Debunking Physics

This article is derived from the essay “An Infinite Moment of Time”. The essay presents the logic structure that is the paradigm of science, and is located at: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf      

On my way to inventing the paradigm I explored physics through the desire to understand how the Universe worked, and the place of Humans within the scheme of things. One of my few preconceptions was the belief that the course of Human evolution has seen a steady improvement in knowledge and understanding. I’m an optimist.  I’m also a determinist, in that I see everything as being the effect of a cause which in turn is the cause of another effect. The idea that things can happen without a cause, is nonsense.

The big bang theory was a particular cause for me to explore physics. I thought it simply absurd to think that there could be a time before 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 made of a substance that we call matter. Physics, when not talking about time as a dimension, is always talking about a thing they call energy. I recall an academic once saying that the concept of energy was one that you couldn’t actually explain but had to “feel” in some mystical sense. As a materialist I wasn’t having any of that mystical stuff. Albert Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2, didn’t convince me about this energy concept. For me, all that it was saying is that energy is matter in motion and that it can be detected or measured with instruments.  I also reject the idea of mass being something that is different to matter, given that even physics defines matter as “The substance of which the physical Universe is composed.” The implication within this definition that there could be a non-physical Universe I put down to a lack of rigorous thinking. Let’s be quite clear. As far as I’m concerned, the Universe is totally physical and totally composed of matter.

To deal with the whole of physics I categorize it in a way that represented its fundamental approach and perspective. This approach and perspective can 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 is also abstractionist in that the thing you measure never actually becomes the measurement. As a consequence of its reliance upon mathematics and measurements, I categorized physics as an abstractionist paradigm. Physicists are, therefore, practitioners of 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. If you want to understand everything in a totally connected and consistent manner, you need to establish the most fundamental position that can 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 know the Universe through observation, and we interpret that observation with a perspective that we have either acquired or invented ourselves. To believe that observation is, in and of itself, evidence, is naive realism. Evidence is the best interpretation, or explanation, of observation. If you have the best explanation in one area of observation, then through logical consistency you can generate explanations in other areas that have scientific validity without the need for further observation.

If you believe that science can only involve those things which can be measured or directly observed, then you should not proceed beyond this point. I suggest you go away and measure something.

Gravity is the fundamental force of the Universe. Isaac Newton conceived of gravity as being proportional to the sum of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of 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 because once again no explanation of a material cause is contained within the idea of curved space. The latest 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 is also 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 have 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 far reaching ramifications.

The two nuclear forces, the electrostatic force, and gravity have the same mechanism. Establishment physics sees these forces as separate. Establishment Physics is wrong. Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest possible galaxy absorbs and emits what can be described as emission or radiation or energy or light.

What is assumed to be empty space is composed of the emission (radiation or energy or light) of everything. Emission travels through interaction with emission, and can be detected as wavelengths. These wavelengths are constructed through the convergence of different levels 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 less density, then the result will be an increase in wavelength. From the perspective of the Earth, this sees the detection of the increasing wavelengths of the emission from galaxies and stars. The abstractionist paradigm, by way 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 can be detected as both a particle (a photon) and a wave is inexplicable. However, this dual nature is resolved once you see a wave of emission as composed of dispersing or de-constructing particles and a particle as a fusion or construction of emission which is made of matter and as having an emission field. If a photon was not made of matter then it would not leave an impression upon a screen when projected towards the screen. The idea that emission (light) is massless (matterless) is not a fact but a mistaken assumption of the abstractionist paradigm.

We do not see through an otherwise empty space. We see with space in the sense of the emission of objects, in the form of their image, traveling through the emission that is space and impacting upon our retinas and being processed by our brains. The idea that the space between us couldn’t be composed of matter (actually dispersed matter) because we wouldn’t be able to see through it, is another example of naive realism.

As emission travels through interaction (absorption and emission) with emission, its speed is relative to the density of the emission through which it travels. It could not possibly have a specific speed throughout the Universe as claimed by physics. Physics sees emission (light) travelling through space as a vacuum. Space is not a vacuum. If you measured the speed of emission at a distance above the surface of the Earth, where the emission field is less dense than at the surface, it would be greater than at the surface. The fact that the difference would be very small and not readily measureable is beside the point. Emission travelling from the Earth to the Moon would increase in speed as it left the Earth and at the mid-point of their emission fields it would begin to slow down as it approached the Moon. It’s merely an assumption on the part of the abstractionist paradigm that the speed 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 of the Sun via the Earth’s emission (gravitational) field. Part of the emission absorbed by the Earth's emission field reaches its core and maintains the core’s active state.

In 1954 a French economist named Maurice Allais observed that a pendulum moved faster during a solar eclipse. This has become known as the “Allais Effect”, and has been unexplained by physics. When the Moon is in front of the Sun it blocks part of the emission (gravitational) field of the Sun resulting in less absorption of emission by the emission field of the Earth. This slight reduction in the density of the emission (gravitational) field, results in less downward attraction of the pendulum allowing it to swing faster.

The gravity of the Earth would also be reduced when it's at its farthest distance from the Sun during its yearly orbit. If you wanted a “gravity assist” in obtaining a high or long jump record, do it when the Earth is at aphelion on the 3rd of July and during a solar eclipse.

It has been observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between the Earth and the Moon is increasing. Establishment 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. It’s 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 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 is not the case.

Is the Moon moving away from the Earth due to a decrease in the density of the Earth’s gravitational field? Is it due to an increase in the density of the gravitational field of the Sun? Is it due to a decrease in the density of the Moon’s gravitational field?

Establishment physics accepts that gravity involves acceleration and not merely uniform motion. However, it offers no explanation for why this should be the case. With the absorption of emission explanation, absorption leads to increased matter that results in increased absorption capacity, and it’s 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 comes about. I decided that rubbing the glass rod increased the emission of the rod and that this emission was absorbed by the pith ball resulting in the attraction. If the glass rod were not rubbed, it would still have emission and could 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, so that as an explanation it’s more fundamental (and superior) to that offered by establishment physics. It’s no mere coincidence that the formula for gravity takes the same form 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 comes about is put forward. Here I decided that like charges involves equivalent levels of emission, and that objects of equivalent emission repel each other by pushing away from each other via this equivalence of emission. Yes, “I decided”. Someone had to, given the obsession that establishment physics has with measurements. This leads to the conclusion that only objects of inequivalent emission can be subject to attraction.

It was from this foundation that I realized that everything is either a state of absorption exceeding emission, or of emission exceeding absorption. They are either increasing or decreasing in matter and either increasing or decreasing in emission. The idea of static, inert matter has no part to play in explaining the dynamic nature of 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 matter over time, through the absorption of emission, and this sees its emission increasing over time. As a consequence, the gravitational field of the Earth increases in density over time.  The physics mistakenly sees gravity as being uniform over time. In the time of the Dinosaurs gravity would have been less than it is now.

The Moon’s movement away from the Earth can’t be accounted for by a decrease in the density of the Earth’s gravitational field. Equally, it can’t be accounted for by a decrease in the density of the Moon’s gravitational field. The only possible explanation is that the emission of the Sun is increasing and exerting a greater attraction over the Moon relative to that of the Earth.

The rate of rotation of the Earth is decreasing. Increased gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Sun, due to the increase in the emission of the Earth and the Sun, accounts for the decrease in the rotation of the Earth. This can also be seen as caused by inertia.

Establishment 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, 1995) You will notice that inertia is presented as a “magical” property of matter. Physics offers no explanation of 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 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. John 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 matter attaining critical mass and igniting. Apart from small variations in its emission due to such things as Sun spot activity, establishment physics sees the Sun's emission remaining uniform over time. This is wrong.

The emission of the Sun has steadily increased while its matter has steadily decreased, and its gravitational attraction capacity has increased. This stands in contradiction to the abstractionist paradigm that would say a decrease in matter (mass) would result in a decrease in gravitational attraction.

It’s my theory that stars and planets involve two stages of development. The first stage entails absorption exceeding emission and the construction of the elements from a base of Hydrogen. This first stage sees stars take the form of a solid planet. This is followed by the star/planet attaining critical mass at its core and igniting into a second stage of emission exceeding absorption where the constructed matter is consumed in the process of the star. Second stage stars end with dissipation. First stage stars can explode through the impacting emission increasing to the point of precipitating a nuclear explosion.

It’s simply not possible for either a first or second stage star (a planet or a star) to collapse under the increase in its own emission (gravity) and form 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 complete absence of an explanation of the mechanism of the cause. The exchange of gravitons theory was an attempt to give gravity a mechanism of cause.

The two stages of a star theory was derived from the realization that pressure can’t be applied to a body which is a state of emission exceeding absorption, and as the bursts of gamma radiation needed to be accounted for that lead to the two stage theory. So, the bursts of gamma radiation detected from all directions in the cosmic sky are first stage stars exploding due to the increasing density of the impacting emission.

A matter that further demonstrates the inadequacy of the physics establishment involves the variability in the rate of atomic decay. An experiment conducted by J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating in 1971, measured the rate of decay of two identical atomic clocks. This involved placing one clock on the surface of the Earth and the other in an airplane above the Earth. The clock in the airplane ran faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth. The clock in the airplane was subject to less density of impacting emission than the clock on the surface of 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 of the impacting emission, which is a fundamental law of the Universe.  

Establishment physics interprets this experiment as demonstrating the variability in time, because they see time as an independent dimension and space as empty. Time is the measurement of duration and/or the process of real material 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 of the difference in the time of the two clocks as being “due solely to gravitation and kinematic effects.” However, it also claims that the difference is due to the speed of the airplane: “If the speeds were greater, the relative effect would 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 of the plane’s velocity.” (Edwin Jones and Richard Childers, “Contemporary College Physics”, 1993) The difference in the time of the two clocks is due solely to the emission (gravitational) field being less dense above the surface relative to at the surface, and has nothing to do with the speed of the airplane. The idea 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 of the Universe.

Jere Jenkins, the Director of the Radiation Laboratory at Purdue University, has observed that the rate of atomic decay varies with the yearly orbit of the Earth around the Sun. When the Earth is at it furthest point from the Sun (aphelion), the rate of atomic decay is increased. It’s obvious that this occurs because the density of the impacting emission is decreased. This observed fact stands in contradiction to the establishment physics idea 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 away from our solar system would 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 show 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 so 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 idea of “universal constants” is wrong.  Just because you measure some particular thing on Earth at a particular time, does means that the results of that measurement can 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 more than electrostatic gravitational attraction. But, as the absorption and emission of the objects on the torsion balance is relative to the density of emission impacting upon the Earth, their attraction can be seen as a measure of the gravity of the Earth at that time.

Many of the units of measurements of physics are either arbitrarily defined, or are based on the assumption that the thing to which they relate does not change over time. If you take time as being defined by the rotation of the Earth, then as the rotation of 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. This is mistaken. The nuclear force is actually the nuclear fusion process of construction, which entails the absorption of emission within a context of the increasing density of impacting emission. This involves the movement that results from attraction. Nuclear fusion as the process of construction is the fundamental force in the Universe, and is specified in absolute detail with the paradigm of science.

Global warming as a green house effect is connected to gravity through the increasing density of the gravitational field of the Earth. The atmosphere of the Earth is retained by the Earth through the atmosphere’s interaction with the gravitational field of the Earth. The atmosphere doesn’t just hang there by magic. As the density of the gravitational field increases, the density of the atmosphere increases. However, as the increase in the density of the gravitational field occurs over extended period of time, it can’t be having a significant impact upon the present rate of increase in the average temperature of the Earth.

As our solar system exists within the Milky Way galaxy, it’s subject to attraction through the absorption of emission within the galaxy. This would impact upon the density of the emission within the solar system and the density of the gravitational field of the Earth. The physics establishment is not even aware that the Milky Way Galaxy has a direct impact upon the solar system and the Earth, through the galaxies emission being absorbed by the solar system.

Two 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 matter and anti-matter. The existence of anti-matter is a myth of the abstractionist paradigm. I think they acquired the idea from a science fiction movie.

Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to planets and stars, have a dissymmetrical duality at their cores. This involves one large and one small state of matter.

The gravitational field of the Earth is generated from a dissymmetrical duality at its core. As one part of the duality increases in matter, the other decreases in matter. As the large 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 regular reversing of the magnetic poles of the Earth.

The fact that particles created from collisions in particle accelerators always take a curved path can 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 possible explanation is that the electrons absorb emission from the electromagnetic (emission) field and are deflected (in the sense of attraction) in accordance with the density of the field.

Physics claims that the wavelength of an electron is determined by its momentum, and that electrons in higher orbits show contraction due to their smaller wavelengths. The wavelength of an electron is determined by the extent of its emission which is determined by the density of the impacting emission. Electrons in higher orbits are subject to less density of impacting emission and hence have a higher orbital speed and decreased wavelengths as a consequence. With the abstractionist paradigm they tend to get cause and effect back to front because they failed to correctly interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment and apply it to the totality of atomic structure.

The well known phenomena of the emission (light) from a distance star being bent as it passes near a star closer to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is also a case of particles being deflected by absorbing emission from an emission field.

The orbit of a planet around the Sun can be accounted for by its absorption of emission from the Sun and other planets via its emission field, and its orbital motion.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury can be explained by the increase in the matter of Mercury during each orbit around the Sun. This increase in matter results in an increase in the density of its gravitational field which sees it remain in close contact (at perihelion) with the Sun a little longer during each orbit. This advance in the perihelion, also known as orbital precession, would apply to all the planets. This also explains why the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular.

Rotation is an inherent aspect of the Universe, be it the rotation of a particle a planet a star or a galaxy. An individual particle is a process of absorption and emission and is in a state of imbalance due to the dissymmetrical duality of its core. As a consequence an individual particle would rotate, vibrate, and pulsate.

We can see matter as made of particles, which in turn are made of sub-particles. These particles are bound through the absorption of emission within a context of impacting emission. We can see this emission in turn as being made of even smaller particles all the way down to the smallest possible particle in the Universe. However, even this smallest possible particle would absorb and emit and thus exist within a context of emission that is groundstate of the Universe.  

How can you distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the point 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 with the dispersing emission called empty space? It’s all nonsense; an exceedingly large fantasy collusion. The desire to measure cosmic distance over-rides any rational consideration of the actual dynamic nature of the Universe. You cannot distinguish between the present brightness of a galaxy or star and its distance from the point of observation. The only way of measuring cosmic distance is through triangulation. For measurements beyond our solar system, the result will always be “a very long way”.

If you measure a wavelength in the emission from a star that corresponds to that of an element, does this indicate the presence of that element in the star? As emission is constructed into wavelengths as it travels, it can have the same spectral signature of the emission of an element but does not indicate the presence of that element in the star. The spectral signature is the “emission symmetry” of the emission of the element. The only way the emission from a star could represent the presence of an element would be if it didn’t change in wavelength as it travelled towards the Earth, which is simply impossible.

There is an area of the abstractionist paradigm called Quantum theory. This is really an observation and not a theory. It's based on the fact that energy (emission) comes in discrete packets or quanta, and not as an undifferentiated stream. Quantum physicists do not 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 levels of emission.

Uncertainty is seen by physics as an inherent aspect of the Universe. 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”, 1995) 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 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”, 1996) At the ultra microscale the absorption and emission of the matter of the instrument with which you measure interacts with the absorption and 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”. 

An experiment which uses what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate and a number of isotopes of a particular element,  has a result that can’t be explained by the abstractionist paradigm. The experiment sees about half the isotopes in the condensate at first repel each other. This could 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 of the field is increased even further around half the isotopes suddenly disappear in a flash of emission. The increasing strength of the magnetic field is equivalent to the increasing density of impacting emission acting as pressure and causing the isotopes to de-construct (explode) back into the emission from which they were constructed.

Being locked into a paradigm of limited capacity can waste time, money and effort. Physics has wasted all three by building instruments to detect and measure gravity waves. Gravity waves and emission waves are one and the same thing. When you observe and measure the emission of the Sun, you are detecting and measuring its gravity waves. 

The idea of nuclear fusion reactors to obtain free energy is another misbegotten idea of the abstractionist paradigm. The electromagnet field which is used to contain the process actually fuels the process through its emission being absorbed by the process. You can never get out more than you put in.

Another waste of time by establishment physics relates to trying to discover what they call “missing dark matter”. They see this dark matter as being required to account to the macro-structure of the Universe. There is no missing dark matter. The emission that is space (the dark matter) extends to levels far below that which constitutes the visible light part of the spectrum, and all the way down to the groundstate at the ultra microscale.

The establishment physics idea of the big bang beginning of 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 same thing. The physics establishment is prepared to accept that the red shift in the emission from our Sun is due to its emission (gravitational) field and yet claims that the red shift in the emission from galaxies is not due to their emission field. We’re asked to believe that galaxies don’t have emission (gravitational) fields, that they don’t have emission (light) at all, and that they don’t exist and must 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 would be ablaze with the emission called light. This is known as Olbers’ Paradox, and is resolved with the fact of the dispersion of the emission called light.

Background microwave radiation has been detected in the cosmic sky, and this is claimed to be left over from the big bang and as evidence supporting the big bang theory. The background microwave radiation is merely indicative of the maximum dispersion of emission as the groundstate of emission at the ultra microscale

In 1929 a “tired light” theory was put forward the Swiss Astronomer Fritz Zwicky, to account for the red shift in the light from galaxies. This theory is in essence correct. It was rejected in favor of Edwin Hubble’s 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 about the Universe. The big bang theory is right up there with the Flat Earth theory, and the Earth being the centre of the solar system theory. 

The Universe did not begin with a big bang. The Universe did not begin; it’s infinite in space and time and is a process of the construction and evolution of everything, including Humans.

Although there are obviously an infinite number of things in the Universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things then there would be infinite variability. We do not observe infinite variability. We observe that things form discrete types.

Could it be that the types we observe are merely a product of the way in which we Humans are able to see the Universe? Good question. We Humans are an example of the construction possibilities of the Universe, therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that our capacity to observe the Universe is in accordance with the Universe and that the types we observe actually exist. Good answer.

The fact that an exceedingly large number would represent the finite number of types of things that can be constructed is irrelevant. As long the number is finite, anything that can exist must exist an infinite number of times and do so in every moment of time. Given that infinite existence is the big appeal of religion, the fact that infinite existence is a given fact of existence could be the last nail in the coffin of religion.

The abstractionist paradigm is a conceptual structure built from interconnected assumptions and theories and inconsistency. When some of these assumptions and theories are debunked, and its inconsistency is exposed, the whole house of cards begins to collapse. The failure by physics to correctly interpret the Hafele-Keating experiment was clearly a major 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.