The Paradigm of Types in Cosmology and Biology constitutes a Paradigm shift in Science.
The Paradigm specifies the construction of everything within the realms of Cosmology and Biology from the microscale to the macroscale.
The essay which introduces the Paradigm can be accessed directly at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/this.pdf
Or, through facebook.com/paradigmrevolution
Biological life emerges from two types of organisms. A single cell organism and a triple cell organism. The Paradigm will specify the whole process of biological evolution with its on-going application.
In specifying the process of the construction of everything within Cosmology and Biology, the Paradigm leaves no room an the existence of any type of a god.
Welcome to the revolution in Science of the Paradigm of Types.
paradigm
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Numerology, conspiracy theories, and crank-ery; one stop shopping for all your crackpot needs!
Thanks for sharing, I will read it objectively and comment later.
BTW
Ignore Nyarlathotep, since everything he does not understand is "conspiracy theories, and crank-ery".
Yes Jeff, because you have such a good track record of being able to tell new age cranks apart from actual science...
Hey, remember the time you told us:
Jeff - "S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = Infinity"
Good times!
And then the unmoved Christian casually walks by once again, eyes fixed on his latest comic book, mumbling to us that even this gift of Paradigm of Types is yet just another example of god's love for us.
So, you were saying...?
Never hold up science to a Christian as proof of the non-existence of a god. He will only look at you funny and tell you god created the sciences and make you out as daft for not knowing that.
Forget about actively pursuing any self-flogging activity related to disproving god to a god-fearing man. You will lose every time because your evidence will always be a gift from his god. Those who use it against god are evil. Those who use it to worship god are the chosen.
But, people will continue to think disproving god to theists is a worthwhile effort. Knock yourselves out. Organizing my sock drawer is time better spent.
I am not going to read ten pages for you to make your point, nor should it take that much to make your point, so I abstain until you see fit to make your actual point. Though, given the overall dismissive nature of the bit I did read, I don't hold out a lot of hope.
"if [some number from some fact] can represent [some assumption] in [just an arbitrary number] where [a level number] represents [yet another assumption] indicates that [the conclusion I wanted]."
Lather, rinse and repeat...
Although i think he is wrong here:
"In specifying the process of the construction of everything within Cosmology and Biology, the Paradigm leaves no room an the existence of any type of a god."
I do not think that proving the existence/nonexistence of god was his intention with his post.
I think more that he was looking for a debate on the "Paradigm shift in Science" and it's effects(including the existence of god)
Well I did actually read large portions of the document (I skipped most of the biology part as I don't feel qualified to comment on it). Here is a summary and critique for those of you wise enough to not read it.
It mostly involves his explanation for the fundamental forces of nature. Instead of the standard methods of particle exchange, or a principle of stationary action (note: highly mathematical ideas), he presents a rather simple idea:
Mooney's paradigm shift:
M1) Object emit particles.
M2) When the emission rate of object A is different than object B, there will be a net attractive force between A and B.
M3) When the emission rate of object A and B is identical, there will be net repulsive force between A and B.
While very simple and elegant, this fails spectacularly when it comes to real world experiments. Consider the following experiment typically done in middle school science classes:
We start with 3 metallic balloons (A, B, and C) that do not attract or repel each other, and a piece of cat fur.
1) We rub the cat fur vigorously on balloon A.
2) We bring balloon A and B close to each other, we find a net attraction.
3) We then connect a wire between balloon A and B, then disconnect the wire.
4) We bring balloon A and B close to each other, we find a net repulsion.
5) We then connect a wire between balloon B and C, then disconnect the wire.
6) We bring balloon A and B close to each other, we find a net repulsion.
7) We bring balloon A and C close to each other, we find a net repulsion.
8) We bring balloon B and C close to each other, we find a net repulsion.
Now we are at the critical point. We want to predict how much force we will measure between each of the balloons:
Prediction using the theory of electrostatics:
During step #1 we put a large negative charge of magnitude K on balloon A.
During step #3 we divided charge K between balloon A and B, So now A has charge (1/2)K and B has (1/2)K.
During step #5 we divided the charge (1/2)K between balloon B and C. So now B = (1/4)K, and C = (1/4)K.
Therefore the repulsive force between A and B will be proportional to sum of their charges: (1/2)K + (1/4)K = (3/4)K
And the repulsive force between B and C will be proportional to the sum of their charges: (1/4)K + (1/4)K = (1/2)K
Conclusion from electrostatics: t̲h̲e̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲ ̲b̲e̲t̲w̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲A̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲B̲,̲ ̲w̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲g̲r̲e̲a̲t̲e̲r̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲n̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲ ̲b̲e̲t̲w̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲B̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲C̲.̲
Prediction using "Mooney's paradigm shift":
All three balloon repel each other
Therefore (from M3) all 3 balloons must have identical "emission rates".
Conclusion from "Mooney's paradigm shift": T̲h̲e̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲ ̲b̲e̲t̲w̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲A̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲B̲ ̲w̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲b̲e̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲s̲a̲m̲e̲ ̲a̲s̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲ ̲b̲e̲t̲w̲e̲e̲n̲ ̲B̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲C̲ (since they all have identical "emission rates").
When you actually measure the forces between A and B, and B and C; you will find the force between A and B is greater, and in the proportion predicted by the theory of electrostatics.
So Mooney's paradigm shift does not pass "middle school science".
Somebody clicked "disagree" on this post and didn't leave a comment explaining why. This isn't opinion, here; so if you disagree with the science why don't you pony up with the counter-argument? Otherwise you are a fucking coward.
"When the emission rate of object A and B is identical, there will be net repulsive force between A and B."
0.o
Maybe that is why the batteries always come out of the remote when I drop it! But, then, why don't THEY repel each other when I go to put them back in? Hmmm....
Perhaps I can spin this into my theory of the left sock army in an alternate pocket of spacetime...
There is an even simpler experiment. Take 2 magnets, one in each hand. Hold them close together where you can feel an attractive force between them. According to Mooney's idea: since there is an attraction, their "emission rates" are different. Now rotate one of the magnets 180 degrees. Since you haven't changed the "emission rate", they are still different, therefore (according to Mooney) the force between them should still be attractive. Yet your hands tell you a different story, they now will repel.
This is actually just a dumbed down version on a really old idea, that lots of people have come up independently; and which of course fails. I first became aware of from a lecture given by Feynman in 1964.
Here is a link to a video of the lecture, to the point in question (around 7:40), if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kd0xTfdt6qw#t=461
If anyone would prefer to read it, it begins about the middle of page 40 in the following pdf (page 37 in the original document):
http://dillydust.com/The%20Character%20of%20Physical%20Law~tqw~_darkside...