Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Debunking Physcis

It is my contention that physics is an abstractionist paradigm that does not adequately represent the strictly materialist and connected nature of the Universe. An essay titled "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe" is located at memebers.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

SLM

SLM,
you need to correct your link, you mis-spelled "members" and it gives a 404 error.

The link for my essay is http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

Stephen

A nice essay. Many people are dissapointed by the picture of reality, which mainstream physics presents. You can have look at AWT which is disputed here, too.

Another candidate for NQS. Thanks for your submission. Scientists will be eternally and prodigiously grateful for this penetrating contribution. Your Nobel is in the mail.

Yes, well. I'm not sure that I should upset the particle "realities" that the previous contributors have constructed for themselves.

I'm just an everyday realist-materialist who endeavours to understand the Universe is a totally connected manner.

It just so happens that for all of its sucess in the area of technology physics (the abstractionist paradigm) is not so good at representing the non-technological Universe.

If it wasn't me, then it would have been someone else, who debunked so many of its cherished assumptions about the Universe.

I think the one I like the most is the atomic clocks experiment. The rate of atomic decay is relative to the density of the impacting emission. A most profound interpretation just sitting there waiting to be realized. It so neatly demonstrates how treating time as a thing-in-itself leads you to overlook the real result.

Like I said, I will leave you to your particle realities.

Stephen Mooney

Surely you mean "debunking the reality that physics suggests."

The physics itself works fine as an explanatory and predictive tool to utilize and relate to the material universe.

The models and metaphors that physics uses to describe the material universe leave a lot to be desired, and so are fairly easily "debunked;" but these are semantic problems, not problems with the material, results-based science.

If our brains understood concepts in a different way--and had the language to express that--we might be able to understand what the physics shows us, in a way that wasn't so easily "debunked."

I think the question should be about debunking the idea that we can easily understand reality, not that physics is misleading and may need debunking.
IMHO

If you really mean Nobel price, then you should consider, it's a professional price, by the same way like OSCAR Annual Academy Award. Common people cannot get it without scientific titles, publications the less.

Nobody forces you to forget everything, what you know about existing theories, but you should consider, many things of relativity and quantum mechanics can be explained by behavior od dense particle environment (or by many other plural ways, supposedly) - not just assumed by formal equations based on ad-hoced (although carefully verified) postulates. BTW, this property of physical theories follows from particle nature of reality as well.

During ideas evolution every group of people, which brought a new level into understanding has become a brake of subsequent evolution due their blind adherence to existing paradigms. I'm not saying, formal equations aren't necessary for understanding of physics.

From AWT perspective it's logical. I'm just saying, here's more, then just equations. These equations correspond the foamy density fluctuations (a strings), which are formed inside of every sufficiently dense particle system. These zero-dimensional particles, not higher dimensional strings are what is forming the observable reality. The existence of strings is just a result of particle fluctuations.



AWT just explains, how these strings and equations can be derived by using of particle environment concept. Is it so unethical to propose some deeper explanation of reality from purely scientific perspective? If it appears so for some scientific proponents, they we should put the question, for what the science is really working for today.

For all people - or just for scientists only?

I think we can understand reality for the very reason that we a products of that reality.

However, physics has allowed its thinking and interpretation of observation to be confined by the abstractionist paradigm that it invented.

One day it will be accepted, even by the physics establishment, that the rate of atomic decay is dependent upon the density of the impacting emission.

It will also be accepted that the nuclear fusion process involves the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of empacting emission.

These thing were discovered (or realized) my stepping outside of the abstraction paradigm.

Also, only by stepping outside of the abstractionist paradigm can you see that the idea of separate forces is not the way in which the Universe works.

Stephen

Isn't it oxymoron? How emission can be impacting?

Z,
I think by emissions, in this case, we are meant to envision the combined effect of all the "impinging" fields.

I can say, "I see" - which I mean in this case, it's a BS.
You shouldn't explain oxymoron by not explained-yet concepts.

Emission can be both absorbed and impacting, because only some of the impacting emission is absorbed.

The term emission represents "the thing from which everything is composed". A basic concept or assumption of my materialist perspective.

I've continued to develop my essay at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf

Stephen