Hello from the land down under

My name is Stephen and I invented a Paradigm of Types which is presented in the essay “An Introduction to the Paradigm of Types through its application to Cosmology and Biology”.
The essay is located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/ts.pdf
The Paradigm is a logic structure which generates conclusions which are effectively scientific facts.
Due to its fundamental and complete nature, the Paradigm allows us to look backward and forward in time.
Of particular interest is the conclusion/fact that biogenesis (the creation of Biology) involves 16 individual chemicals within a complex chemical combination.
This should once and for all put an end to the nonsense about the Universe requiring a god to create Biology.
The Paradigm represents something of a Paradigm Shift revolution, particularly in the area of Cosmology.
Welcome to the scientific revolution that is the Paradigm of Types.
paradigm

Welcome, Paradigm. I’ve had the same opinion about the origin of reproducing compounds, i.e., life for the past sixty years, Water, a few ribonucleic acids, a few amino acids, a huge reservoir of the oceans containing them and a constant supply of energy from the sun, volcanic action, and electrical storms, and one is bound to generate the required compounds.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t get your essay to download. Possibly the .pdf is too complex for my ancient computer.
Occam

:wow:


Of particular interest is the conclusion/fact that biogenesis (the creation of Biology) involves 16 individual chemicals within a complex chemical combination.

Now that's some interesting stuff. I'm a lay-person, but I do know a little about the evolution of minerals on this planet and that biology was a much bigger partner in the mineral cornucopia we have on Earth than most suspect. So much to learn… what do you have to share? Looking forward to hearing more. For what it's worth I've read… eer listened (multiple times) , to a couple of Robert M Hazen's books

Hmmm, took the link, took another link…

Given the absorption and emission process or mechanism, the space between bodies is composed of the emission of bodies and is not a vacuum as was sometimes assumed by Physics. The emission of a body forms a field around the body. Absorption and emission is via this field, which falls-off in density with the distance from the body. An emission field and a gravity field are one and the same thing.
We do project a lot of what we want to see... Perhaps, I jumped the gun. I'm not ready to reorder the fundamental laws of physics, {I'm satisfied with what much greater minds than I have resolved}… and that's sort of… kinda what i get out of what I'm looking at, at home.spin
It’s assumed by Physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth would have been less in the time of the Dinosaurs than it is now. The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can only be explained by the increasing density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.

One day I’m confident that the Paradigm of Types is what it purports to be. The next day I’m not so sure. I pursued its application with an open mind and was always surprised when the extraordinary conclusions emerged. However, I’m completely confident about the law of the stability of matter and the law of attraction. The Universe is more dynamic than that presented by the abstractionist Paradigm called Physics. For example, as a solar system within a spiral galaxy is attracted towards the core of the galaxy the density of the impacting emission increases. The same applies to a planet. As a planet is attracted towards a central star, due to the increasing emission of the central star, the density of the impacting emission increases. There is no question that the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission.

Occam, I’ve located my essay as a word document which you should be able to down load. Try http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/ts.docx.
paradigm

I couldn’t connect with it either. I’m guessing that I wouldn’t understand it if I did. So Stephen, a question occurs to me based on the clip in CC’s post.
In layperson speak, could you explain the evidence for “emissions from the sun” increasing the Earth’s gravity?

Occam, the following is taken from my essay, “A Physicalist Perspective of the Fundamental nature of the Universe".
In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed an anomalous rotation in Foucault’s Pendulum, in that it moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the “Allais Effect". When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission/gravity field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The slight reduction in the density of the emission/gravity field of the Earth, results in less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster. This demonstrated that gravity can be partially shielded. If you want assistance with obtaining a high or long jump record you should do it at aphelion, around the 4th of July when the Earth is at its furthest point from the Sun, and during a solar eclipse.
The original torsion balance experiment to determine what Physics calls the universal gravity constant, designated with a G, was conducted by Henry Cavendish and published in Philosophical Transactions of 1798. Cavendish discovered that heating one of the bodies on the balance resulted in repulsion: “… the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before moved forward". This contradicts what Physics believes about gravity.
The bodies used on a Cavendish torsion balance vary in their quantity of matter between different apparatus. The absorption of emission between the two bodies occurs while they are absorbing emission from their surroundings. This accounts for the relatively consistent rate of attraction between the bodies.
For Albert Einstein, gravity was seen as caused by curved or warped space. This idea works because curved or warped space equates with the increase in density of the emission/gravity field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.
The occurrence of the emission from a distance galaxy or star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is a case of particles being deflected (attracted) by absorbing emission from an emission/gravity field. This is the same process as an electron being deflected within an electromagnetic emission field.
As the gravity of a body is the result of the absorption of its emission, it’s not possible for a star to collapse under the increase in its own gravity (emission) and form a blackhole. The blackhole theory was based on seeing gravity as caused by matter, in-and-of-itself, with the absence of an adequate explanation for its cause.
With the Earth being attracted to the Sun through absorbing its emission via the Earth’s emission/gravity field, part of this emission could reach the inner most core of the Earth. The inner most core could be a dissymmetrical duality. This could involve one large and one small state of matter, and could see the emission/gravity field being generated from this duality. As one part increases in matter through absorption exceeding emission, the other would decrease in matter through emission exceeding absorption. As one attains a state of maximum absorption the other attains a state of maximum emission. The process of absorption and emission then reserves, accounting for the reversing of the magnetic poles of the Earth. The same mechanism could apply to the Sun with its eleven year cycle of the reversal of it magnetic field.
A planet can be seen as a state of absorption exceeding emission, whereas a star can be seen as state of emission exceeding absorption. The attraction between two stars would be much less than that between a star and a planet, because stars would absorb much less emission than planets. Physics presently sees gravity as always proportional to the quantity of matter of a body, and so sees the attraction between two stars as greater than that between a planet and a star. The quantity of matter of bodies is allocated by Physics with their abstractionist procedure to make Newton’s universal law of gravity work. It’s simply not possible to determine the actual quantity of matter of a planet or a star.
Stars obviously contain a very large quantity of matter. Binary stars are a clear example of the weak attraction of bodies whose emission exceeds absorption. The two stars absorb emission from each other and from the surrounding environment of emission. One balances the other, keeping them in orbit around a central point. If the stars where attracted to each other simply as a consequence of their quantity of matter, then they would be drawn together completely.
There was an experiment conducted by one Don Kelly which demonstrated that “A special arrangement of magnets and coils fell slower in drop experiments when the special coils were energized." (New Energy News, Vol. 5, No. 7, Nov. 1997) The results of these experiments demonstrate that the greater the emission of a body the less the absorption capacity. Newton’s universal law of gravity doesn’t reflect this reality. The universal law of attraction should state that “all bodies are attracted through the absorption of emission, with the greater the emission of a body the less its absorption capacity."
It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Physics claims that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth and the moving away of the Moon derived from a tidal bulge in the Earth due to its attraction of the Moon. It also claims 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. This could only occur if the angular momentum (rotation) of the Earth was responsible for holding the Moon in orbit. It’s not. What holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and stops it from crashing into the Earth, is it’s absorption of emission from the Sun counter-balancing its absorption of emission from the Earth. Only by the density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun increasing and/or the density of emission/gravity field of the Earth decreasing can we account for the Moon moving away from the Earth.
The 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 which are further from the planets still have rotation. The satellites which are close to the planet are subject to the greater density of the emission/gravity field of the planet than those which are further away.
The advance in the perihelion of Mercury (precession) can only be explained by the increasing density of the emission/gravity field of the Sun. This sees Mercury remain in close contact at perihelion with the Sun a little longer during each orbit.
It’s assumed by Physics that the gravity of the Earth has remained the same over time. However, as the Earth absorbs the emission from the Sun to a greater extent than it emits, its quantity of matter and the extent of its emission must have increased over time. This means that the gravity of the Earth would have been less in the past than it is now.
paradigm

Just in case Stephen had a dropped connection. Allow me:
I couldn't connect with it either. I'm guessing that I wouldn't understand it if I did. So Stephen, a question occurs to me based on the clip in CC's post. In layperson speak, could you explain the evidence for "emissions from the sun" increasing the Earth's gravity?
:smirk:
OK never mind guess he did explain it
This idea works because curved or warped space equates with the increase in density of the emission/gravity field of a body with the decrease in the distance from the body.

What is your scientific background, paradigm? Did you study physics or astronomy at a university?

As I made clear in my essay, I’m a Physicalist Philosopher who investigated Physics and came to the conclusion that it’s an abstractionist Paradigm that’s not truly fundamental. Seeing electrostatic attraction as the result of dislike charges is not truly fundamental. Of course, if you have a religious belief in measurements and mathematics then understanding the real physical nature of the Universe will not have any interest for you. In case you do not have pdf capability, I will post the essay as a word document for a brief time. See: http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/time.docx
paradigm

As I made clear in my essay, I’m a Physicalist Philosopher who investigated Physics and came to the conclusion that it’s an abstractionist Paradigm that’s not truly fundamental. Seeing electrostatic attraction as the result of dislike charges is not truly fundamental. Of course, if you have a religious belief in measurements and mathematics then understanding the real physical nature of the Universe will not have any interest for you. In case you do not have pdf capability, I will post the essay as a word document for a brief time. See: http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/time.docx paradigm
That explains so much! Lois
As I made clear in my essay, I’m a Physicalist Philosopher who investigated Physics and came to the conclusion that it’s an abstractionist Paradigm that’s not truly fundamental. Seeing electrostatic attraction as the result of dislike charges is not truly fundamental. Of course, if you have a religious belief in measurements and mathematics then understanding the real physical nature of the Universe will not have any interest for you. In case you do not have pdf capability, I will post the essay as a word document for a brief time. See: http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/time.docx paradigm
Like Lois said, you've shown your cards and they don't stack up. Every once and awhile someone will pop in to CFI forum claiming they solved "the problem of everything". They usually do just like you did, set themselves up for no possibility of error. You did this when you stated "if you have a religious belief in...(they usual way of looking at things)..." That puts you right in with the looney tunes. I suggest if you're serious, submit your work to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and see what comes of it. Of course since you've already set yourself up to dismiss all criticism (that journal 'has a religious belief...') then basically you've failed. You gotta have proof that holds up to scrutiny even by those you feel have no clue.

The point is that “my cards do stack up". The Physics journals are, without exception, devoted to the abstractionist Paradigm. They assume that their perspective is truly fundamental, when it’s not. The idea that all attraction from the microscale to the macroscale is caused by the absorption of emission is truly fundamental and challenges many of the cherished beliefs of the practitioners of the abstractionist Paradigm.
paradigm

A researcher by the name of Duncan Shaw has just sent me notice of his essay on the cause of gravity which appears in Physics Essays: The Cause of Gravity: A Concept, Phys. Essays 25, 66 (2012)
This essay states the following: “The concept posits that aether flows from space into cosmic bodies and, at the same time, aether or its constituent particles, collectively ‘‘aether,’’ is expelled out of cosmic bodies into space. The movement of aether exerts ram pressure on any matter in its path. The ram pressure exerted by aether that flows into cosmic bodies is greater than the ram pressure produced by aether that is expelled into space. The difference between incoming and outgoing ram pressure is the force of gravity." The essay then concludes that “…as aether moves toward the Sun, it encounters the planets en route, pushing them in the direction of the Sun."
I don’t agree that gravity is a push. However, the concept of aether is not far removed from my concept of the emission of bodies.
paradigm

As I made clear in my essay, I’m a Physicalist Philosopher who investigated Physics
No. You are a numerologist. From you pdf:
Today our solar system has 8 planets, 4 are solid and 4 are gas, and given the other matter in the solar system. It’s clear that 3 planets have been destroyed through being drawn toward the Sun via its increasing gravity. In the past the Earth would have been the 6th planet from the edge of the solar system and the 6th from the central star: the middle planet.

There are 181 known natural satellites (moons) within the solar system. On the Paradigm at level [25] there is (11)  169  326. With 11 with the identity of a solar system the numbers would have the identity of the minimum and maximum number of natural satellites within a solar system.

The number 7 appears at levels [3] and [4], the number 9 at [5], and the number 13 at [6] on the Paradigm of Types. With 7 and 9 having the identity of the number of types of Archaea and Bacteria, 13 would have the identity of the number of types of Eukaryotes. This leaves 3 Eukaryote types not accounted for in the RNA data. These 3 Eukaryote types must exist within the finite possibilities of the Universe.

Numerology is defined as “any belief in the purported divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding event."
The numbers of the Paradigm of Types relate to actual physics things in relation to them being a type within the finite construction possibilities of the Universe. It’s fact that there are 7 types of stars. Since writing the essay I’ve discovered that the spectral signature of stars has 7 types. A reference has now been included in the essay.
Due to its fundamental and complete nature, the Paradigm of Types goes beyond that which is known to identify that this with is unknown and even unknowable by conventional science methodology.
paradigm

In response to the question of how do I know that all solar systems begin with 11 planets, my answer would be that the Paradigm is logically consistent. However, for those who are not of a logical mind we can say that all solar systems begin with 11 Planets if stars have 7 types and construct the elements, galaxies have 4 basic types with spiral galaxies having 2 types in the form of barred and non-barred types, that the regular elements number 92, that Archea have 7 types and Bacteria have 9 types as indicated with the RNA data, and that my two universal laws of Physics (which are derived from observation) are all scientific facts. They’re all scientific facts, therefore, all solar systems begin with 11 planets. You could say that the Paradigm represents the way in which the Universe adds-up through the construction of increasingly complex types.
paradigm

An excellent example of circular reasoning.

In response to the question of how do I know that all solar systems begin with 11 planets, my answer would be that the Paradigm is logically consistent. However, for those who are not of a logical mind we can say that all solar systems begin with 11 Planets if stars have 7 types and construct the elements, galaxies have 4 basic types with spiral galaxies having 2 types in the form of barred and non-barred types, that the regular elements number 92, that Archea have 7 types and Bacteria have 9 types as indicated with the RNA data, and that my two universal laws of Physics (which are derived from observation) are all scientific facts. They’re all scientific facts, therefore, all solar systems begin with 11 planets. You could say that the Paradigm represents the way in which the Universe adds-up through the construction of increasingly complex types. paradigm
Time for some Twilight Zone music. Con brio.