Debunking Physics

This story is derived from the essay An Infinite Moment of Time. The essay presents the logic structure that is the paradigm of science,and islocated at: On my method to inventing the paradigm I explored physics through the desire to understand how the Universe worked, and the location of Humans within the scheme of things. two of my little preconceptions was the belief that the course of Person evolution has seen a steady improvement in knowledge and understanding. Im also a determinist, in that I look everything as being the effect of a cause which in turn is the cause of another effect. The system that things can happen without a cause, is nonsense.

The large bang theory was an exact cause for me to explore physics. I thought it basically absurd to ponder that there should be a time prior to 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. Another preconception that I brought to my exploration of physics was materialism.

I mean that it the philosophical sense of seeing everything as being created of a substance that we call matter. Physics, when not talking about time like a dimension, is always talking about an item they call energy. I recall an academic once saying that the concept of life was one that you couldnt definitely explain but had to look in some mystical sense. Like a materialist I wasnt possessing any of that mystical stuff. Albert Einsteins well-known equation, E=mc2, didnt convince me about this life concept.

For me, all that it was saying is that life is reason in motion and that it shall be detected or measured with instruments. I also reject the system of mass being something that is different to matter, provided that even physics defines reason as The substance of which the physical Universe is composed. The implication within this definition that there should be a non-physical Universe I place below to a lack of rigorous thinking. As distant as Im concerned, the Universe is totally physical and totally composed of matter. To deal together with the whole of physics I categorize it in a method that represented its fundamental approach and perspective.

This approach and perspective shall be called a paradigm. Physics is a paradigm. This paradigm is characterized by the use of mathematics and measurements. Mathematics is abstractionist, and measuring things shall also be abstractionist in that the thing you measure not ever definitely becomes the measurement. Like a consequence of its reliance upon mathematics and measurements, I categorized physics as an abstractionist paradigm.

Physicists are, therefore, practitioners regarding the abstractionist paradigm. With its reliance upon mathematics and measurements, the abstractionist paradigm is not a truly fundamental perspective. I accept all scientific evidence. However, I interpret all evidence in accordance with a truly fundamental and materialist and logical scientific perspective. Whether you need to understand everything in a totally connected and consistent manner, you need to establish the greatest fundamental position that shall be obtained.

A position that is so fundamental that it covers all the disciplines of science. As evidence is the central concept of science, what is evidence? We have knowledge of the Universe through observation, and we interpret that observation with a perspective that we have neither acquired or invented ourselves. To trust that observation is, in and of itself, evidence, is naive realism. Evidence is the greatest interpretation, or explanation, of observation. Whether you have knowledge of the greatest explanation in one region of observation, then through logical consistency you can generate explanations in other parts that have scientific validity without the need for distant observation.

Whether you trust that science can only involve those things which shall be measured or directly observed, then you should not proceed beyond this point. I suggest you leave distant and measure something. Gravity is the fundamental force regarding the Universe. Isaac Newton conceived of gravity as being proportional to the sum regarding the masses and inversely proportional to the square regarding 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 due to the fact that once repeatedly no explanation of a fabric cause is contained within the system of curved space. The final 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 shall also be inadequate.

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 hold 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 distant reaching ramifications.

The 3 nuclear forces, the electrostatic force, and gravity have the similar to mechanism. Establishment physics sees these forces as separate. Establishment Physics is wrong. Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest likely galaxy absorbs and emits what shall be described as emission or radiation or life or light. What is assumed to be empty space is composed regarding the emission radiation or life or light of everything.

Emission travels through interaction with emission, and shall be detected as wavelengths. These wavelengths are constructed through the convergence of different grades 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 fewer density, then the result shall be an increase in wavelength.

From the perspective regarding the Earth, this sees the detection regarding the increasing wavelengths regarding the emission from galaxies and stars. The abstractionist paradigm, by method 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 shall be detected as most a particle a photon and a wave is inexplicable. However, this dual nature is resolved once you look a wave of emission as composed of dispersing or de-constructing particles and a particle like a fusion or construction of emission that is created of reason and as possessing an emission field. If a photon was not created of reason then it should not leave an impression upon a screen when projected towards the screen.

The system that emission light is massless matterless is not an information but a mistaken assumption regarding the abstractionist paradigm. We not ever look through an otherwise empty space. We look with space within the sense regarding the emission of objects, within the shape of their image, traveling through the emission that is space and impacting upon our retinas and being processed by our brains. The system that the space between us couldnt be composed of reason definitely dispersed reason due to the fact that we wouldnt be can look through it, is another example of naive realism. As emission travels through interaction absorption and emission with emission, its velocity is relative to the density regarding the emission through which it travels.

It should not possibly hold an exact velocity throughout the Universe as claimed by physics. Physics sees emission light travelling through space like a vacuum. Space is not a vacuum. Whether you measured the velocity of emission at a distance above the surface regarding the Earth, where the emission field is fewer dense than at the surface, it should be greater than at the surface. The fact that the difference should be very mini and not readily measureable is beside the point.

Emission travelling from the Earth to the Moon should increase in velocity as it left the Earth and at the mid-point of their emission fields it should begin to slow below as it approached the Moon. Its merely an assumption on the component regarding the abstractionist paradigm that the velocity of light is universally constant. The abstractionist paradigm has an inadequate understanding of how emission travels. The measurement called a light year, has no scientific validity. The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission regarding the Sun via the Earths emission gravitational field.

Component regarding the emission absorbed by the Earth's emission field reaches its core and maintains the cores active state. In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed that a pendulum moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has grow to known as the Allais Effect, and was unexplained by physics. When the Moon is in front regarding the Sun it blocks component regarding the emission gravitational field regarding the Sun resulting in fewer absorption of emission by the emission field regarding the Earth. This slight reduction within the density regarding the emission gravitational field, conclusions in fewer downward attraction regarding the pendulum allowing it to swing faster.

The gravity regarding the Earth should also be reduced when it's at its farthest distance from the Sun during its yearly orbit. Whether you wanted a gravity assist in obtaining an above or long jump record, do it when the Earth is at aphelion on the 3rd of July and during a solar eclipse. It was observed that the rotation regarding the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Establishment physics claims that the decrease within the rotation regarding the Earth and the moving distant regarding the Moon derives from a tidal bulge within the Earth. Its 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 method that the decrease within the rotation regarding the Earth the loss of angular momentum should cause the Moon to move distant should be if the rotation regarding the Earth was responsible for the Moon's distance from the Earth within first place; that is not the case. Is the Moon moving distant from the Earth due to a decrease within the density regarding the Earths gravitational field? Is it due to an increase within the density regarding the gravitational field regarding the Sun? Is it due to a decrease within the density regarding the Moons gravitational field? Establishment physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration and not merely uniform motion. However, it offers no explanation for howcome this should be the case. Together with the absorption of emission explanation, absorption leads to increased reason that conclusions in increased absorption capacity, and its 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 returns about. I decided that rubbing the glass rod increased the emission regarding the rod and that this emission was absorbed by the pith ball resulting within the attraction. If the glass rod were not rubbed, it should still have emission and should 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, such that as an explanation its more fundamental and superior to that offered by establishment physics.

Its no mere coincidence that the formula for gravity takes the similar to shape 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 returns about is place forward. Here I decided that like charges involves equivalent grades of emission, and that objects of equivalent emission repel each other by pushing distant from each other via this equivalence of emission.

Someone had to, provided the obsession that establishment physics has with measurements. This leads to the conclusion that only objects of inequivalent emission shall be subject to attraction. It was from this foundation that I realized that everything is neither a state of absorption exceeding emission, or of emission exceeding absorption. They can be neither increasing or decreasing in reason and neither increasing or decreasing in emission. The system of static, inert reason has no component to play in explaining the dynamic nature regarding 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 reason over time, through the absorption of emission, and this sees its emission increasing over time. Like a consequence, the gravitational field regarding the Earth increases in density over time. The physics mistakenly sees gravity as being uniform over time. Within the time regarding the Dinosaurs gravity should have been fewer than it is now.

The Moons movement distant from the Earth cant be accounted for by a decrease within the density regarding the Earths gravitational field. Equally, it cant be accounted for by a decrease within the density regarding the Moons gravitational field. The only likely explanation is that the emission regarding the Sun is increasing and exerting a greater attraction over the Moon relative to that regarding the Earth. The rate of rotation regarding the Earth is decreasing. Increased gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Sun, due to the increase within the emission regarding the Earth and the Sun, accounts for the decrease within the rotation regarding the Earth.

This should possibly be seen as caused by inertia. Establishment physics defines inertia as the property of a body, proportional to its mass, which opposes a change within the motion regarding the body. Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1995 You can notice that inertia is presented like a magical property of matter. Physics offers no explanation regarding 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 regarding the Earth opposes a change in its motion due to gravity attracting the body downwards. The mechanism of inertia is, therefore, the similar to as the mechanism of gravity, i. the absorption of emission. Peter Gribbin, in his Companion to 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. Establishment physics sees the Sun beginning through the accumulation of reason attaining critical mass and igniting. Apart from mini variations in its emission due to such things as Sun spot activity, establishment physics sees the Sun's emission remaining uniform over time. The emission regarding the Sun has steadily increased while its reason has steadily decreased, and its gravitational attraction capacity has increased. This stands in contradiction to the abstractionist paradigm that should speak a decrease in reason mass should result in a decrease in gravitational attraction.

Its my theory that stars and planets involve 3 stages of development. First stage entails absorption exceeding emission and the construction regarding the elements from a base of Hydrogen. This first stage sees stars take the shape of a solid planet. This is followed by the star or planet attaining critical mass at its core and igniting into a 2nd stage of emission exceeding absorption where the constructed reason is consumed within the process regarding the star. 2nd stage stars end with dissipation.

First stage stars can explode through the impacting emission increasing to the spot of precipitating a nuclear explosion. Its basically not likely for neither a first or 2nd stage star a planet or a star to collapse below the increase in its own emission gravity and shape 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 done absence of an explanation regarding the mechanism regarding the cause. The exchange of gravitons theory was an attempt to release gravity a mechanism of cause.

The 3 stages of a star theory was derived from the realization that compression cant be applied to a body that is a state of emission exceeding absorption, and as the bursts of gamma radiation wanted to be accounted for that lead to the 3 stage theory. So, the bursts of gamma radiation detected from all directions within the cosmic sky are first stage stars exploding due to the increasing density regarding the impacting emission. A reason that distant demonstrates the inadequacy regarding the physics establishment involves the variability within the rate of atomic decay. An experiment conducted by J. Keating in 1971, measured the rate of decay of 3 identical atomic clocks.

This involved placing one clock on the surface regarding the Earth and the other in an airplane above the Earth. The clock within the airplane ran faster than the clock on the surface regarding the Earth. The clock within the airplane was subject to fewer density of impacting emission than the clock on the surface regarding 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 regarding the impacting emission, that is a fundamental law regarding the Universe.

Establishment physics interprets this experiment as demonstrating the variability in time, due to the fact that they look time as an independent dimension and space as empty. Time is the measurement of duration and or or the process of real fabric 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. Relativity theory sees the Hafele-Keating experiment in terms regarding the difference within the time regarding the 3 clocks as being due solely to gravitation and kinematic effects.

However, it also claims that the difference is due to the velocity regarding the airplane: If the speeds were greater, the relative effect should be greater also. Then, it finally clarifies the situation 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 regarding the planes velocity. Edwin Jones and Richard Childers, Contemporary College Physics, 1993 The difference within the time regarding the 3 clocks is due solely to the emission gravitational field being fewer dense above the surface relative to at the surface, and has nothing to do together with the velocity regarding the airplane. The system 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 regarding the Universe. Jere Jenkins, the Director regarding the Radiation Science department at Purdue University, has observed that the rate of atomic decay varies together with the yearly orbit regarding the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest spot from the Sun aphelion, the rate of atomic decay is increased. Its obvious that this occurs due to the fact that the density regarding the impacting emission is decreased. This observed fact stands in contradiction to the establishment physics system 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 distant from our solar system should 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 display 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 such 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 system of universal constants is wrong.

Just due to the fact that you measure some specific thing on Earth at an exact time, does means that the conclusions of that measurement shall 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 higher than electrostatic gravitational attraction. But, as the absorption and emission regarding the objects on the torsion balance is relative to the density of emission impacting upon the Earth, their attraction shall be seen like a measure regarding the gravity regarding the Earth at that time. Many regarding the units of measurements of physics are neither arbitrarily defined, or are based on the assumption that the thing to which they relate does not change over time. Whether you take time as being defined by the rotation regarding the Earth, then as the rotation regarding the Earth is decreasing the length of a day in increasing.

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. The nuclear force is definitely the nuclear fusion process of construction, which entails the absorption of emission within a context regarding the increasing density of impacting emission. This involves the movement that conclusions from attraction. Nuclear fusion as the process of construction is the fundamental force within the Universe, and is specified in absolute detail together with the paradigm of science. Global warming like a lime home effect is connected to gravity through the increasing density regarding the gravitational field regarding the Earth.

The atmosphere regarding the Earth is retained by the Earth through the atmospheres interaction together with the gravitational field regarding the Earth. The atmosphere doesnt just hang there by magic. As the density regarding the gravitational field increases, the density regarding the atmosphere increases. However, as the increase within the density regarding the gravitational field occurs over extended period of time, it cant be possessing a significant impact upon the present rate of increase within the average heat regarding the Earth. As our solar system exists within the Milky Method galaxy, its subject to attraction through the absorption of emission within the galaxy.

This should impact upon the density regarding the emission within the solar system and the density regarding the gravitational field regarding the Earth. The physics establishment is not even aware that the Milky Method Galaxy has a direct impact upon the solar system and the Earth, through the galaxies emission being absorbed by the solar system. 3 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 reason and anti-matter. The existence of anti-matter is a myth regarding the abstractionist paradigm.

I ponder they acquired the system from a science fiction movie. Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to planets and stars, hold a dissymmetrical duality at their cores. This involves one huge and one mini state of matter. The gravitational field regarding the Earth is generated from a dissymmetrical duality at its core. As one component regarding the duality increases in matter, the other decreases in matter.

As the huge 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 standard reversing regarding the magnetic poles regarding the Earth. The fact that particles created from collisions in particle accelerators always take a curved path shall be accounted for by the dissymmetrical duality imbalance at their cores. Establishment physics offers no explanation for this curved path phenomena. 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 likely explanation is that the electrons absorb emission from the electromagnetic emission field and are deflected within the sense of attraction in accordance together with the density regarding the field. Physics claims that the wavelength of an electron is determined by its momentum, and that electrons in higher orbits display contraction due to their smaller wavelengths. The wavelength of an electron is determined by the extent of its emission that is determined by the density regarding the impacting emission. Electrons in higher orbits are subject to fewer density of impacting emission and hence hold a higher orbital velocity and decreased wavelengths like a consequence. Together with the abstractionist paradigm they tend to obtain cause and effect return to front due to the fact that they failed to correctly interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment and apply it to the totality of atomic structure.

The well known phenomena regarding the emission light from a distance star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our spot of observation, gravitational lensing, shall also be a case of particles being deflected by absorbing emission from an emission field. The orbit of a planet around the Sun shall be accounted for by its absorption of emission from the Sun and other planets via its emission field, and its orbital motion. The advance within the perihelion of Mercury shall be explained by the increase within the reason of Mercury during each orbit around the Sun. This increase in reason conclusions in an increase within the density of its gravitational field which sees it remain in close contact at perihelion together with the Sun little detailed during each orbit. This advance within the perihelion, also known as orbital precession, should apply to all the planets.

This also explains howcome the orbits regarding the planets are elliptical and not circular. Rotation is an inherent aspect regarding the Universe, be it the rotation of a particle a planet a star or a galaxy. An lone particle is a process of absorption and emission and is in a state of imbalance due to the dissymmetrical duality of its core. Like a consequence an lone particle should rotate, vibrate, and pulsate. We can look reason as created of particles, which in turn are created of sub-particles.

These particles are bound through the absorption of emission within a context of impacting emission. We can look this emission in turn as being created of even smaller particles all the method below to the smallest likely particle within the Universe. However, even this smallest likely particle should absorb and emit and thus exist within a context of emission that is groundstate regarding the Universe. How can you distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the spot 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 together with the dispersing emission called empty space? Its all nonsense; an exceedingly huge fantasy collusion. The desire to measure cosmic distance over-rides any rational consideration regarding the actual dynamic nature regarding the Universe.

You cannot distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the spot of observation. The only method of measuring cosmic distance is through triangulation. For measurements beyond our solar system, the result shall always be a very long way. Whether you measure a wavelength within the emission from a star that corresponds to that of an element, does this indicate the presence of that element within the star? As emission is constructed into wavelengths as it travels, it can have the similar to spectral signature regarding the emission of an element but does not indicate the presence of that element within the star. The spectral signature is the emission symmetry regarding the emission regarding the element.

The only method the emission from a star should represent the presence of an element should be if it didnt change in wavelength as it travelled towards the Earth, that is basically impossible. There is an region regarding the abstractionist paradigm called Quantum theory. This is really an observation and not a theory. It's based on the fact that life emission returns in discrete packets or quanta, and not as an undifferentiated stream. Quantum physicists not ever 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 grades of emission. Uncertainty is seen by physics as an inherent aspect regarding the Universe. This is presented together 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 shall be simultaneously known. Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1995 If something is in a static position then it does not hold 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 method that most factors should be known to any position of precision simultaneously should be if the particle does not hold a static position but is, in fact, moving at some velocity in an exact direction. Physics claims that the inherent uncertainty also relates to the quantum, or ultra microscale, and that it has nothing to do together with the ability or inability of our instruments to make accurate measurements. Peter Gribbin, Companion to the Cosmos, 1996 At the ultra microscale the absorption and emission regarding the reason regarding the instrument with which you measure interacts together with the absorption and emission of that that is being measured. If what you were measuring was a wavelength, then this should entail the reason regarding the measurement instrument absorbing some regarding the emission regarding the wave causing it to collapse to a decreased state of construction. This is usually referred to as the collapse regarding the wave function.

An experiment which uses what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate and a many isotopes of an exact element, has a result that cant be explained by the abstractionist paradigm. The experiment sees about 1/2 the isotopes within the condensate at first repel each other. This should 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 regarding the field is increased even distant around 1/2 the isotopes suddenly disappear in a flash of emission. The increasing strength regarding the magnetic field is equivalent to the increasing density of impacting emission acting as compression and causing the isotopes to de-construct explode return into the emission from which they were constructed. Being locked into a paradigm of limited capacity can waste time, cash and effort. Physics has wasted all 3 by building instruments to detect and measure gravity waves. Gravity waves and emission waves are one and the similar to thing.

When you observe and measure the emission regarding the Sun, you can be detecting and measuring its gravity waves. The system of nuclear fusion reactors to obtain free life is another misbegotten system regarding the abstractionist paradigm. The electromagnet field that is used to contain the process definitely fuels the process through its emission being absorbed by the process. You can not ever get out higher than you place in. Another waste of time by establishment physics relates to trying to discover what they call missing dark matter.

They look this dark reason as being compulsory to account to the macro-structure regarding the Universe. There is no missing dark matter. The emission that is space the dark reason extends to grades distant below that which constitutes the visible light component regarding the spectrum, and all the method below to the groundstate at the ultra microscale. The establishment physics system regarding the large bang beginning regarding 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 similar to thing. The physics establishment is prepared to accept that the red shift within the emission from our Sun is due to its emission gravitational field and yet claims that the red shift within the emission from galaxies is not due to their emission field. Were asked to trust that galaxies dont have emission gravitational fields, that they dont have emission light at all, and that they dont exist and should 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 should be ablaze together with the emission called light. This is known as Olbers Paradox, and is resolved together with the fact regarding the dispersion regarding the emission called light. Background microwave radiation was detected within the cosmic sky, and this is claimed to be left over from the large bang and as evidence supporting the large bang theory. The background microwave radiation is merely indicative regarding the maximum dispersion of emission as the groundstate of emission at the ultra microscale In 1929 a tired light theory was place forward the Swiss Astronomer Fritz Zwicky, to account for the red shift within the light from galaxies.

This theory is in essence correct. It was rejected in favor of Edwin Hubbles 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 related to the Universe. The large bang theory is right up there together with the Flat Earth theory, and the Earth being the centre regarding the solar system theory. The Universe did not begin with a large bang. The Universe did not begin; its infinite in space and time and is a process regarding the construction and evolution of everything, within Humans.

Consequently there exists obviously an infinite many things within the Universe, if there were an infinite many variations of things then there should be infinite variability. We not ever observe infinite variability. We observe that things shape discrete types. Should it be that the categories we observe are merely an things regarding the method in which we Humans are can look the Universe? Good question. We Humans are an example regarding the construction possibilities regarding the Universe, therefore, its reasonable to assume that our capacity to observe the Universe is in accordance together with the Universe and that the categories we observe definitely exist.

The fact that an exceedingly huge no. should represent the finite many variations of things that shall be constructed is irrelevant. is finite, anything that can exist should exist an infinite many times and do so in every moment of time. Provided that infinite existence is the large appeal of religion, the fact that infinite existence is a provided fact of existence should be the final nail within the coffin of religion. The abstractionist paradigm is a conceptual structure built from interconnected assumptions and theories and inconsistency.

When little of these assumptions and theories are debunked, and its inconsistency is exposed, the whole home of cards begins to collapse. The failure by physics to correctly interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment was clearly a primary mistake. But the biggest mistake was in thinking that mathematics and measurements, in and of themselves, represented a truly fundamental approach to understanding the Universe.