Hello from the land down under

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
But see, there you go again...here's you: Everybody who could possibly prove me wrong is operating under a delusion, therefore they can't prove me wrong. Ok, so how do we know you're correct? What are your solid predictions about the physical universe that result from your theories? And please, nothing about the number of planets or some macro observation that borders on numerology. Give us something specific. ACTUALLY: I take that all back. Point us to a website, forum, whatever, where you've submitted your ideas to peer review, your own peers that is. There's a bunch of smart people on CFI but I think you're the only abstractionalist whatamacallit. So count us as not qualified to judge. So point us to someplace where other whatchamacallits have peer reviewed your work. Thanks.

I consider a “peer" anyone who is able to think rationally and logically. However, I’ve just brought my essays to the attention of a couple of Physics journals and a Sceptics journal; I’m waiting to hear back from them.
paradigm

I will leave you with this summary to consider: the Paradigm of Types is a representation of the construction and the absorption and emission of sub-atomic and atomic particles within which every construction across Cosmology and Biology is represented as a type. Just as the Universe exists prior to our discovery of all of its details, the Paradigm of Types exists prior to its detailed application.
paradigm

I consider a “peer" anyone who is able to think rationally and logically. However, I’ve just brought my essays to the attention of a couple of Physics journals and a Sceptics journal; I’m waiting to hear back from them. paradigm
Ok good, we'll see what reception you get. Until then, is your PoT something that would have physical consequences in the real universe? Does it make specific predictions that can be measured?

At this stage in the application of the Paradigm of Types it predicts the existence of three new transuranium elements. However, the Paradigm also predicts that if I hold my pen above my desk and then release it, it will be attracted to my desk through the absorption of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The point is that the Paradigm is a more fundamental explanation of the attractions which underpin the nuclear and gravity forces. You are making the simple mistake of trying to compare the Paradigm of Types with the abstractionist Paradigm that is Physics. Of course, you could try doing what Cavendish did with the measurement of the gravitational constant G. Heat one of the bodies on the torsion balance and measure the change in the attraction that results. The abstractionist Paradigm that is Physics works fine within the relatively stable context which is the present state in which the Earth exists. There is no absolute stability because the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission. It’s truly amazing that you could read my Physicalist Perspective essay and simply ignore everything that was presented. The only explanation would be your unquestioning commitment to the less than fundamental explanations put forward by the abstractionist paradigm that purports to be the ultimate explanations of cosmic phenomena. As I mentioned earlier, the Physics journals are committed to the abstractionist paradigm. I have no expectation of hearing back from them. Let’s be clear about this. You are demanding the opinion of practitioners of the abstractionist paradigm about a Physicalist Perspective which debunks many of their cherished beliefs. I began from the premise that you were capable of thinking rationally and logically for yourself. Each of your posts is convincing me that my premise was mistaken.
paradigm

I can think rationally and logically about a lot of things. But I don’t understand what you are talking about.

Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions observed that “…scientific training is not well designed to produce a man who will easily discover a fresh approach." No practitioner of the abstractionist paradigm could overthrow the idea of separate forces for the idea that the nuclear and gravity forces are all caused by the absorption of emission. Mind you, I did once hear Stephen Hawking wonder if the perspective of Physics was truly fundamental. It’s not truly fundamental. Once you adopt the absorption of emission cause of the nuclear and gravity forces, then all the things which I presented in my Physicalist Perspective essay are seen to correspond with observation and follow logically. Fortunately, not everyone is as intimidated by the abstractionist paradigm as you appear to be. I will now depart this forum and find ones where there are individuals you are prepared to “discover a fresh approach".
paradigm

I consider a “peer" anyone who is able to think rationally and logically.
What about the detail of attaining certain levels of learning and knowledge before one's innate "rationality and logic" has the building blocks with which to form competent notions/opinions?
At this stage in the application of the Paradigm of Types it predicts the existence of three new transuranium elements. However, the Paradigm also predicts that if I hold my pen above my desk and then release it, it will be attracted to my desk through the absorption of the emission/gravity field of the Earth. The point is that the Paradigm is a more fundamental explanation of the attractions which underpin the nuclear and gravity forces. You are making the simple mistake of trying to compare the Paradigm of Types with the abstractionist Paradigm that is Physics. Of course, you could try doing what Cavendish did with the measurement of the gravitational constant G. Heat one of the bodies on the torsion balance and measure the change in the attraction that results. The abstractionist Paradigm that is Physics works fine within the relatively stable context which is the present state in which the Earth exists. There is no absolute stability because the stability of matter is relative to the density of the impacting emission. It's truly amazing that you could read my Physicalist Perspective essay and simply ignore everything that was presented. The only explanation would be your unquestioning commitment to the less than fundamental explanations put forward by the abstractionist paradigm that purports to be the ultimate explanations of cosmic phenomena. As I mentioned earlier, the Physics journals are committed to the abstractionist paradigm. I have no expectation of hearing back from them. Let’s be clear about this. You are demanding the opinion of practitioners of the abstractionist paradigm about a Physicalist Perspective which debunks many of their cherished beliefs. I began from the premise that you were capable of thinking rationally and logically for yourself. Each of your posts is convincing me that my premise was mistaken. paradigm
Yep, there you go. Insult. That's a sure sign you're not serious. You talk about this entirely new way of explaining things, except the things you want to re-explain are all things from the perspective you say is wrong. Density, matter, nuclear and gravitational forces, particle emissions. Those are all well defined terms of the outlook you say is wrong. So to my mind you want things both ways. Oh well, good luck to you.
I will now depart this forum and find ones where there are individuals you are prepared to “discover a fresh approach".
Now you're sounding like those manmade global warming denialists I deal with … big claims… dances around pointed questions… decides we aren't intelligent or honest enough... leaves the party he started… Now that's a form of intellectual integrity I don't think much of. Makes me think of 'Science in a Vacuum"
I consider a “peer" anyone who is able to think rationally and logically. However, I’ve just brought my essays to the attention of a couple of Physics journals and a Sceptics journal; I’m waiting to hear back from them. paradigm
I hope you are not holding your breath. Lois
I will now depart this forum and find ones where there are individuals you are prepared to “discover a fresh approach". paradigm
Oh, we are crushed! Lois

Quoting paradigm:

I will now depart this forum and find ones where there are individuals you are prepared to “discover a fresh approach".
Let’s see, if that had been posted without the quotation marks it would have been a standard declarative sentence. The addition of the quotation marks usually indicates irony or the opposite meaning. Interesting. :wink:
Occam