cavarka9 wrote: First, I did not say about science , you can check it out yourself

cavarka9 wrote: Science is built on hypothesis and evidence not on reputations, whether it is penrose or newton.

Wtf?

cavarka9 wrote: Nonsense, there is no dividing line to decide what modern is, so its a rhetorical word at best, second is the historians view is a logical fallacy, non-sequitor.

What a load of rubbish.

The modern scientific method is clearly defined. Go and look it up.

cavarka9 wrote: I can explain a bit more clearly, but you have not quoted the first part of the statement truthfully spear, which isnt fair.

Bullshit.

cavarka9 wrote:

Neuroscientist Rosanna Gorini notes that "according to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method."[32]

Oh look! There's the word 'modern' again - I bet it's ok now, right?

But what's that other word there? Pioneer? The Wright brothers were the pioneer of flight, it doesn't mean they used an identical process as modern jet engines.

cavarka9 wrote: many ideas which came to europe were from arabs, the writings on optics included.

And many of the ideas they had came from the Greeks and some from the Indians.

While thoroughly interesting, I can't help but notice this is yet more vacuous diversion that seems only intent on establishing your learned credentials, and has absolutely bugger all to do with the topic matter.

I could just as easily introduce Archimedes and Thales to show off mine, but neither of them practiced the modern scientific method, although aspects of their teachings presaged it.

Cārvāka = someone extremely fond of wrangling.

cavarka9 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Cārvāka = someone extremely fond of wrangling.

sorry if you think that I have deviated the topic at hand.

Well, to be fair the OP seems to have broached practically every topic under the sun, but my contention was that your response seemed to entirely miss Nils' point, I mean 'entirely', it was approximate to telling us the price of fish. Then you took my, admittedly slightly abstract comment on that to start asking for evidence for the Copernican model... it's almost impossible to follow such a haphazard conversation without recreational drugs!

It seems the paradigm is descending pretty much into numerology to me.

The MK system for the classification of stars through their spectra involves 7 types. The near infra-red morphology of spiral galaxies involves 16 types.

Both of these are man made classification systems though. The MK system also has subscripts these days running from 0-9 in each of the obafgkm main types. That changes the number of available classifications greatly. (The sun for example would be G2).

This means that 11 is the maximum number of planets (which includes the central star) with which a solar system begins.

Why? I can't see how this follows at all.

The maximum state of construction at [13] is 92, which can represent the 92 elements.

There are 118 elements currently known of which 94 not 92 occur on Earth naturally. I would have thought this alone throws the numbering scheme out completely.

A star is planet in its first stage and constructs the elements through absorption under the increasing density of impacting emission. A point is reached when the pressure at the core causes it to ignite into its second stage and become a star.

Any evidence for this whatsoever? Especially given the star forming regions we do observe seem to contain molecular clouds undergoing self gravitation and a distinct lack of detectable planets.

Stars do not actually come in seven spectral types as claimed by the MK system of classification. Given that emission (light) increases in wavelength as it travels, and that the emission of stars increases over time, the idea of the spectral analysis of the light form galaxies and stars is nonsense.

You are asserting tired light here. As already posted such theories do not work. Secondly you appear to have used the classifications to obtain 11 planets as being some fundamental amount yet now you say one of the figure used to derive that value is nonsense.

The smallest possible wavelength above the groundstate is represented by 16  [4]  (2), and has the value of 7 as a density of emission.

This is word salad. The smallest non ground state energy level is dependent upon the system for which the ground state has been found. This depends in turn on the masses involved. As such you numbers are meaningless.

The number 49 at [13] equals 72 and can represent (through numeric symmetry) the pressure at the core of a planet as it ignites into a star.

The pressures at the cores of planets and stars depend upon the materials and the masses involved. No one number describes them all completely.

The number 92 at [13], for example, can represent uranium and through numeric symmetry all the 92 elements and also a level of emission that has no simple connection to uranium or the elements.

There is more than 92 elements. (See above)

Of the 11 planets with which our solar system begun one has ignited to become the central star (the Sun). Of the remaining 10, two have been destroyed due to the increasing emission (gravity) of the Sun.

Any evidence for this? Where were these planets and what has become of the material that made them. What effect do you think this has had on the other planets.

Of the remaining 8, some will be destroyed and some will ignite into their second stages and become stars in a solar system of stars. The number that will be destroyed or ignite is represented on the Paradigm.

I haven't seen a reason provided why a given planet would ignite or not. Nor have i seen details of the process involved in this ignition. There is no maths either just a string of random numbers backed with assertion.

The Earth will be the second planet in the solar system to ignite into a star, because there can only be a maximum of 7 stars in a solar system of stars: 4  7. The number 7 also represents the number of the construction possibilities of a star, in the sense of combinations and stages. It may also be the case that stars can form as a string or line of up to 7 stars.

Why 7? Generally when the number of stars in a system becomes larger than a handful it gets labeled as some form of cluster anyway.

The elements are represented individually on the Paradigm as levels of construction, with [3] being Hydrogen and [94] Uranium. With the de-construction of a galaxy or star, the elements de-construct (decay) back to Hydrogen. This accounts for the abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe. Hydrogen itself de-constructs back through the levels of particle and emission construction to the emission groundstate from which it was constructed.

What is an emission groundstate? In conventional physics a ground state refers to a level of energy. That is a number or measure of a capacity to do work. Hydrogen on the other hand is not comprised of energy it is matter. Energy is a property matter is a thing. (note i did not say mass since that is also a property not a thing)

Elliptical galaxies are discs of emission which are constructed from the emission groundstate and either dissipate due to the lack of density of impacting emission, or go on to become spiral galaxies which form clusters through the absorption of emission.

An eliptical galaxy could have a spherical shape right down to a very oblate one. Its not thought that ellipticals go on to form spirals. Ellipticals tend to be comprised of older stars than many spirals and many may result from the merger of pairs of spirals or other galaxy types.

Globular or star burst galaxies are spiral galaxies that are in the final stage of their cores consuming their stars and prior to dispersing to become nebula galaxies. They do not explode. Due to their lack of a source of increasing density of impacting emission, stars and solar systems are not constructed within nebula galaxies. Everything within these galaxies is de-constructing back to the groundstate.

Nebulae and Globular clusters are not galaxies. Unless you are using some unconventional nomenclature i think you are confusing different types of body. What to you mean by globular galaxy? Starburst galaxies however do exist. They are not in the final stages of anything. They are in the process of large amounts of star formation. Most likely they result from interactions between galaxies.

The four inner planets in a solar system which explode have reached their maximum construction, because of the nature of solar systems. This is represented on the Paradigm as 4 at [2] where 3 as [3] has 7 representing the evolution of a solar system to 7 stars. All the non-planet bodies in that can exist within a solar system, such as moons and asteroids and meteorites, are the product of the exploded planets. Nothing can enter the solar system because of the first law of Physics and the Universe.

The first law of physics? What do you mean by that? Comets and the like routinely enter the solar system (depending upon how you define it) and there is no reason another body cannot either. Some binaries may be the result of one massive star 'capturing' another.

Pulsars are stars which are rapidly rotating with jets of emission from their poles that emanates from the dissymmetrical duality at their core. One jet has slightly greater intensity than the other. These stars are in their final stage of consuming their matter, which begins at the core.

Pulsars tend to be neutron stars. They may not be undergoing conventional fusion at all.

The number 29 in [7] 16  29 represents the number of globular and nebula galaxies, which are divided into 13 and 16 types. The number 37 in 37  [7], represents the emission of galaxies impacting upon the emission groundstate that exists between galaxies and from which elliptical galaxies are constructed because [7] as 7 can represent the core of a galaxy or a star.

Again what do you mean by those galaxy types. Also 7 represents the core of a galaxy or star? I thought 7 represented the 'density of emission' of the groundstate of something or other. It appears you are plucking numbers out of nowhere and simply using them as labels without any real meaning.

With 1 type of elliptical galaxy, 16 types of spiral galaxy, 13 types of globular galaxy, and 16 types of nebula galaxy, the total number of galaxy types is 46. This is the maximum state of construction at level [9] on the Paradigm. The time that it takes for an elliptical galaxy to evolve into a spiral galaxy is so long that within Human existence all the galaxies appear to be frozen in time.

In most schemes there are at least 3 classifications of Ellipticals. (E0 to E7 exist in the Hubble scheme). Different schemes define different numbers of spirals too.

The 11 planets within a solar system can be represented as individual levels of construction. As the 6th planet from the edge and the centre of our solar system, the Earth can be represented by level [6], in relation to the Sun being level [11].

Other than being plucked out of thin air why 11? The number seems to come from the first part of the post but you undermined your own argument by claiming the classifications were nonsense.

To further reinforce the point that the Paradigm is more fundamental than their mathematics and measurements approach, the number 36 at level [11] as a state of “relative stability” can represent their so-called “universal” physical constants. The only thing in the Universe that is truly constant is the infinite cycle of its finite construction possibilities as specified by the Paradigm.

What is stable about 36 and why does it represent the physical constants? Everyone knows the most important number is 42!

It’s claimed that over fifty solar systems have been detected by the wobble in stars. The theory is that the wobble is due to the gravity of the planets pulling at the star. All stars rotate because they were once planets. They wobble because they have a dissymmetrical duality at their core, which is more active when the planet becomes a star. The less the wobble in a star the greater the prospect of there being orbiting planets, the very opposite of the present theory. This means that most stars have orbiting planets.

Are you claiming that stars and planets orbiting no not cause the barycentre of the system to be away from the centre of the parent star? Rotation is most likely due to angular momentum of the cloud of material that formed the star.


The rest of the cosmology section seems to be more jumble of terms rather than discernable content.

Jumbo wrote:It seems the paradigm is descending pretty much into numerology to me.

Now we're back on topic, that's what I got from the Biology section too:

Spearthrower wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Do you mind posting a short summary normal people will understand?

I only looked at the Biology part of the most recent.... offering..., and the simplest summary I can manage is: numerology informs biological relationships.

At best reading, it appears to be an exercise in how many ways one can string together grammatically coherent sentences without there being any semantic value to them.

Jumbo wrote:
Both of these are man made classification systems though. The MK system also has subscripts these days running from 0-9 in each of the obafgkm main types.

I thought there was also the RNS (obafgkmrns). Have they been abolished?

I declared myself Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos, nearly a year ago, so don't you come slithering into my ungodly domains, you fiends!

paradigm wrote:Our solar system has been reduced to 9 through the increasing gravity of the Sun leading to the destruction of the other two planets

Apparently, the Solar System has 8 planets. Pluto is no longer considered a planet - this is dependant on an operational definition of the term "planet".
The asteroid belt (which could be viewed as a proto-planet broken up by gravitational stress) does not contain enough rock to make a fair-sized planet.
The gravity of the Sun is hardly increasing. As the Sun converts mass (hydrogen) into electromagnetic radiation, it looses mass, leading to a (small) decrease in its gravity.