy (emission) comes in discrete packets or quanta,
and not as an undifferentiated stream. Quantum physicists do not ask how these quanta are formed or
constructed. Quanta, like the wavelengths of emission that they are, are formed or constructed
through the convergence of levels of emission.

Uncertainty is seen by physics as an inherent aspect of the Universe. This is presented with the
Uncertainty Principle, which states that: “there is a fundamental limit to the precision with which a
position co-ordinate of a particle and its momentum in that direction can be simultaneously known.”
(“Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology”, 1995) If something is in a static position then it
doesn't have a velocity, and if it has a velocity then it's not in a static position. Surely, position and
momentum are mutually exclusive. The only way that both factors could be known to any level of
precision simultaneously would be if the particle does not have a static position but is, in fact,
moving at some velocity in a particular direction.

Physics claims that the inherent uncertainty also relates to the “quantum”, or ultra microscale, and
that “it has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of our instruments to make accurate
measurements.” (John Gribbin, “Companion to the Cosmos”, 1996) At the ultra microscale the
absorption and emission of the matter of the instrument with which you measure interacts with the
absorption and emission of that which is being measured. If what you were measuring was a
wavelength, then this could entail the matter of the measurement instrument absorbing some of the
emission of the wave causing it to collapse to a lower state of construction. This is usually referred to
as “the collapse of the wave function”.

An experiment which uses what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate and a number of isotopes of a
particular element has a result that can’t be explained by the abstractionist paradigm. The experiment
sees about half the isotopes in the condensate at first repel each other. This could only occur if they
were not equivalent (identical). When a magnetic field is applied to the condensate, the isotopes
attract each other. This is obviously due to the isotopes obtaining an equivalence of emission through
absorbing the magnetic field. When the strength of the field is increased even further around half the
isotopes suddenly disappear in a flash of emission. The increasing strength of the magnetic field is
equivalent to the increasing density of impacting emission acting as pressure and causing the
isotopes to de-construct (explode) back into the emission from which they were constructed.

Being locked into a paradigm of limited capacity can waste time, money and effort. Physics has
wasted all three by building instruments to detect and measure gravity waves. Gravity waves and
emission waves are one and the same thing. When you observe and measure the emission of the Sun,
you are detecting and measuring its gravity waves.

The idea of nuclear fusion reactors to obtain free energy is another misbegotten idea of the
abstractionist paradigm. The electromagnet field which is used to contain the process actually fuels
the process through its emission being absorbed by the process. You can never get out more than you
put in.

Another waste of time by establishment physics relates to trying to discover what they call “missing
dark matter”. They see this dark matter as being required to account to the macro-structure of the
Universe. There is no missing dark matter. The emission that is space (the dark matter) extends to
levels far below that which constitutes the visible light part of the spectrum, and all the way down to
the groundstate at the ultra microscale.
                                                   10
The establishment physics idea of the big bang beginning of the Universe is based on a
misinterpretation of what is called the cosmic red shift phenomena. Red shift involves emission
(light) increasing in wavelength. The cosmic red shift phenomena and the gravitational red shift
phenomena are one and the same thing. The physics establishment is prepared to accept that the red
shift in the emission from our Sun is due to its emission (gravitational) field and yet claims that the
red shift in the emission from galaxies is not due to their emission field. We’re asked to believe that
galaxies don’t have emission (gravitational) fields, that they don’t have emission (light) at all, and
that they don’t exist and must be figments of our imagination.

The galaxies are not accelerating away. Forget the Doppler Effect. The emission (light) from
galaxies and stars disperses through encountering decreasing density of impacting emission. If the
emission from galaxies and stars did not disperse as it travelled towards us, then the sky would be
ablaze with the emission called light. This is known as Olbers’ Paradox, and is resolved with the fact
of the dispersion of the emission called light.

Background microwave radiation has been detected in the cosmic sky, and this is claimed to be left
over from the big bang and as evidence supporting the big bang theory. The background microwave
radiation is merely indicative of the maximum dispersion of emission as the groundstate of emission
at the ultra microscale.

In 1929 a “tired light” theory was put forward the Swiss Astronomer Fritz Zwicky, to account for the
red shift in the light from galaxies. This theory is in essence correct. It was rejected in favor of Edwin
Hubble’s expanding Universe theory, which fitted the inherent need of physicists to make
measurements and do calculations and generate thousands upon thousands of journal articles which
all add-up to close to zero in terms of knowledge about the Universe. The big bang theory is right up
there with the Flat Earth theory, and the Earth being the centre of the solar system theory.

It was the Astronomer Edwin Hubble who in 1929 first claimed that the red shift in the light from
galaxies indicated that they were acceleration away. The year before, he had claimed that the Crab
Nebula galaxy was all of 900 years old. That’s like saying that the Earth has just had its first
birthday.

The Universe did not begin with a big bang. The Universe is infinite in space and time, and is a
process of the construction and evolution of everything from cosmology to biology.

Although there are obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite
number of types of things then there would be infinite variability. We do not observe infinite
variability. We observe that things form discrete types.

Could it be that the types we observe are merely a product of the way in which we Humans are able
to see the Universe? We Humans are an example of the construction possibilities of the Universe,
therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that our capacity to observe the Universe is in accordance with
the Universe and that the types we observe actually exist.

The fact that an exceedingly large number would represent the finite number of types of things that
can be constructed within the Universe is irrelevant. As long the number is finite, anything that can
exist within the Universe must exist an infinite number of times and do so in every moment of time.

The abstractionist paradigm is built from interconnected assumptions and theories and inconsistency.
When some of those assumptions and theories are debunked, and its inconsistency is exposed, the
whole house of cards begins to collapse. The failure by physics to correctly interpret the Hafele-
                                                   11
Keating experiment was clearly a major mistake. But the biggest mistake was in thinking that
mathematics and its other abstractions are truly fundamental and necessary to understanding the
Universe.

                          The Paradigm as the Logic of the Universe

The paradigm is based on seeing the Universe as a self-constructing process, which can also be seen
as a consistent and complete structure. As a consistent and complete structure, the paradigm
represents the construction possibilities across cosmology and biology within a moment of time.

Within logic, if a consistent and complete structure can be shown to apply to one aspect of another
consistent and complete structure then it must by the necessity of logic apply to every aspect of that
other structure. In other words, by demonstrating that the paradigm applies to one aspect of the
Universe it must also apply to every aspect of the Universe.

The Universe is seen as a process of the evolving construction and functioning and de-construction
of types of matter as quantities, where type is an inclusive concept. Construction occurs through the
convergence of types, which involves absorption and emission. De-construction is a result of the
reduced binding of matter, chemical reaction, or pressure.

The identity of the numbers of the paradigm ranges from the absolute detail or individuality to the
broadest possible categories or absolute generality. It applies from the microscale to the macroscale
of the Universe and into the realm of biology. While one thing is seen in detail, everything else is
seen in varying degrees of generality.

Levels of construction are an aspect of the paradigm. Within these levels there are numbers which
represent states of maximum or minimum construction and/or stability. These are the inside numbers.
Stability with the paradigm is always within parameters specified by the paradigm. The outside
numbers represent states of maximum construction and/or de-construction.

There is “quantitative correspondence” across the levels of construction from the microscale to the
macroscale and into the realm of biology. This means that any one number has many identities.

Everything is specified as both a level of construction and as existing within parameters as specified
by the paradigm. Each level is constructed from the previous level and exists within the context of
the next level of construction.

The numbers and arrows of the paradigm form logic statements which can contain or compress
details and can be expanded to reveal the details with the application of the paradigm. As a
consequence, these statements are to a greater or lesser extent generalizations or detailed descriptions
of that to which they relate. They are statements of scientific fact.

Not only does the paradigm specify all that we know about the Universe, it also specifies all that can
be known and discovered by either observation or logical inference. As a consequence, the
distinction between prediction and description no longer applies. Whatever the paradigm describes
that has yet to be discovered is deemed to be a prediction and a discovery in every sense and
meaning of the terms.

The paradigm entails an unknown number of levels of construction. Although it’s ultimately finite, it
can be treated as infinite. The paradigm to 27 levels is at the end of this essay. You can obtain an exe
file version at the following site: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/paradigm.exe

                                                  12
                                             Cosmology
The application of the paradigm proceeds through establishing the identity of the numbers, and
begins with known quantities. The number 91 at level [18] can represent the fact that 91 elements are
the maximum number that can become stable within a solar system, and 92 at level [13] can
represent Uranium and the elements as a maximum state of construction and de-construction. At
level [18] there is the logic statement 172  91: there can be a maximum of 172 elements. This
means that there are 80 possible trans-uranium elements. At present there is known to be 80 stable
elements, and around 26 trans-uranium elements have been discovered in the conventional manner of
observation.

As the stability of atomic structure is relative to the density of the impacting emission, as
demonstrated by the Hafele-Keating experiment, the paradigm states that the Earth is subject to the
increasing density of emission from the Sun. The elements begin at level [3], and as there are 16
levels of construction between [3] and [18], the parameters within which the elements can be stable
are 1 and 16. Over time, more of the elements on Earth will become stable up to 91 (Protactinium).

The individual elements are represented in detail as levels of construction and, as previously stated,
begin with Hydrogen as level [3]. The number 4 at [3] represents the number of Hydrogen’s naturally
occurring isotopes. Physics at present accepts the existence of three isotopes of Hydrogen: Protium,
Deuterium, and Tritium. The number [3] as a level of construction also represents the emission field
of Hydrogen as an atom. The number 7 represents the atoms level of emission, and the maximum
de-construction (dispersion) of the matter of which the emission is composed. The number 11 in 11
 [3] represents the emission impacting upon the emission field of Hydrogen and the source of the
emission. This specification of Hydrogen states that it has a fourth isotope, which we will call
Quadritium. The number 7 at level [4] represents the fact that Helium has 7 naturally occurring
isotopes. All the numbers of the naturally occurring isotopes of all the possible elements are
represented by the inside numbers on the paradigm. These naturally occurring isotope numbers are in
excess of what is presently known and/or is knowable by physics in the conventional sense of
observation.

If you had discovered the 80 trans-uranium elements and Quadritium prior to the existence of the
paradigm, they would have been seen as major scientific discoveries. However, with the advent of
the paradigm the realization of their existence becomes a minor detail. The existence of Quadritium
could be confirmed in the conventional manner within a laboratory. However, its existence has
already been confirmed.

Within the paradigm, the individual isotopes of the elements also form levels of construction. This
sees Protium as level [1], Deuterium as level [2], Tritium as level [3], and Quadritium as level [4].
Physics claims that it detects “molecular” Hydrogen in the inter-stellar space and proposes a three-
centre two electron bond model for this molecular Hydrogen. Quadritium as [4] can be seen as a
three-centre two electron bond model with (2) in 7  (2) for the electrons and (1) = 3 in 3  (1) for
the centre. Physics is detecting Quadritium in the inter-stellar space and so has already confirmed its
existence without even realizing it. As Hydrogen disperses it de-constructs into its 4 isotopes. This is
represented as 4  3 where 3 = [3] and is bound Hydrogen.

The dispersion of Hydrogen as 7 in 4  7 sees Protium as the groundstate of atomic structure with a
value of 0 = 1, then Deuterium has a value of 1, Tritium 2, and Quadritium 3. This is seen as the 7
which derives from Hydrogen dispersion. If Quadritium does not exist then nothing in the Universe
can exist because the Universe is a consistence and complete structure where the existence of every
part is dependent upon the existence of every other part.

                                                  13
Hydrogen has 16 possible wave form types and 29 possible wave form functions, which are
represented by the numbers 16  29 at [7]. This means that Helium has 21 and 37 possible wave
form types and functions represented by 21  37 at [8]. All the possible wave form types and
functions of all the possible elements are represented by the paradigm.

The wave form types and functions are constructed by convergence, with Hydrogen represented as
(2)  16  (4), where (2) = [2] and represents the emission of Hydrogen (4+2+1) and (4) = [4] = 11
the represents the emission impacting upon that emission which results in the construction of the
wave form types and functions. The fact that Hydrogen at present has less than 16 wave form types
and 29 functions is indicative of the density of the emission within which the Earth presently exists.

Given its logical consistency and completeness, the conclusions derived from the rigorous
application of the paradigm are scientific facts. It’s important to understand that whatever emerges
from the rigorous application of the paradigm is actually the case, irrespectively of how
extraordinary it may at first appear.

There is a number on the paradigm that corresponds with the number of planets that our solar system
originally contained. That’s to say, solar systems can only form with a specific number (or numbers)
of planets. All stars begin as planets, so the number of planets that a solar system originally
contained would include the central star. You should not jump to the conclusion that 9 at [5] would
represent our solar system. With the increase in the gravity of the Sun over time, due to the increase
in its emission, planets could have been destroyed by being attracted towards the Sun. Then there is
the matter of the maximum distance a planet can be from the Sun and still retain the stability of its
atomic structure due to the decreasing density of the impacting emission. You should also keep in
mind that all the matter (as opposed to matter that is emission) within the solar system, originated
from within the solar system. The number would be at least 10. This is based on at least some of the
non-planet matter, or “other matter”, in the solar system (asteroids and comets and moons) having
originated from the de-construction of at least one planet. Also, Pluto obviously originated from the
de-construction of a planet and so is included in “other matter”.

The next thing to determine is the number which corresponds to the maximum number of
planets/stars that a solar system can contain. As the elements can be stable to up to 16 levels of
construction, the maximum number of planets of a solar system is 16. This is confirmed by the fact
that the number 16 is both a state of stability and a state of maximum construction.

The minimum number of planets/stars of a solar system is one, due to due to the parameters of
stability being 1 and 16. The question of the number of possible types of solar system is 7 due once
again to 7 being a state of stability and of maximum construction, and by virtue of the fact that with
the paradigm this gives us 7 types of solar systems with planets between 1 and 16: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 13,
and 16. We can now say that our solar system begun with either 13 or 16 planets.

The number 49 in 49  92 at level [13] states that of the 53 types of planets/stars
(16+13+9+7+4+3+1) which can exist within the 7 types of solar systems, 4 will be destroyed and not
construct the 92 elements. This means that there are types of planets/stars which exist outside of
solar system so that the total number of possible types of planets/stars will be an outside number as a
maximum state of construction and be greater than 53.

The bursts of gamma radiation are stars exploding prior to igniting into their second stage. Although
they are not states of maximum construction, they are states of stability due to the fact that they exist
within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. The number which is nearest to and
greater than 53 and is also a state of maximum construction is 56. This means that there are 3 types
of planets/stars which explode as burst of gamma radiation. This is confirmed by the fact that no
                                                   14
other state of stability number between levels [1] and [16] can produce a number which in
combination with 53 results is at state of maximum construction.

The matter from which planets/stars are constructed is represented by the number which represents
the total number of types of solar systems. As the total number of solar systems is 7, then 7 in 4  7
represent the dispersed Hydrogen which is the base from which planets/stars are constructed. This
involves the nuclear fusion process of the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing
density of impacting emission. All planets within the 7 types of solar systems begin as gas planets,
and all but 4 become solid through the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing
density of impacting emission.

The 4 which do not become solid (gas planets) must be destroyed while they are still at a great
distance from the central planet/star. The cause of their destruction would be the ignition into their
second stage of planets which are closer to the central planet/star. Of the 49 planets which become
solid, those that ignite into their second stage have attained their maximum state of construction and
form solar systems of stars. These will be represented by both an inside and outside number on the
paradigm.

All the planets within a solar system are destroyed by being drawn towards the central star, or ignite
into second stage stars, or are destroyed as gas planets. With the consumption of all their matter,
second stage stars dissipate into the Hydrogen which formed the base of their construction. This
accounts for part of the abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe. This Hydrogen then becomes the
basis from which new stars and solar systems are constructed. Hydrogen is never constructed. 11 
[3]  (0) and (0)  4  (2) on the paradigm represents this fact by virtue of the (0) in both
statements. The groundstate is also never constructed. This fact is represented by the (0) in (1)  3
 (0). The 3 indicates that there is a dissymmetrical duality at the bottom of the Universe.

The groundstate is the state of absolute dispersion or de-construction of emission which constantly
emerges through absorption and fails back if the impacting emission is not sufficient to sustain the
construction process. The groundstate is, therefore, a process of fluctuation through absorption and
emission.

As there are 7 types of solar systems, level [7] represents the fact that a solar system can have a
maximum of 16 planets. The number 29 represents the total number of types of the galaxy within
which solar systems exist. As our solar system exists within a Spiral galaxy, it must be the case that
there are 29 types of Spiral galaxy. As the level of an individual solar system, the number 29
represents the emission of the 16 planet/star type solar system and [7] represents its emission field.
The number 37 represents the number of the possible types of macro-structure. This involves 36
types of Spiral galaxy clusters and the one type of Globular galaxy.

Spiral galaxies have two types. There are barred and non-barred types. These two types are
differentiated into 13 and 16 sub-types respectively and are represented as 13  (2)  16. With
either type of Spiral galaxy, the level number would represent its emission field, the outside number
its emission, and the inside number the galaxy as one of the two types. The level number can also
represent the number of a particular sub-type. For example, 13 [6]  29 states that it’s the 6th type of
one of 13 types of barred Spiral galaxy within the context of there being 29 types of Spiral galaxy.

As our solar system exists within a barred type of Spiral galaxy, the number 13 at [6] can represent
our solar system as existing within the 6th type of barred Spiral galaxy. The answer to the question of
how many planets/stars that our solar system originally contained is 13.



                                                  15
We can also see the paradigm as specifying individual planets within a solar system. If we see the
first [1] at the top of the paradigm as an absolute generalization of the emission called space, the
minimum possible detail, and the planets as levels of construction, then the Earth would be located at
level [6]: the 6th planet from the edge of the solar system. The paradigm becomes progressively more
specific. The statement 22  13 [6] specifies that a solar system which begun with 13 planets can
only exist within the 6th type of a barred Spiral galaxy. The statement [7] 16  29 specifies that a
solar system which begun with 16 planets can only exist within the 7th type of a non-barred Spiral
galaxy. This does not preclude the other 5 types of solar systems from existing within either of the
types of Spiral galaxies.

Types evolve over time and so are specifications of time. The 6th type of a barred Spiral galaxy
represents the time it has taken for the galaxy to evolve to the point at which it can be identified as a
stage in the evolution of the galaxy. When the paradigm states that our solar system can only exist in
the 6th type of a barred spiral galaxy, it’s stating that the solar system will be constructed when the
galaxy has reached that stage of its evolutionary development.

We have 13 at [6] representing the type of barred Spiral galaxy, the type of solar system, and the
Earth as a planet. To these identities of 13 we can add those of a sub-atomic particle, a particle, an
isotope of Beryllium, Beryllium as the fusion of its isotopes, and a compound of Beryllium. The
number [6] as a level of construction represents the Earth as the 6th planet from the edge of the solar
system, a wavelength of emission, and the emission field of the Earth. It can also represent Carbon as
the 6th element.

As 16 is the maximum possible number of planets/stars within a solar system, the number 9 in 9 
16 can represent a planet and its maximum possible number of types within a solar system. This sees
(1)  9  (3) representing the groundstate (1) and Hydrogen (3) converging in the construction of
an individual planet/star within the context of 22  [5] as the emission which is being absorbed by
the emission field of the planet.

The paradigm can be applied to an individual planet in increasing detail. The structure of planets
involves levels of differentiation. The structure of the Earth is seen as having four main parts: the
inner-core, the outer-core, the mantle, and the atmosphere. This can be represented by 4 at [3]. To
this we must add 3 as a dissymmetrical duality inside the inner-core from which the emission field is
generated, for a total of 7 which can be seen as 7 at [4]. We can now see 9 at [5] as the atmosphere of
the Earth where dry air is composed of 9 gases: Nitrogen; Oxygen; Argon; Carbon Dioxide; Neon;
Helium; Krypton; Hydrogen; Xenon. If we see [5] as the five parts of the atmosphere (Troposphere;
Stratosphere; Mesosphere; Thermosphere; Exosphere) then these 5 parts combined with the 7 parts
of the planet make 12. To this we add 1 for the Magnetosphere so that 13 at [6] can represent the
Earth with [6] as its gravitational field.

Each number of the paradigm contains the previous numbers as levels of construction which lead up
to a particular number representing a construction. This means that the numbers can be an expression
of the inherent potential of a particular factor. For example, 16 and 29 at level [7] represent the
potential of hydrogen as 4 and its emission as 7. In the same way, 3 at [2] as the groundstate and 7 at
[4] as dispersed Hydrogen are contained within 13 as a representation of Earth.

Within our solar system there are two planets, Uranus and Venus, which rotate in a clockwise
direction when viewed from the North Pole. The other 7 planets (including the Sun) rotate in an anti-
clockwise direction. Uranus is the 2nd planet from the edge of the solar system and Venus is the 7th. If
we apply this arrangement to a 16 planet solar system by assuming that the pattern will continue to
that the 16th planet/star will rotate in a clockwise direction, we have the following planet/stars
rotating clockwise in the 7 types of solar systems: 3 in the 16 planet/star solar system, 2 in the 13
                                                   16
planet/star solar system, 2 in the 7 planet/star solar system, 1 in the 4 planet/star solar system, 1 in
the 3 planet/star solar system, and none in the 1 planet/star system. If we now assume that two of the
three gamma burst planets rotate clockwise, we have 13 planets rotating clockwise out the total of
46. This can be represented on the paradigm as 43  (5)  [13]. This would also mean that the 3
and 7 and 16 type solar systems would have planets which orbit in a direction that is opposite to that
of our solar system. 3  (0)  4 on the paradigm would be a representation of this situation.

With Spiral galaxies represented by 29 types, how many types of other galaxies exist? Along with
Spiral galaxies there are Globular (cluster) galaxies, Elliptical galaxies, and Nebula (Irregular)
galaxies. The cores of Globular and Spiral galaxies are composed of emission (light), and this is
specified by the paradigm as levels of the construction and dispersion of emission.

Globular galaxies do not have definite sub-types and so can be seen as one type in various stages of
development. Elliptical galaxies are composed of dispersed Hydrogen that has formed into a disc,
and exist either within Spiral galaxies or outside of Spiral galaxies. Those within Spiral galaxies can
be the basis for the construction of solar systems.

Within Globular galaxies, planets/stars are constructed as they’re attracted towards the core of the
galaxy and this is the source of the increasing density of impacting emission which is necessary for
their construction. Within Spiral galaxies, solar systems and planets/stars are constructed within the
arms of the galaxy while the galaxy rotates and the arms are attracted towards the core. This is the
source of the increasing density of impacting emission, and the movement derived from the
absorption of emission, which is necessary for their construction.

The core of a Spiral galaxy rotates in a direction that is opposite to that in which the arms of the
galaxy curve away from the core, thus giving the galaxy its spiral shape.

Whereas the core of a Spiral galaxy is constructed from within a disc of Hydrogen that is a large
Elliptical galaxy, the core of a Globular galaxy is constructed from within dispersed Hydrogen. The
dispersed Hydrogen within and from which Globular galaxies are constructed is the result of the
dissipation of Globular galaxies. The discs of Hydrogen (large Elliptical galaxies) from and within
which barred and non-barred Spiral galaxies are constructed are also the result of the dissipation of
Globular galaxies. This means that Nebula galaxies are the result of the dispersion of barred and non-
barred Spiral galaxies.

The fact that the Hydrogen that results from the dissipation of a Globular galaxy sometimes forms
into discs and other times it does not, relates to the situation in which the Globular galaxy dissipates.
Within a region of increasing density of impacting emission, the Hydrogen forms a disc through the
rotation of particles and the orbital motion of electrons around a nucleus within the atoms of
Hydrogen. In a region of less density of impacting emission the Hydrogen would remain dispersed
long enough to allow a Globular galaxy to form.

The basic process of the galaxies can be represented as follow: Globular galaxy  Dispersed
Hydrogen  Globular galaxy; Dispersed Hydrogen  Elliptical galaxy  Non-barred Spiral galaxy
 Nebula galaxy; Dispersed Hydrogen  Elliptical galaxy  Barred Spiral galaxy  Nebula
galaxy.

The reason that some Spiral galaxies form as the barred type and others as the non-barred type also
relates to density of emission within which the disc of Hydrogen exists: the greater the density of the
impacting emission, the greater the contraction of the disc of Hydrogen. The elongated shape of an
Elliptical galaxy, and its contraction to form a barred Spiral galaxy, points to the contraction which


                                                   17
results in the construction of a solar system from a disc of Hydrogen (an Elliptical galaxy) within a
Spiral galaxy.

Within Nebula galaxies there are regions of contraction within which Individual planets/Stars are
constructed from Hydrogen that has resulted from the dissipation of stars, and that have the
necessary increasing density of impacting emission and the movement (attraction) that results from
the absorption of emission.

As Solar systems are constructed from Hydrogen within the emission field of a Spiral galaxy and
from the emission of the galaxy, the density of the emission field of a solar system is composed of
emission from the solar system and that impacting upon the solar system from the galaxy. If we were
to say that the emission of our solar system was 22 and that the emission impacting upon the solar
system from the galaxy was 29, then approximately 56.8 % of the density of the emission field of the
solar system would have been contributed by the galaxy. Such a percentage would remain constant
over time because as the emission from the galaxy was absorbed the emission from the solar system
would increase and the emission impacting upon the solar system would also increase due to it being
attracted towards the core of the galaxy.

If we now apply this to a 16 planet/star solar system within a non-barred type of Spiral galaxy, the
emission figures would be 29 and 37 for 56.06% of the density of the emission field of the solar
system being contributed by the galaxy. In relative terms, this means that a greater proportion of
emission from the galaxy is involved with the solar system within the barred type of galaxy than that
in the non-barred type. This indicates the more compact nature of the barred type of Spiral galaxy,
which sees the 13 planet/star solar system being constructed closer to the core of the galaxy. The
higher figure for the emission impacting upon the 16 planet/star solar system within the non-barred
type of galaxy, points to the greater density of the emission field of that galaxy due it to having
formed at an earlier stage from the disc of Hydrogen than the barred type of Spiral galaxy.

All Cosmological phenomena are the result of the construction of planets/stars and solar systems and
their dissipation or explosion, and the construction and dissipation or dispersion of galaxies. This
will be confirmed through observation.

                                             Biology
The paradigm represents all the possible types of biology that can exist in the Universe, and all of
biology can be divided into two main types of organisms: Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes. Eukaryotes
have 13 parts to their structure, and Prokaryotes have 9 parts. These two types are represented on the
paradigm as 13 and 9 in 13  (3)  9 across levels [5] and [6].

Prokaryotes are divided into Bacteria and Archaea. There are 7 types of Archaea and 9 types of
Bacteria. These are represented by 7 and 9 in 7  (1)  9 across levels [4] and [5]. The combination
of Bacteria and Archaea is 16 which is represented as 16 in 9  16 at [5]. The combination of
Bacteria and Eukaryotes is 22 at [6]. The number 29 at [7] is the combination of 13 for Eukaryotes
and 16 for Prokaryotes. This means that the number 29 at [7] represents all of biology in the sense of
independently existing organisms.

The numbers for the Prokaryote and Eukaryote types are based on the Three-domain Phylogenetic
Tree of Carl Woese, which is derived from RNA data.1 This tree has only 10 types of Eukaryotes
listed, and makes it clear that Archaea branched from an unspecified ancestor type and line that leads
to Eukaryotes. As there can be a maximum of 13 types of Eukaryotes, three are not accounted for
with the RNA data.

                                                 18
The minimum number of Eukaryotes that can exist is 3, which is represented by 3 at [2]. The number
4 in 4  3 represents the 3 Eukaryotes and 1 for Archaea. As 16 at [5] represents Prokaryotes as the
combination of Archaea and Bacteria, 2 in 1  2 represents the two possible types of Prokaryotes.

As 9 at [5] can represent the Bacteria types, 1 at [1] can represent the minimum number of Bacteria
types. This also means at [1] in 4  [1]  (2) represents Bacteria being the product of the
convergence of an Archaea and a Eukaryote through (2) = [2] and the 3 types of Eukaryotes and
Archaea as a type. As we now have Archaea and Bacteria are types of Eukaryotes, this brings the
total for Eukaryotes to 12. As the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) was a Eukaryote and is
now extinct, then we have the necessary 13 Eukaryotes. LUCA as an extinct Eukaryote is the only
possibility that works with the paradigm.

The number 29 as representing biology also occurs with the Phylogenetic tree of 29 Evidences for
Macroevolution by Douglas Theobald.2 This tree only includes macro-biology. This means that the
number 13 as a state of stability represents all Eukaryotes and 29 as a state of maximum construction
represents all Eukaryotes (in that Archaea and Bacteria are types of Eukaryote) and all of macro-
biology.

The Theobald tree has 19 animals, 8 planets, and 2 fungi within its 29 types. If we add two animals
this gives as 21 animals and this finds representation on the paradigm as 21 at [8]. The addition of 2
to the list of animals also sees the total for macro-biology go from 29 to 31, with this being
represented by the number 31 at [10]. We now have macro-biology represented by both a state of
maximum construction and a state of stability: 29 and 31 respectively.

An automatically generated Tree Of Life that is based on completely sequenced genomes shows 191
species across Eukaryotes (23), Bacteria (150), and Archea (18).3 See 191 at [19]. This means that we
have 191 representing all of independently existing biology as another state of maximum
construction number on the paradigm.

Non-independently existing biology (viruses and parasites) are also represented by both a state of
stability and of maximum construction number. There are 7 groups of viruses, dsDNA, ssDNA,
dsRNA, (+) ssRNA, (-) ssRNA, ssRNA-RT, and dsDNA-RT. With Eukaryotes as level [6] and
Prokaryotes as level [5], viruses could be represented by 7 at level [4]. Parasites have four groups or
classifications, so that 4 and 7 as 11 at [4] can represent viruses and parasites. The number 11 is
contained within 22 which can represent Eukaryotes and Bacteria, just as the number 7 is contained
within 13 as Eukaryotes. With 4 (parasites) and 7 (viruses) at [3] being contained within Prokaryotes
(16) and the combination of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes (29) at [7], the number 29 represents all of
biology. We can now see 22  13 as confirming that Bacteria are derived from Eukaryotes, and that
both 22 and 29 represent all of biology.

If we relate these results to solar systems, we have all of biology evolving within the 13 planet/star
solar system and the 16 planet/star solar system with 22 and 29 respectively. If we see it in terms of
individual planets, we have all of biology evolving on the 6th and 7th planets within the 13 and 16
planet/star solar systems respectively.

Biological evolution is a specific event that occurs within a specific environment. As the numbers of
the paradigm are quantitative representations of the answers to all questions and the structure within
which the identity of those answers can be determined, the detailed specification of the occurrence of
biology can be obtained through the detailed and rigorous application of the paradigm.

Humans are members of the Eukaryote type of biology, and what makes Humans unique is
chromosome 22. The statement 22  13 can be interpreted as Humans being an evolved form of
                                                  19
Eukaryote. The whole statement 22  13 [6]  29 can be interpreted as Humans and all of biology
evolving on the 6th planet from the edge of a solar system that begun with 13 plants/stars within a
barred type of Spiral galaxy and within the context of the evolution of biology and a Spiral galaxy
that has 29 types.

Chromosome 22 has 13 protein encoding regions. Mitochondrial DNA has 22 tRNA genes and 13
protein encoding regions.4

Chromosome 13 is another Human chromosome. The condition of chromosome 13 is known to have
an effect upon the intellectual capacity of individuals. This means that the intellectual capacity of
Humans can be seen to exist within the parameters of chromosomes 22 and 13.

In terms of the ascent of Humans as a species, there appears to be 13 types of Sapiens leading up to
Humans which have been identified: Habilis; Erectus; Rudolfensis; Georgicus; Egaster; Antecessor;
Cepranensis, Heidelbergensis; Neanderthalensis; Rhodesiensis; Sapien Sapiens; Sapien Idaltu;
Floresiensis. The paradigm states that there are 9 types of proto-sapiens leading up to 13 Sapiens, for
a total of 22 types of Humans. If we see the ascent of Humans involving 6 levels of construction
from [1] to [6] and 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 13 as types of sapiens and proto-sapiens then they add up to 37.
This is represented as 37 in 37  21 at [8]. With animals as 21, this could be saying that Humans
and an evolved type of animal.

Human chromosome 2 has 29 protein encoding regions. There is evidence that this chromosome was
derived from the fusion of two chromosomes found in 3 types of Apes, the bonobo, the gorilla, and
the orangutan. If we apply this information to the paradigm we have (3)  [6]  29. The number
[6], as a level of construction, contains 22 and 13 as representations of Humans.

Humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, and number 46 is a maximum state of construction on the
paradigm at [9].

Humans are mammals, and mammals have 13 types across two sub-types which quantitatively
correspond to 7 and 4 and 2: Marsupials, Placentals, and Monotremata. Mammals can have a
maximum of 92 chromosomes, so that [13] as 13 at [6] is saying from 92 chromosomes a species of
biology may be constructed and have a chromosome (22) which is unique to one particular species.

A most primitive form of the Eukaryote type is the slime mold, which come in three types. There are
Plasmodial slime molds and Cellular slime molds. The Cellular slime molds form two sub-types
called Dictyostelida and Acrasida. This sees 1  2 on the paradigm representing the minimum and
maximum construction possibilities of the types of slime molds.

The paradigm can begin at an even more fundamental level than micro-organisms. All of biology is
constructed form DNA and RNA. The 4 bases of DNA are called Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and
Thymine. With the 4 bases of RNA, Thymine is replaced with Uracil. The bases are abbreviated as
C, G, A, T and U. RNA involves 64 combinations (called Condons) of the 4 bases within 16 groups.
On the paradigm the number 64 is located at level [15], which involves 11 levels of construction if
we begin from level [4] as the 4 bases of RNA or DNA. These 4 bases as (4) combine with (2) at [7]
to produce the 16 groups that give rise to the 64 combinations of amino acids.

                                            Conclusion
The logic of the Universe is evolution, which occurs from a pre-existing base and through the
convergence of quantities or types of matter within a context that is necessary for the process of
construction. That construction and evolution can be a galaxy, a solar system, a planet/star, or
                                                  20
biology. To specify the construction and evolution of something is to specify its functioning in the
present. We can explore the past and the future from the present, due to the paradigm being logically
consistent and complete. We know that all of biology can evolve on at least one type of planet within
a specific type of solar system and a specific type of Spiral galaxy. It appears that all of biology can
also evolve on at least one other type of planet within another specific type of solar system and the
other specific type of Spiral galaxy. Given the finite construction possibilities of the Universe, we
can also know that Humans are the maximum state of biological construction in the Universe and
have invented and discovered the paradigm an infinite number of times on the 6th planet from the
edge of a solar system which begin with 13 planets/stars within a Spiral galaxy that has 29 types: 22
 13 [6]  29.

                                We shall not cease from exploration
                                   And the end of our exploring
                                 Will be to arrive where we started
                                And know the place for the first time.
                                    (T. S. Eliot - Four Quartets)

                                               *        *

                                             References
Wave forms or functions of Hydrogen can be obtained from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

(1) The Three-domain Phylogenetic tree of Carl Woese can be obtained from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phylogenetic_tree.svg

(2) The Phylogenetic tree of Douglas Theobald of the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution can be
obtained from here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1

(3) The automatically generated Tree Of Life that is based on completely sequenced genomes and
showing 191 species can be obtained from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

(4) A diagram of the Structure of the Human Mitochrondrial genome with the 22 tRNA-encoding
genes and the 13 protein-encoding regions can be obtained from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitochrondrial_DNA


* Although the paradigm is infallible as a specification, it’s subject to the fallibility of those who
pursue its application.


Stephen.Mooney@westnet.com.au




                                                   21
22

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:52
posted:4/18/2010
language:English
pages:22
Description: Debunking Physics and Discovering the Logic of the Universe