Stephen Mooney

Someone commenting on my dispersion explanation for the cosmic redsift said the following in another forum. “If that were true, the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra. The observed placement of the bands on the spectra would not display any shift at all. Since this is obviously not the case (red shift is the measure of the spectra relative to the placement of the absorption bands) his theory is DOA.” I responded with the following. “If the redshift was a Doppler Effect, than it would also increase the wavelength of light with which physics detects the absorption bands: “the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra”. As this is obviously not the case, the Doppler Effect theory is DOA. The fact that they don’t shift in phase, is due to them representing different levels of emission. For the dispersion theory to be correct, would require that one would shift to a greater extent than the other. This is observed.” The big bang theory dead. Stephen Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI should have added, "hoist with you own petard". Stephen

Someone commenting on my dispersion explanation for the cosmic redsift said the following in another forum. “If that were true, the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra. The observed placement of the bands on the spectra would not display any shift at all. Since this is obviously not the case (red shift is the measure of the spectra relative to the placement of the absorption bands) his theory is DOA.” I responded with the following. “If the redshift was a Doppler Effect, than it would also increase the wavelength of light with which physics detects the absorption bands: “the atomic absorption bands would have shifted in phase with the spectra”. As this is obviously not the case, the Doppler Effect theory is DOA. The fact that they don’t shift in phase, is due to them representing different levels of emission. For the dispersion theory to be correct, would require that one would shift to a greater extent than the other. This is observed.” The big bang theory dead. Stephen Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI should have added, "hoist with you own petard". Stephen

My interpretation is proven by virtue of the fact that it goes to the mechanism and is not merely an expression of effect or a mathermatical representation. Clearly, you are convinced that the absractionist paraidgm is the ultimate means for understanding the Universe. I'm not. I intentionally chose to begin with a simple electrostatic experiment to demonstrate how the abstractionist paradigm has confined the thinking of the physics establishment. My favorite is the atomic clocks experiment. The fact that "the rate of atomic decay is dependent upon the density of the impacting emission" was completely overlooked by physics because it chose to treat time as a thing in itself and not look for the materialist mechanism of its variability. The true nature of the nuclear fusion process was over looked by physics because its thinking was once again confined by the abstractionist paradigm. Because of this confined thinking, the physics establishment has allowed me to make these discoveries. I suppose I should be thankfull that there are people like you who can't think beyond the confines of the abstractinist paradigm. Stephen

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Stephen Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedActually, what I said was "Physics sees this attraction as being the result of dislike charges. This begs the question of how dislike charges cause attraction. On this question physics remains silent." Physics does remain silent on how dislike charges cause attraction. Stephen

The CMBR is the emission fabric of space. With regards to the abundnce of light elements, I've made in clear in my essay that as light changes as it travels you can not determine the presence of any particular element from that light. However, I think that the detection of light which conforms to the light elements is (in fact) the sub-atomic symmetry of those elements. You should read my essay at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf Stephen

"substantiated explanation". The big bang theory is not based on a "substantiated explanation". It is based on an assumption about the cosmic redshift. What we are really talking about are competing assumptions, which can only be "substantiated" by their consquences for our whole understanding of the process of the Universe. Physics, by which I mean the abstractionist paradigm of establishment physics, will claim that space is a vacuum and then claim that it is composed of virtual particles, dark matter, and who know what next week. As I seek a totally connected perspective of the Universe, I decided that space is composed of the emission of objects and that all objects have emission which forms a field around those objects. If you read my essay you will see I've gone a let futher than that. See "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe", located at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf When I realised that many of the assumptions of physics were wrong, I also realized that a new paradigm was needed for us to obtain a connected understanding of the Universe. And, basically, that's where I'm presently at. Exploring the possibility of a new paradigm, a materialist paradigm, a typology which always begins with what we observe. The big bang theory is wrong. Physics can not measure cosmic distance with the redshift of the light from galaxies. You can not distingish between the distance and the luminosity of a object from the redshift of its light. Physics claims that light does not change as it travels. Think about it. Light leaves a source and retains its wavelength as it travels. Complete nonsense. Stephen

As the light (which is emission) from distant galaxies travels across the Universe it's subject to dispersion and interaction with the emission called space. It is this which results in the increased wavelength of the light, and not a Dopper Effect resulting from galaxies accelerating away. See the essay "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe", located at http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/materialist.pdf Stephen Mooney

Physics is an abstractionist paradigm that is limited in its capacity to represent the strictly materialist nature of the Universe. See the essay "Debunking Physics with a Materialist Perspective of the Universe" Stephen Mooney

Edwin Hubble's assumption that the redshift from distant galaxies was indicative of a Doppler Effect and an explanding Universe, which had begin with a big bang, is wrong. The redshift is merely indictative of the way in which light travels across the Universe. Stephen