Big Bang Debunked by Paradigm Shift

by Stephen Mooney

The basis of science is the interpretation of observation, which occurs through the application of a fundamental perspective. My fundamental perspective is that of materialism. For me, everything in the Universe is composed of matter and is the product of the process of matter. And this includes that thing called energy. It's generally thought that physics is a fundamental perspective, and is committed to materialism. It's my contention that it's not committed to materialism and is not a fundamental perspective. With its unquestioning reliance upon mathematics and measurements, establishment physics is an abstractionist perspective or paradigm that doesn't adequately represent the materialist nature of the Universe.

With my materialist perspective, 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 being the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. I decided that the attraction was caused by the pith ball absorbing emission from the glass rod, and that this emission forms an unbroken connection between the two objects.

I use the term emission, which is made of matter, to represent the fundamental thing from which everything is composed. The latest thinking by physics sees the cause of the attraction in terms of the exchange of matterless particles called photons, and light being composed of photons. I also use the term emission to include all forms of microscale dispersion. For Physics, "the fundamental thing of which everything is composed" are particles composed of sub-atomic particles which are composed of sub-atomic particles, etc. I decided to cut to the chase and use the term emission because I wanted to avoid having particles moving through an otherwise empty space. Emission includes the visible part of the spectrum and extends, through on-going dispersion and in levels, all the way down to the extreme microscale.

The simple electrostatic experiment also led me to see dislike charges as having different levels of emission. This came about because I could see that repulsion, which physics sees as the result of like charges, was the product of equivalent emissions. Two objects of equivalent emission push away from each other by way of their emission. Attraction sees the different levels of emission interacting. This interaction itself entails absorption and emission at a sub-atomic and sub-particle level of matter. It also entails emission being absorbed via the emission of an object. This emission decreases in density with the distance from the object, forming an emission field around the object.

My simple electrostatic experiment also led me to the observation that everything is either in a state of absorption exceeding emission or emission exceeding absorption. This means that everything is either increasing or decreasing in matter at any given moment in time. The idea that things can have an unchanging mass, as the amount of matter, is not a fact but an assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

Noticing 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, and the attraction between large objects called the gravitational force.

It so happens that the physics definition of illumination (the emission called light) includes it falling off by the square of the distance from the source. This is in the same way as Newton's law sees gravity falling off by the square of the distance. It's obvious that this "falling-off" equates to the decrease in density of the emission field around all objects.

I informed various University physics departments of my observations. If it couldn't be expressed as a mathematical equation and/or a measurement, they didn't want to know. Undeterred, I decided to investigate an original gravitational experiment conducted by a chemist named Henry Cavendish. I requested a copy of Cavendish's original article in Philosophical Transactions of 1798 from the head of Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. It arrived in the mail within a couple of weeks.

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. 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. So what about this gravitational constant measured by Cavendish? It's actually a measure of electrostatic attraction.

The gravity measured by the torsion balance is that which stops the whole apparatus from floating away. That downward attraction that everything on Earth experiences. To the extent that this downward attraction acts to reduce the horizontal (electrostatic) attraction between the weights on the Cavendish torsion balance, it can be said to measure gravity. Physics claims that the torsion balance can be isolated from the possibility that there will be any electrostatic (horizontal) attraction between the weights. However, as everything absorbs and emits as a product of its very existence, it's not possible to completely isolate anything.

A short time after my consideration of the Cavendish paper one Malcolm Longair (who later ironically became 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. Malcolm Longair, who appeared to me to a sincere person, went red in the face, threw his arms in the air, and stated that you cannot interpret it that way. This member of the physics establishment was not about to allow me to question one of their assumptions. His reaction confirmed for me that I was on the right track.

As objects are attracted through the absorption of emission, then the space between objects must be composed of emission. Space is not a vacuum, as claimed by some physicists. Some physicists will also 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 Michelson and Morely. It involved using an instrument called an interferometer. Michelson and Morely were 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.

The Earth remains in its orbit around the Sun through the absorption of the emission of the Sun via the emission field of the Earth. At least part of the Sun's emission would be absorbed via the Earth's emission field and its poles into the core.

I see the inner most core of the Earth entailing a dissymmetrical duality from which the emission/magnetic field of the Earth is generated. This duality would involve one being a state of absorption exceeding emission and the other emission exceeding absorption. From time to time, these would attain their maximum state of absorption and emission respectively and each would flip-over into the alternative state. Could this be the basis of the Earth's magnetic poles reversing from time to time? Yes.

Albert Einstein came up with the idea of curved space to account for the cause of 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 (light) from distant galaxies is bent around the Sun. This is called "gravitational lensing". Is curved space the best explanation of this phenomena? No. The best explanation is that the emission of the Sun decreases in density with the increase in distance from the surface of the Sun. How about this density falling-off by the square of the distance in accordance with Newton's law of gravity. The emission called light passing near the Sun absorbs emission from the Sun's emission field, and its path is bent in the same way as the path of an electron is bent in an electromagnetic (emission) field.

Physics treats time as an independent dimension. It claims that time slows down with acceleration, or at lest increased motion, and sees this as 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 tower will be moving faster than the clock on the surface, due to the rotation of the Earth. Experiment indicates that the clock at the top of the tower runs slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth. Physics claims that this proves that time runs more slowly with the increase in motion. Actually, the result is due to the difference in the density of the emission impacting upon the clocks and not the mere motion of 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 atomic decay.

The result of the atomic clocks experiment means that the rate of atomic decay is dependent upon, or relative to, the density of the impacting emission. As the density of impacting emission is variable, as a space-craft traveled into a region of decreased density of emission the rate of atomic decay of it as matter would decrease. And the opposite would also be the case. As the density of emission impacting upon the Earth would increase over time, then the rate of atomic decay on Earth would increase over time. Matter should always be seen as relatively, and not absolutely, stable.

Treating time as an independent dimension is simply absurd. Time is a measure of process or duration. It's not a thing-in-itself. If you treat time as a thing-in-itself, then you fail to see the material cause of its variability. That is precisely what physics has done with the atomic clocks experiment.

As emission travels across the Universe through interaction with emission it must, if not absorbed by a large scale object, eventually obtain its maximum state of dispersion. I came across an idea called the Virtual Universe Hypothesis. This sees the Universe popping into existence from what are called "quantum effects" of so-called empty space. I immediately realized that the Universe has a ultimate microscale groundstate fabric of dispersion, and that from this groundstate stars and emerge. This groundstate is a structure of dissymmetry, which can be represented as a dissymmetrical duality, and 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 basis of the process of construction called nuclear fusion.

The groundstate fabric of space can also be seen as cycles of fluctuation or pulsation. A unit of emission would absorb emission and then fall back as that absorbed emission was itself emitted. This groundstate has been detected, and is called the cosmic background microwave radiation by physics. The groundstate would not have a uniform distribution, because it's the result of emission from galaxies and stars in different stages of development in difference regions of space. For it to have a uniform distribution would require that the emission was from a single source in one location. Which obviously is not the case.

The idea that the space between things is composed of emission that is made of matter, appears to fly in the face of common sense. How could we see through space if it was made of matter. We don't see through space, we see with space in the sense of the emission image of an object impacting upon our retina and being processed by our brains.

I see the construction process called nuclear fusion entailing the absorption of emission within a context of increasing density of impacting emission. A visible star is a state of emission exceeding absorption. Needless to say, I intentionally ignored what the abstractionist paradigm had to say about the formation of stars and the nuclear fusion process. Why would I believe a paradigm that doesn't have a truly fundamental basis, involves inconsistency, and can't even discover the true cause of gravity.

There are two basic types of star. The first type has a stage of absorption exceeding emission of light. That sounds like the definition of a blackhole. Instead of stars ending as blackholes, some begin as blackholes. This type of star would absorb emission and construct the heavier elements, and the increasing density of the impacting emission acting as pressure would see the star ignite and become a visible star as a second stage of its development.

Could this fusion from the groundstate fabric of space also see the formation of the core of spiral galaxies? Stars and solar system form within the emission field of the galaxy. The cause of the spiral nature of the arms can be accounted for by the vertical and transverse aspects of the total emission field of the galaxy.

Nuclear explosion can be accounted for in terms of pressure or compression forcing matter to the groundstate and in so doing releasing it as an extreme expansion event of emission (energy).

The bursts of gamma radiation detected from all directions in the cosmic sky would be exploding embryonic blackhole stars. Having formed through the absorption of emission, and being states of absorption exceeding emission, they find themselves in a context of ever increasing density of impacting emission and as a consequence of the pressure they explode.

As gravity is the product of the absorption of emission and not some magical attribute of matter, curved space, or the exchange of particles called gravitons, a star cannot collapse under its own gravity and form a blackhole, if physics really believed that gravity is caused by the exchange of gravitons, it would have given up on the idea of stars collapsing into blackholes by now. Mind you, if they have detected first stage stars they would have detected blackholes and assume that they're the result of a collapsing star. How would you detect a first stage (blackhole) star? By the absence of light? As the emission passing near a first stage (blackhole) star would be bent through interacting with its emission field (gravitational lensing), could this be detected? Or, what about the emission field around the first stage star itself emitting a low level of detectable emission (radiation). Yes, Stephen Hawking was right after all.

Stephen Hawking, the physicist from Cambridge University, came up with the idea that blackholes might emit a low level radiation. This idea is remarkable when you consider the context within which it emerged. Blackholes were thought to be the consequence of the increasing matter (mass) of a star. The increasing matter was seen as being the product of nuclear fusion within the star constructing heavier and heavier elements. With the increasing matter came increasing gravity, until a point was reached when the gravity was so great that the star collapsed in on itself. Not even light was supposed to be able to avoid being drawn into this collapsed star. This blackhole theory requires that you embrace the cause of gravity as being a magical attribute of matter. It's within this context that Stephen Hawking proposed that at least some emission was able to escape the "magic" and be detected.

A visible (second stage) star loses solid matter, which was constructed in its first stage, through its conversion into emission and so decreases in matter over time.

There are two basic types of star. The first type has a stage of absorption exceeding light on new extremes in weather". This item quoted one Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research: "...the sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1000 years..." Our Sun is a second stage star and increases in emission over time.

First stage stars explode, due to pressure derived from the increasing density of the impacting emission. These are referred to as supernova. Second stage stars would, in their final phase, gently dissipate. This dissipation is the basis of the solar discs from which solar systems are constructed. Gently dissipating stars is the source of the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the Universe. Is there only one type of star with two stages? Stars also form within the gentle dissipation (hydrogen and helium) of stars, which forms what is known as solar discs and elliptical galaxies. The final phase of these stars is also gentle dissipation into hydrogen and helium. They are a form of second stage star.

Binary stars systems are also known to exist. They form within and from the hydrogen and helium of stars that have gently dissipated, and which form elliptical galaxies. It's from these elliptical galaxies that they derive their orbital motion. If these stars had a total inequivalence of emission they would attract each other and not form a binary structure. If they had simple equivalence of emission they would repel each other. They are kept in contact with each other and locked in their orbital motion because the levels of equivalence and inequivalence within their emissions limit the repulsion/attraction. One level of inequivalence or equivalence would be enough to lock the stars in their binary orbital motion. Eventually both stars would obtain a final phase of gentle dissipation, and add yet more hydrogen and helium to space.

The rotation of stars is derived from the inherent rotation at the groundstate fabric of space, and so applies to both first and second stage stars. The rate of rotation of stars increases over time.

A pulsar is a first stage star being squeezed by the density of the impacting emission, resulting in jets of emission from its poles, which would not be equal in their intensity due to the dissymmetrical nature of its core. A quasar is a second stage star reaching the end of its life, and thus accounting for the extreme intensity of its emission.

Gravity as experienced on the surface of the Earth is connected through absorption and emission to the emission field of the Earth. This emission field extends down to the ultra microscale because it can readily pass through, by way of absorption and emission, more highly constructed matter. For the gravity of the Earth to be uniform over time would require that the emission field of the Earth to be uniform in its density over time. In turn, this would require that the total matter of the Earth would be uniform over time. As all objects are either increasing or decreasing in matter, this is simply not possible. As the Earth is clearly a state of absorption exceeding emission, it increases in matter over time. This leads to the density of its emission field and its gravity increasing over time. In the time of the dinosaurs, the gravity of Earth would have been less than it is now.

The rotation of the Earth is decreasing. What is the cause? As the gravity of the Earth is increasing and the emission of the Sun is increasing, this give rises to an increase in the attraction between the Earth and the Sun. The cause of the decrease in the rotationof the Earth is inertia.

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) You will notice that inertia is presented as a "magical" property of matter. Physics offers no explanation of the mechanism which causes this "magic" to exist. Actually, 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. No magic.

As the attraction between the Earth and the Sun is increasing, the average distance between the Earth and the Sun must be decreasing. Is this already known?

The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. This is because of the increase in the emission of the Sun pulling the Moon away from the Earth through the Moon absorbing the emission of the Sun. In other words, the balance of the gravitational attraction to the Sun and the Earth has increased towards the Sun. Which is want you would expect with an increase in the emission of the Sun.

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, and 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 isn't the case. Also the physics claim takes no account the impact of the emission field of the Sun on the Moon, nor the increase in the density of the emission field of the Sun over time. The abstractionist paradigm believes that gravity never changes over time. That it's a constant. This is complete nonsense.

The Moon exists within the emission field of the Earth, which involves both perpendicular and transverse aspects. The orbital motion of the Moon is derived from it being dragged around by way of its material (field) connection to the Earth. The contra-orbiting of natural satellites (moons) can only be accounted for by the transverse aspect of emission fields.

Before our Sun has gently dissipated, it will have destroyed all the planets. This will occur through the increase in gravity within the solar system drawing the planets toward the Sun until each in turn explodes.

There is a component of repulsion within emission (energy) fields that entail attraction, through the equivalence of some levels of emission within the field. This repulsion component is manifest by the field falling off in density by the square instead of exponentially. The waves of emission of fields are constructed by convergence, because of the equivalence of some of the levels of emission. If there wasn't an equivalence of some of the levels of emission within an emission field, then there wouldn't any emission waves to detect.

It's a fact of observation that gravity entails acceleration and not simply uniform motion. An object attracted to the surface of the Earth accelerates towards the Earth. The only logical way to explain this acceleration is by the absorption of emission from an emission field which increases in density with the decrease in the distance to the surface of the Earth. This would also entail the object increasing in matter. Relativity theory states that matter (mass) increases with acceleration, but doesn't offer an explanation of the material cause.

Millions of dollars of public money has been spent building "gravity wave detectors", in the hope of detecting gravity waves from distance galaxies and stars. If you go outside and measure the emission (light) from galaxies and stars, you will have detected their gravity waves. The whole community has to pay for the mistakes that result from the confined thinking of the physics establishment.

Another physics wild goose chase involves the idea that the Universe contains missing "dark matter" that is undetectable by its emission. It's said that the existence of this matter is inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter. This "dark matter" is, of course, the groudstate emission fabric that is space and it has an effect on visible matter through being absorbed. If physics wasn't locked into the idea that the emission called light was matterless, it would have realized its mistake long ago.

The atmosphere of the Earth is retained in position through its interaction with the emission field of the Earth. Physics states that the atmosphere of the Earth decreases in density with the distance from the surface of the Earth, and offers no explanation of the mechanism by which the Earth retains its atmosphere. It's no mere coincidence that both the atmosphere of the Earth and the emission field of the Earth decrease in density with the distance from the surface of the Earth. As the emission field of the Earth increases in density over time this would increase the density of the atmosphere leading to increased global warming by way of a greenhouse effect. Increased carbon emission in combination with increasing density of the emission field would result in global warming at an ever increasing rate. Given that the increasing density of the Earth's emission field is not taken into account when calculating the reduction of carbon emissions that needs to occur, such reduction amounts will inevitably be under-estimates.

Around1923 an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble decided that all the other Galaxies in the Universe were accelerating away from our point of observation, and that the further they are away the faster they were accelerating. This was derived from the observation that the light from distant galaxies was shifted to the red (wide) end of the wavelength spectrum. He seen this redshift being the result of what is called the Doppler Effect. He thought that as the galaxies were accelerating away, the Universe must be expanding and had begun with a big bang. This big bang theory was adopted by most of the physics establishment.

In 1928 a Swiss astronomer by the name of Fritz Zwicky rejected Hubble's assumption by proposing that the light lost energy as it traveled. He called this his "tired light" theory. Given that light disperses as it travels across the Universe, and that this dispersion involves increasing wavelength, the redshift phenomena is indicative of light traveling towards us and not the galaxies accelerating away.

If the redshift of the light from galaxies was due to them accelerating away, then physics is claiming that if they were not accelerating away their light would travel towards us without increasing in wavelength, it would not disperse, and would be just as strong as it was at its source. The cosmic sky would be ablaze with so much light that we wouldn't be able to distinguish anything. The light (emission) from our Sun would have the same wavelength when it reached to Earth as it has at the surface of the Sun.

Unless physics can prove that the Doppler Effect wavelength increase is in addition to that which occurs through the light traveling, then they have no irrefutable evidence. However, physics does propose that there is another source of redshift. It states that light increases in wavelength in a gravitational emission field. This is called the "gravitational redshift". As everything has a gravitational emission field which decreases in density with the distance from the source of the field, then the light emitted from everything decreases in wavelength with the distance from the object. The light emitted from galaxies and stars decreases in wavelength as a product of it traveling through space, because space is composed of the emission of objects and forms an emission field around those objects. Or, to put it more simply, cosmic redshift and gravitational redshift are one and the same thing.

Physics claims further evidence for its big bang theory. This involves the detection of the cosmic background microwave radiation, which it sees as being left over from the big bang. The cosmic background microwave radiation is, of course, representative of the groundstate fabric of space. Needless to say, the groundstate could not have a uniformity in its state of construction across the cosmic sky. For it to be uniform, would require the light from every galaxy and star to disperse as if was from one galaxy or star.

Hubble's assumption is wrong. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us and the Universe did not begin with a big bang.

Here's another shock for the physics establishment. You can't measure cosmic distance from the light emitted by objects such as galaxies or stars. More specifically, you can't distinguish between the distance of a galaxy or star and its brightness from the redshift of its light. Is a star of a given brightness far way relative to one less bright? Or are they both the same distance away and it's simply that one has less brightness because its younger? All the desire in the world to have a means for measuring cosmic distance will not change the situation.

Physics uses measured values called universal physical constants. As change is an inherent aspect of the Universe, physics should explain how these values can remain constant over extended space and time. It doesn't offer any such explanation. When Malcolm Longair concluded his demonstration of some of the constants of physics at Melbourne University, he stated that "One day physics might even understand why the constants have the values that they do". This was presented as if it was some great mystery of the Universe. The constants have the values that they do, in a particular space and time, for no other reason than that is the way in which they are measured, constructed from the emission fabric that is space within the context of impacting emission. If there were particles that were massless, as claimed by physics, then they would be matterless and made of nothing. As this is impossible, it's easy to see that the massless (matterless) status of these particles is not real and is merely an assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

Physics also claims that when two particular types of particle meet they destroy each other. This is put down to one particle being matter and the other being anti-matter, and offers no explanation of mechanism. I see the particles destroying each other through the density of their emission fields causing compression leading to explosion. In my science, an explanation of mechanism beats no explanation of mechanism every time. Also, for the mutual explosion to occur the particles would have to have equivalent levels of emission at the time of their explosion. How about two particles, of different levels of emission, being attracted through their absorption of emission and each attaining their maximum state of absorption and then exploding due to the compression from the density of the impacting emissions. Sounds good to me.

Another "mystery" of physics is called the wave/particle duality. Sometimes the emission called light is detected as a wave function and sometimes as a photon particle. As a particle is a fusion of emission, then the wave function must be un-fused emission. We can say the wave function is composed of particles smaller than the photon and is spread out, or dispersed, so that it's detected as a wave function. The greater the dispersion of the emission the greater the wavelength. I've notice that some physicists talk as if the wave function is more than the detection of emission as a wavelength. Even going so far as to claim that everything is composed of nothing more than (emission) waves. This is to commit the fallacy of misplace concreteness, or reification.

The abstractionist paradigm sees the Universe having inherent uncertainty. 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) 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 (matter by velocity), 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) At the ultra microscale the absorption/emission of the matter of the instrument with which you measure interacts with the absorption/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". The Universe would involve inherent uncertainty, if we were talking about that which is below the level of the groundstate of space. That is a region which is beyond our capacity to known and understand.

Within the abstractionist paradigm is Quantum theory. This is based on the observation that emission (energy) comes in discrete packets or "quanta", and not as an undifferentiated stream. Quantum theory does not ask how these quanta are made or construction. I see emission (energy) being constructed from the convergence of other quanta of lessor construction.

Just because the abstractionist paradigm is the basis of technology, doesn't mean that it's the ultimate means for understanding the Universe. It seems that for many practitioners of the abstractionist paradigm, making measurements and preforming mathematical equations can be an end in-itself and a substitute for logical thinking. We can say that their thinking has been confined by the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm.

The Universe is infinite in space and time, distance and duration. There are obviously an infinite number of things constructed by the process that is the Universe. There is an infinite number of galaxies and stars and planets and biology, etc. However, can there be an infinite number of types of things? If there were an infinite number of types of things, then there would be an infinite variety of things and not the types of things that we observe. We observe that galaxies and stars form types with the same characteristics. We observe that plants and animals also form types with the same characteristics. If you were to say that these types are merely a consequence of the way in which we humans are able to observe, the so called anthropic principle, then I would say that we're only able to understand the Universe as humans. And then there is the fact that we humans are a product of the process of the Universe, so it's entirely reasonable to assume that our observations are in accordance with the Universe: that they're objectively real.

Although the finite number of types of things would be an extremely large number, it leads to an extraordinary conclusion. Everything which can be constructed by the process that is the Universe, must exist/re-exist an infinite number of times in an infinite number of places in the Universe.

The Universe is a totally systematic materialist and connected process of absorption and emission, attraction and repulsion, construction and destruction, dispersion and explosion, division and integration, and evolution and development. Everything that can be constructed by the process exists within the parameters of the groundstate of space and the explosion of galaxies.

Cause and effect is not a simple one to one relationship, but a two to one relationship involving internal process and external impact giving rise to an effect. If the number of possible types of things is finite, then every type of thing can be represented by a number within a typology. As everything can be seen are part of an hierarchal structure of types from the most simple to the most complex, then this typology would take an hierarchical form. This in turn would involve dissymmetry. This materialist typology would constitute a paradigm that was both descriptive and predictive, and pertain to the whole of science. That part of physics which relates to the natural Universe, would be represented on such a paradigm. It would begin with the groundstate of space, and specify and so described the construction of everything. See the structure of numbers and arrows below. This is the materialist typology paradigm of science, and it predicts

that hydrogen has a fourth isotope (quadritium) which is the 4 at [2]. The other elements follow sequentially, as levels of construction. In time, the paradigm will be applied to all areas of science and determine the future course of our history.

Out there in the Universe there are an infinite number of people just like me typing this very sentence, in every sense of the past and the present and future. In this space that I presently occupy, an infinite number of beings have and will occupy the same space in different times. The Earth has formed and evolved and been destroyed an infinite number of times. You are not alone in the Universe. There are an infinite number of yourself out there. However, it's probably not a practical proposition to go out there and meet one or some of your other selves. Not only do you live an infinite number of times, but you do so in every possible social context that can be inflicted upon a human being. You should, as a matter of science, give consideration to those who live in oppressive contexts because that is you in at least some of those other spaces and times.

The meaning and purpose of existence is the realization of potential, within the context within which each thing exists. The potential of the Earth is realized within the context of its internal process and its external environment, which happens to include biological beings that presently call it home. The potential of an individual human is realized within the context of there individual biological inheritance and there particular social context. The meaning and purpose of the Universe, if we can call it that, is the realization of its construction possibilities. We are a realization of the construction possibilities of the Universe.

This essay demonstrates that if you take the results of some basic experiments and and observations and interpret them with a fundamental perspective and logical consistency, you can show that many of the assumptions and theories of physics are false, and discover profound things about the Universe for the very first time.

PS. Today is the 6th of March 2009. This morning I finally realized that the numbers down the center of the paradigm are subject to transposition, e.g. (1) in 3 <---- (1) becomes 3. Last night I had come to a dead end. I tried to change the direction of the arrows, but nothing worked. Convinced that the paradigm didn't work, I decided to confine the essay to just debunking physics. I thought I had failed, and removed all mention of the paradigm from the essay. I even removed the last five lines of the poem. These were replaced with: and I fell, to the ground, again.

This morning I thought how could it be possible that I couldn't invent the ultimate paradigm of science. I had come so far that the very idea was simply absurd. In a mind numbing quandary, I begun sketching on a piece a paper how to explain to someone the way the groundstate fluctuated. There were little circles with arrows pointing toward and then away from the circles representing the absorption and emission of a unit of the groudstate. Then all of a suddenly I realized that it was in front of me all the time. The center numbers transpose. I was back. The numbness in my brain dissipated. I immediately resurrected the original last five lines of the poem. Now I could say with full conviction that "the revolution is here". I could also relax in the knowledge that the paradigm and how it worked was out there and available for all to apply. I could pursue its application at a gentle pace, and continue to make extraordinary discoveries about our Universe. Would you believe that our solar system begun with twelve planets? Welcome to the future, one and all. We did it.