Just to make matter clear. I do not have a physics theory. I have a materialist perspective which challenges (to say the very least) some of the assumption which underpins physics as an abstractions paradigm.
However, if you insist on seeing it as a theory that needs to be tested in the conventional manner, then conduct the torsion balance excitement that measures the gravitational constant and heat one of the masses and watch the attraction increase in contradiction to what physics claims.
Or, read Cavendish’s original paper in Philosophical Transactions of 1798 and see the same thing.
Now, place two absolutely equivalent masses on the torsion balance and bring them into close proximity. They will repel each other, again in contradiction to what physics claims.
The attraction called gravity and electrostatic attraction have the same cause, the absorption of emission. It’s just that physics has thought of gravity as different and pertaining to the large scale. We could quite rightly call electrostatic attraction small scale gravity, or gravity large scale electrostatic attraction.
The nuclear forces are merely very small scale examples of attraction through the absorption of emission.
I don’t question the validity of data. Data is simply data. It’s the interpretation of data that is at issue.
I most certainly do not accept the idea of particles travelling through an otherwise empty space, as photons being exchanged to cause electrostatic attraction.
Photons travel through interacting with the emission called space. This interaction is the absorption and emission of emission no less.
Emission is simply a term to represent that thing of which everything is composed.
Stephen
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedI considered the question of what was the most fundamental thing of which everything is composed.
As particles are seen as composed of smaller particles which are composd of smaller particles, etc I decided to adopt the term "emission" to represent that most fundamental thing from which everything is composed, even particles.
You could say that emission becomes "realized" through its construction into things that we can actually detect or otherwise observe.
I see emission as being made of matter, so that everything which is composed of emission, which is everything, is also composed of matter.
Otherwise, emission is unknowable in and of itself. It's a grand assumption.
I've used the comments from this forum develop my essay, but its now time for me to move on.
Science is not just about doing experiments and making measurements. It's about thinking and deciding and coming to conclusions and then pursuing those conclusion where-ever they take you.
Stephen
