Bike Stuff For Sale

Veloce Ultra

Debunking Physics

This article is derived from the essay "A moment of infinite time." The essay presents the logical structure that is the paradigm science, and can be found at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf

On my way to the invention of the paradigm of physics explored by the desire to understand how the universe works, and the place of humans within the scheme of things. A few of my preconceived ideas was the belief that the course of human evolution has undergone constant improvement in knowledge and understanding. I'm an optimist. I am a determinist, as I see it all as the effect of a cause which in turn causes another effect. The idea that things can happen without a cause, is nonsense.

The Big Bang theory was a particular reason for me to explore physics. I simply absurd to think there might be a time before time even begun. Then there was all the talk about the time that an independent dimension: more absurd. It was obvious that it was a desperately needed discipline of demystification.

Another preconceived idea that brought me to my study of physics was materialism. I mean the philosophical sense of seeing everything that had been made a substance we call matter. Physics, when not to speak of time as a dimension, always talking about something called energy. I remember a scholar once saying that the concept of power was a reality he could not explain, but had to "feel" in a mystical sense. As I was not any of that materialistic mysticism. the Albert Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, I am not convinced about the concept of energy. For me, all I was saying is that energy is matter in motion and can be detected or measured with instruments. I also reject the idea of the mass to be something that is different to matter, because even physics material defined as "the substance of the physical universe is composed." The implication in this definition that could be a non-physical universe which he attributed to a lack of rigorous thinking. Let's be very clear. As far as I'm concerned, the physical universe is completely and totally composed of matter.

To cope with all the physics that fall in a manner 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. The mathematics are abstractions, and measuring things is also abstractionist that what actually measure never becomes the measurement. As a result of their reliance on mathematics and measurements, which classify the physical and abstractionist paradigm. Physicists therefore, professionals abstractionist paradigm.

With their confidence in mathematics and measurements, the paradigm is not an abstractionist truly fundamental perspective. I accept all the scientific evidence. However, I interpret all the evidence in accordance with a fundamental truth and materialist perspective scientific logic. If you want to understand everything in a fully connected and consistent, it is necessary to establish the fundamental position that can be obtained. A position that is so fundamental that covers all disciplines of science.

As evidence is the central concept of science, what is the evidence? We know that the universe through observation, and interpreted this observation with a perspective that we have acquired or invented ourselves. Believe that observation is, in itself, evidence, it is naive realism. The evidence is the best interpretation, or explanation of the observation. If you have the best explanation in an observation area, then through logical consistency can generate explanations other areas that have scientific validity, without the need of observation.

If you believes that science can only include things that can be measured or observed directly, then you should not continue beyond this point. I suggest you go 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 the left has a gravity magical action at a distance. Albert Einstein conceived of gravity, was caused by curved space or deformed. This also is unacceptable because, once again without an explanation of a case material is contained within the idea of curved space. The last thought of the physical setting is that gravity is caused by the exchange of particles called gravitons. These particles are Viewed as a journey through what is supposed to be empty space. This exchange of gravitons theory is also inadequate.

All attractions are caused by the absorption of the emissions, which means emissions trading between objects. All objects have fields of emission and absorption of emissions is through Field emission of objects. A field emission is a gravitational field, so that all objects have a gravity field. There is no explanation fundamental scientific materialist and the attraction that the absorption and emission trading. This explanation as simple as the cause of the attraction has ramifications long range.

The two nuclear forces, the electrostatic force, and gravity are the same mechanism. physics establishment sees these forces separately. Physical setting is wrong. Everything from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest possible galaxy absorbs and emits what can be defined as emission or radiation or energy or light.

What is supposed to be empty space consists of the emission (radiation or energy or light) of everything. Issue travels through interaction with emissions, and can be detected as wavelengths. These wavelengths are constructed through convergence of different emission levels. Physical setting does not ask, let alone answer, the question of how to detect the wavelengths are built. The emission of an object is scattered as it travels through space and this implies that find the emission of other objects. If the issue is less density is then the result will be an increase in wavelength. From the perspective of the Earth, this is the detection of wavelengths increasing emission of galaxies and stars. The paradigm abstractionist, as a theory of relativity, while accepting that when the emissions (of light) is traveling opposite to the direction of a broadcast (gravitational) field, its wavelength decreases and frequency increases.

For some, the fact that emissions can be detected both as a particle (a photon) and a wave is inexplicable. However, this dual nature has been solved once you see a wave like compound emissions dispersion and de-construction of particles and particle as a fusion or the construction of emissions is made of matter and having a field emission. If a photon did not matter then it would Do not leave an impression on a screen when projected onto the screen. The idea that emissions (light) are massless (matterless) is not a fact but an incorrect assumption abstractionist paradigm.

We see through a gap. We see space in the sense of the issue of objects in the shape of your image, traveling through the emission is space and the impact on our retinas and processed by our brains. The idea that the space between us could not be made subject (Dispersed matter actually) because it would not be able to see through it, is another example of naive realism.

Passing emissions through interaction (absorption and emission) with the issue, its speed is relative to the density of the issue through which it travels. I could have a specific speed through the universe as the physical states. Physics is emissions (light) that travels through space like a vacuum. The space is not empty. If you measure the emission rate at a distance above the Earth's surface, where the field of emission is less dense than on the surface, would be greater than on the surface. The fact that the difference is very small and not easily measurable is irrelevant. Issuance of travel from Earth to the Moon would be increased speed when leaving the Earth and the midpoint of the areas of issue that will begin to decline as it approached the Moon. It is merely an assumption, by the abstractionist paradigm that the speed of light is "universal" constant. The abstractionist paradigm is an inadequate understanding of how travel issue. The measurement called "a light year "has no scientific validity.

The Earth is attracted by the Sun through absorption of the emission of the Sun through emission Earth's (gravity) field. Part of the issue taken up by the field emission of the Earth is at its core and maintains the active state of the nucleus.

In 1954, a French economist Maurice Allais called noted that a pendulum is moving faster during a solar eclipse. This is known as the "Effect" Allais, and has been explained by physics. When the Moon is opposite the Sun blocks part of the issue (gravitational) field of the Sun resulting in less absorption emissions by field emission from Earth. This slight reduction in the density of the issue (gravitational) field, results in less downward attraction pendulum that allows you to swing faster.

The Earth's gravity is also reduced when it is at its farthest distance from the Sun during its annual orbit. If he wanted gravity "help" in obtaining a record high jump or long term, they do when the Earth is at aphelion on July 03 during a solar eclipse.

It was observed that the rotation of the Earth is decreasing, and that the distance between Earth and the moon is rising. Establishing physical complaints that the decrease of the rotation of the Earth and from the moon comes from a tidal bulge on Earth. It is argued that as the Earth attempts to drag along of this bulge rotation decreases, and that this loss of angular momentum transfers to the Moon rise in a higher orbit.

The only so that the decrease in the rotation of the Earth (the loss of angular momentum) can cause the moon to get away would be if the Earth's rotation was responsible distance of the Moon from Earth, in the first place, which is not the case.

Is the Moon moving away from Earth due to a decrease in the density of 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 gravitational field of the moon?

Establishment accepts physics implies that the severity of uniform acceleration, not just movement. However, no explanation of why this should be the case. With the absorption of the explanation for emission, absorption leads to the matter resulting in increased absorption capacity, and it is this that underpins the fact gravity and uniform acceleration involves not only movement.

I came to the absorption of the explanation for the attraction of emissions by the realization of a simple electrostatic experiment. When you rub a glass rod that attracted a suspended ball. Establishment physics sees this as the result of charges do not like to attract, and offers no explanation of how this happens. I decided to rub the glass rod increased the issuance of the cane and that this issue was absorbed by the ball resulting in the attraction. If the glass rod rubbed not yet have emission and could still attract a ball to ball through the absorption of the issue.

The absorption and emission is the mechanism that underlies the concept of burden abstractionist, so an explanation More fundamentally (and higher) than that offered by the physics establishment. It is no coincidence that the gravity formula takes the same form of attraction electrostatics. electrostatic attraction is gravitational attraction.

Establishment of physics, moreover, that like charges repel. Again, no explanation of how this happens is presented. Here I decided that like charges involving equivalent emission levels, and equivalent emission objects repel each other by pushing away from each other through this equivalence of issue. Yes, "I decided." Someone had to, given the obsession that has established physics measurements. This leads to the conclusion that only the objects of the broadcast can be equivalent attraction.

It was from this foundation that I realized that everything is either a state of absorption than emissions, or emission than absorption. They are either increasing or decreasing in the matter and either increasing or decreasing emissions. The idea of static and inert matter which has no role to play in explaining of the dynamic nature of the universe. The Earth is an absorbing state over emissions, while the Sun is a state exceeding emission absorption.

The Earth matter increases with time, through absorption of emissions, and it believes that its emission increases with time. As a result, the gravitational field Earth's density increases with time. Physics gravity erroneously considered as uniform in time. At the time of the dinosaurs would have been seriously under it is now.

La Luna movement away from the Earth can not be explained by a decrease in the density of Earth's gravitational field. Also, you can not be explained by a decrease in the density of the gravitational field of the moon. The only possible explanation is that the emission of the sun is rising and by increasing attraction on the moon relative to Earth.

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

Physical setting defines inertia as "property of a body, proportional to its mass, which opposes a change in body movement." (Larousse, Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1995) You will notice that the inertia is presented as "magic" property of matter. Physics offers no explanation 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 is opposed to a change in the proposal because gravity pulls down the body. The mechanism of inertia is, therefore, the same as the mechanism of gravity, ie the absorption of emissions. John Gribbin, in his Companion to the Cosmos (1996) states that: "It is a curious and still unexplained phenomena ... the inertial mass and gravitational mass ... always are exactly the same ... "It is now fully explained.

Physical Setting Sun was inaugurated by the accumulation of matter to reach a mass critical and has caught fire. Apart from small variations in the broadcast due to things such as sunspot activity, the physical setting emission is Sun's uniform with time remaining. This is wrong.

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

It is my theory that the stars and planets involve two phases of development. The first stage involves the absorption higher emissions and the construction of the elements of a hydrogen. This first stage sees stars take the form of a solid planet. This is followed by the star / World achieve critical mass in its core and turning in a second phase of emissions than the absorption in which they are built is consumed in the process of the star. Second final phase with the dissipation of stars. First stage stars can explode through the issue increasingly affecting the point of precipitating a nuclear explosion.

It is simply impossible to be a star of the first or second stage (a planet or star) to collapse under its own increasing release (gravity) and form a blackhole. The blackhole theory is silly. The theory of black holes is derived from seeing the gravity was caused by matter, in itself, with a total absence of an explanation of the mechanism of the cause. The exchange of gravitons theory was an attempt to give a mechanism of gravity of the case.

The two phases of a star theory derives from the finding that pressure can not be applied to a body which is a state exceeding emission absorption, and as bursts gamma-ray needed to be taken into account leading to the theory of two phases. Thus, gamma ray bursts detected in all directions in the sky are cosmic exploding star first stage due to the increasing density of the issue of impact.

An issue that further demonstrates the failure to establish of physics involves the variability in the rate of atomic disintegration. An experiment conducted by JC Hafele and RE Keating in 1971, measured the decay rate of two identical atomic clocks. This placement of a clock involved in the Earth's surface and the other in a plane above the Earth. The clock on the plane ran faster than the clock of the Earth's surface. The clock on the plane was to lower density of emissions that impact the clock on the Earth's surface. Since the density the impact of increased emissions atomic decay rate decreased. This proves that the stability of the atomic structure on the density of emissions affect, which is a fundamental law of the universe.

Physical Setting interpreted this experiment as a demonstration of the variability in time, because see time as an independent dimension and space as empty. Time is the measurement of the duration and / or material process of real things. Not a thing-in-itself. To treat time as an independent dimension and a thing in itself is committing the fallacy of reification or misplaced concrete.

Relativity theory considers Häfele's experiment Keating, in terms of the difference in time of two clocks as "due solely to gravity and cinematic effects." However, it also claims that the difference is due to the speed of the plane: "If the speeds are higher, the effect would be higher on well." Then, finally clarified the situation stating that: "The result is, time runs faster in the plane that flies higher. This effect is due to gravitation and is independent of the speed of the aircraft. "(Edwin Jones and Richard Childers, Contemporary College Physics", 1993) The difference in time of two clocks is due solely to the issue (gravitational) is less dense field above the surface in relation to the area, and has nothing to do with the speed of the aircraft. The idea that the movement itself may have an impact over time is pure nonsense abstractionist. The requirement that the situation is represented mathematically physics is responsible for failing to appreciate that the experiment demonstrated a fundamental law of the universe.

Jere Jenkins, director of the Radiation Laboratory Purdue University, has observed that the atomic decay rate varies with the Earth's annual orbit around the sun. When the Earth is more about it from the Sun (aphelion), the atomic decay rate increases. Obviously, this is because the density decreases affecting emissions. This fact was observed is in contradiction with the idea of physics that the rate of creation of nuclear weapons said binding, which is called the fine structure constant, no varies with time and space. Of course, the observation of Jere Jenkins will confirm Häfele-Keating experiment.

A spacecraft traveling beyond our solar system would be found with a decrease in the density of impacting emission and thus have an increasing rate of atomic disintegration, and finally completely de-construct. NASA has not even realized this until now. It just goes to show how being locked in a proper perspective can blind to what is obvious from one perspective fundamental

The issue that affect the Earth has increased in density with time for the atomic decay rate has fallen to Earth time, and not the uniform rate as assumed by physics.

The idea of creating a natural "universal constants" is incorrect. The fact measure anything in particular on Earth at any given time, does not mean that measurement results can be applied anywhere and at any time within the Universe. The measurement they call the "gravitational constant, derived from the attraction between objects in a torsion balance, is only the gravitational attraction electrostatic. But, as the absorption and emission of the objects in the torsion balance is relative to the density of emissions that affect the Earth, its attraction can be seen as a measure of the gravity of the earth at that time.

Many of the units of measurement of physics are defined arbitrarily, or based on the assumption that the thing referred to do not change over time. If you take the time to be defined by the rotation of the Earth, then as the Earth's rotation is slowing the one-day increase.

abstractionist paradigm of physics is the so-called nuclear force as an internal process that is responsible for the binding of particles higher forms of matter. This is a mistake. The nuclear force is actually nuclear fusion process of construction, which involves the absorption of emissions within a context of increased density of impacting emission. This involves the movement resulting from the attraction. Nuclear fusion as the construction process is the force fundamental of 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 increase in the density of Earth's gravitational field. The Earth's atmosphere is retained by the Earth through the interaction of the atmosphere with the gravitational field of the Earth. The environment does not only hang there magically. As the density of the gravitational field strength, the density of the atmosphere increases. However, as increasing the density of the gravitational field takes place over a long period of time, you can not have a significant impact on the current rate of increase in average temperature Earth.

As our solar system exists in the Milky Way, is the object of attraction through the absorption of emissions within the galaxy. This would impact on the density of emission in the solar system and the density of Earth's gravitational field. The physical creation is not even aware that the Milky Way has a direct impact on the solar system and Earth, through the issuance of the galaxies being absorbed by the solar system.

Two particles that approach each other through the absorption of the emissions may explode due to emission pressure impacting quality. Establishment physics sees this as of mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter. The existence of antimatter is a myth of the abstractionist paradigm. I think they have acquired the idea of a science fiction movie.

Everything from the smallest subatomic particles to the planets and stars, have an asymmetric duality at their cores. This is a big one and a small state of matter.

The Earth's gravitational field is generated from an asymmetric duality at its core. As part of the increases duality in the matter, the other decreases in the field. As the largest state reaches a maximum absorption of the other reaches a state of maximum emission. The absorption process and the issue then turns to the regular accounting of reversing the magnetic poles of Earth.

The fact that particles created from collisions in particle accelerators always have a curved path can be explained by the asymmetric duality (imbalances) in their nuclei. Physical setting offers no explanation for this phenomenon curved path.

When electrons are deflected by an electromagnetic (emission) on the ground, what is the mechanism that causes this to happen? Once again, the abstractionist paradigm is silent. The only possible explanation is that electrons absorb the electromagnetic emissions (emission) from the field and are deflected (in the sense of attraction), according to the density of matter.

Physics states that the wavelength of an electron is determined by its momentum and that the electrons in higher orbits show a contraction, due to smaller wavelengths. The wavelength of an electron is determined by the scope of their issuance, which is determined by the density of the issue of impact. The electrons in higher orbits are subject to less densely impact of emissions and therefore have a higher orbit speed and reduced lengths wave as a result. With the abstractionist paradigm that tends to cause and effect backwards because they do not correctly interpret the Häfele-Keating experiment and apply the entire atomic structure.

The well-known phenomena of the emission (light) away from a star that is undergoing its passage near of a star nearest to our point of observation, gravitational lensing, is also a case of particles that are deflected by the absorption of emissions from a field emission.

The orbit of a planet around the Sun can be explained by its absorption of the emissions of the Sun and other planets through of field emission, and its orbital motion.

The advance in the perihelion of Mercury can be explained by the increase in issue during each orbit of Mercury around the sun. This increase in area results in an increase in the density of its gravitational field that is kept in close contact (perihelion) to the sun a little more time during each orbit. This advance in the perihelion, also known as orbital precession, would apply to all planets. This also explains why the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular.

Rotation is an inherent aspect of the universe, whether the rotation of a particle of a planet of a star or a galaxy. A single particle is a process of absorption and emission and is in a state of imbalance due to asymmetric dual core. As a result an individual particle rotation, vibration and press.

We view the matter as made of particles, which in turn are made of sub-particles. These particles are linked through the absorption of emissions within the context of the impact of emissions. We can see this issue, in turn made of smaller particles, even to the end of the particle as small as possible in the universe. However, even this particle small as possible to absorb and emit and therefore exist within a context of utterance that groundstate of the Universe.

How can you distinguish between the brightness current of a galaxy or a star and its distance from the point of observation? By assuming that the brightness of a galaxy or a star does not change over time? By assuming that the wavelength of issue (light) does not change over distance? Assuming that emissions (of light) has a constant speed as it travels through the interaction with emission dispersion called empty space? It's silly, the collusion of a very large imagination. The desire to measure cosmic distances more the rides any rational consideration of the dynamic nature of the Universe. You can not distinguish between the brightness of the present of a galaxy or a star and its distance from the point of observation. The only way to measure cosmic distances is through triangulation. For measurements beyond our solar system the result will always be "a long way."

If you measure a wavelength of the emission of a star that corresponds to an item, does this indicates the presence of that element of the star? As constructed emission wavelengths as it travels, you can have the same spectral signature of the issuing of an element but does not indicate the presence of that element in the star. The spectral signature is the symmetry of the emissions for the emission of the element. The only way the issue of a star may represent the presence of an element is not altered if wave as he headed toward Earth, which is simply impossible.

There is an area abstractionist paradigm called quantum theory. This is really an observation, not a theory. It is based on the fact that energy (emission) comes in packages discrete or quanta, and not as an undifferentiated sequence. Quantum physicists do not ask how are these few or constructed. Quanta, as the wavelengths emission are formed or constructed through the convergence of emission levels.

Uncertainty is seen by physics as an inherent aspect the universe. This comes with the Uncertainty Principle, which states that: "there is a fundamental limit for the precision with which a coordinate position of a particle and momentum in this direction can be both known. "(" Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology ", 1995) If something is in a position static, then they have one speed, and if you have one speed, then you are not in a static position. Without doubt, the position and momentum are mutually exclusive. The only way that both factors may be known at any level of precision at the same time would be if the particle does not have a static position, but that is, in fact, moving at speed in a particular direction.

Physics says that the inherent uncertainty also refers to the "quantum" or ultra-micro, and "has nothing to do with the ability (or inability) of our instruments to make precise measurements." (John Gribbin, "dedicated to "Cosmos, 1996) The ultra micro absorption and emission of the issue of the instrument with which it interacts with the measurement of absorption and emission what is being measured. If what they were measuring the wavelength, then this could pose the question of the measurement instrument to absorb some of the emission wave causing it to collapse to a lower state of the construction. This is usually referred to as "the collapse of the wave function."

An experiment using what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate and a number of isotopes of an element in particular, has a result that can not be explained by the abstractionist paradigm. The experiment is half of the isotopes in the condensate to repel previously. This could only occur if there were equivalent (identical). When a magnetic field is applied to the condensate, isotopes attract each other. This is obviously to obtain an equivalent emission isotopes through the absorption field magnetic. When the field strength further increases nearly half of the isotopes suddenly disappear in an instant of emission. Increasing the field strength magnet is equivalent to increasing the density of emissions impact as pressure and causing the isotope to deconstruct (explode) back to the issue from which they were built.

Being locked into a paradigm of limited capacity can waste time, money and effort. Physics has lost all three by building tools to detect and measure gravitational waves. Gravity waves and waves of releases are one and the same thing. By observing and measuring the emissions of the Sun, you detect and measure its gravity waves.

The idea of nuclear fusion reactors for energy freedom is another ill-conceived idea of abstractionist paradigm. The field coil used to contain the process actually fuels the process emissions through its being absorbed by the process. You can never get more than you put in.

Another waste of time in physics concerns the establishment trying to find out what they call "lack of dark matter." They see this as dark matter that is required to be accountable to the macro-structure of the universe. No missing dark matter. The issue which is the space (dark matter) extends into well below what constitutes the visible light spectrum, and all the way to the groundstate in the ultra micro.

The idea of the physical setting the big bang beginning of the universe is based on a misinterpretation of what is called the cosmic phenomena redshift. redshift implies emissions (light) increasing wavelength. Cosmic phenomena redshift and redshift gravitational phenomena are one and the same thing. The physical creation is ready to accept that the red shift in the emission of the Sun is due to issue (gravitational) field and yet maintains that the red shift in the emission of galaxies is not due to the scope of the issue. We are asked to believe that galaxies do not have emissions (gravitational) fields not have emissions (light) at all, and do not exist and must be inventions of our imagination.

The galaxies are speeding away. Forget the Doppler effect. The emission (light) of galaxies and stars are dispersed to meet with decrease in the density of impacting emission. If the issue of galaxies and the stars scattered on his way toward us, then heaven is to be on fire with the broadcast called light. This is known as Olbers's paradox, and is resolved to the fact the dispersion of the broadcast called light.

Microwave background radiation has been detected in the cosmic sky, and this is claimed to be the remnant of the Big Bang and as evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. The microwave background radiation is indicative of the maximum dispersion of emissions as the emissions groundstate in the ultra micro

In 1929, a light "tired" theory was presented the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, to explain the red shift in the light of galaxies. This theory is essentially correct. It was rejected in favor of expanding universe theory Edwin Hubble, which fitted the inherent need for physicists measurements and perform calculations and generate thousands and thousands of magazine articles that all add up to near zero in terms of knowledge about the universe. The theory the Big Bang is the height of the Flat Earth theory, and Earth is the center of the solar system theory.

The universe began with a Big Bang. The Universe not started, is infinite in space and time and is a process of the construction and evolution of everything, including humans.

Although it is clear that there is a infinite number of things in the universe, if there were an infinite number of types of things, there would be infinite variability. We did not observe the infinite variability. Note things as discrete types.

Could it be that the rates we observe are merely a product of how human beings are capable of seeing the universe? Good question. We humans are an example of the possibilities of construction of the universe, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that our ability to observe the universe is consistent with the universe and that the guys look really exists. Good answer.

The fact that a very large number would represent the finite number of kinds of things that can be built is irrelevant. While the number is finite, all that can exist must exist an infinite number of times and do so in every moment of time. Since the infinite existence is the big appeal of religion, the fact that infinite existence is a fact of existence would be the final nail in the coffin of religion.

The abstractionist paradigm is a conceptual structure built from interconnected hypotheses and theories and inconsistency. When some of these assumptions and theories are discredited, and his inconsistency is exposed, the house of cards begins to crumble. The fact that the correct physics Häfele interpret the experiment, Keating was clearly a major error. But the biggest mistake was thinking that mathematics and measurements, in itself, represents a true fundamental approach to understanding the universe.

About the Author