Stephen Mooney
Materialism is the proposition that everything is composed of a material substance, which is generally called matter. With its abstractionist approach (paradigm), physics is not a truly materialist explanation of the process of the Universe. This Materialist Theory proposes explanations that are consistent with all evidence and which extend and challenge many of the explanations that derive from the abstractionist approach of physics.
The simple electrostatic experiment can verify the absorption of emission explanation of attraction. All objects attract other objects because all objects absorb and emit as a product of their existence. If you increase the emission of one object the attraction of another object can increase. The rubbing of a glass rod in the simple electrostatic experiment entails increasing the emission of the glass rod. However, there is a limit to the extent to which a given object can absorb emission and hence a limit to the extent to which its attraction can be increased. Further experimental verification could be obtained by bringing the emission of two objects of inequivalent emission into equivalence and observing the change from attraction to repulsion.
Objects either have a state of emission exceeding absorption or absorption exceeding emission, with this relationship be able to be reversed. As emission is composed of matter, emission exceeding absorption entails decreasing matter as absorption exceeding emission entails increasing matter. Every object is, therefore, either decreasing or increasing in matter at any particular instant of time.
The absorption/emission explanation gives rise to seeing the space between objects as composed of the emission of objects and not as a vacuum. Everything exists within an environment of emission, and this emission varies in its density. The density of the emission around an object decreases with the distance from the object in accordance with Newton's law, i.e. attraction falls off by the square of the distance. This also means that every object is surrounded by an emission field, which is constructed from the emission of the object and the emission which is impacting upon the object. The absorption of emission occurs via an objects emission field, just as its emission is via its emission field. Einstein's curved space as the cause of gravitational attraction is a generalization. The decreasing density of the emission of the Sun with the increasing distance from the Sun can readily be equated with the curved space idea. The light from a distant galaxy passing near the Sun is bent through absorbing the emission of the Sun.
Light travels through absorption and emission within the emission that is space, and not as a particle (a photon) moving through an empty space. It's the absorption/emission aspect of light which finds correspondence with its detection as a wavelength. The further light travels from its source the greater is its emission over absorption which entails increasing dispersion that is detected as increasing wavelength. The increasing wavelength of light with the distance it travels was pointed out by the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1928 in refutation of the idea that the increasing wavelength of the light from distant galaxies was a Doppler Effect brought about by the galaxies accelerating away. The cosmic redshift phenomena is not indicative of galaxies accelerating away. There is no evidence for a big bang.
From sub-atomic particles to planets and stars and galaxies, all attraction is the result of the absorption of emission. The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission of the Sun, with this attraction being counter-balance by the Earth's orbital motion. The Earth's absorption of the emission of the Sun forms a material connection to the Sun that results in the Earth being pulled around by the rotation of the Sun. It is my contention that much of the absorption by the Earth is drawn into the core of the Earth via its emission field and the North and South poles, and generates the rotation of the Earth.
As gravity is the result of the absorption of emission, and not merely the matter of an object, how could it be possible for a star to collapse under its own emission (gravity) to form a blackhole? It's not possible. Stars can't collapse to form blackholes.
It is my contention that the Universe entails a groundstate which forms the core of all matter, and which entails rotation due to it having dyssymetical absorption and emission. It's this which accounts for rotation from sub-atomic particles to galaxies.
Within this materialist theory complex matter is seen as collected for fused emission. Stars form from the emission that is space and grow through absorbing that emission. They would begin as a process of absorption exceeding emission and would, therefore, not be readily visible. This corresponds to the idea of a blackhole. A some point the star's absorption/emission relationship reverses and the star becomes readily visible. Our Sun is fueled by absorbing emission and is a process of emission exceeding absorption so that it's decreasing in matter.
An object on or near the surface of the Earth is attracted to the Earth through its emission being absorbed by the Earth via the Earth's emission. As the Earth appears to be a process of absorption exceeding emission it must be increasing in matter. If the emission of the Earth were to change its gravity would change. As the matter of the Earth is increasing the emission of the Earth would be increasing and hence the gravity of the Earth would be increasing and, therefore, it would have been less in the past than it is now. This should be taken into account when considering, for example, the agility of large dinosaurs millions of years ago.
The increasing emission of the Earth should also be taken into account with regard to the increasing average temperature of the Earth. Is the increasing average temperature, Global warming, related to the increasing emission? Increasing emission would be greatest over the poles, particularly the South pole, and give rise to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Within the abstractionist approach that is physics, time is treated as a thing-it-self. This is the fallacy of 'misplaced concreteness'. Time is not a thing-in-itself, but a measure of the mechanism or process of a material things. When physics conducts an experiment and presents the results as indicating that time either slowed down or sped up, it fails to identify the material mechanism or process which slowed down or sped up and the context of emission within which this occurred. For example, the difference between the time keeping of identical clocks at the top and bottom of a tower is due to the difference in the density of the emission which impacts upon the clocks and not the mere difference in the motion of the clocks. Motion, like time, is not a thing-in-itself. Only material things can have motion, and all motion occurs within the emission called space.
A particularly extreme example of how the abstractionist approach of physics has eschewed its view of the Universe is the Uncertainty Principle. Everything has a cause, because the alternative is that things can happen without a cause (by magic) and this is clearly unacceptable. Everything having a cause also means that everything is determined and is, thereby, certain. Any uncertainty must relate to our lack of knowledge and/or our inability to accurately describe the Universe and not be an inherent aspect of the Universe.
There is little question that the Universe is a self-quantifying materialist process that is infinite in all directions, and that the structures which constitute the Universe exist within the parameters of a groundstate and the explosion of galaxies. However, can there be infinite types of structures within this infinity? How can the idea of infinite types of structures be reconciled with the observation that galaxies and stars and planets appear to come in a finite number of types? For me, the number of types of structures are finite giving rise to the idea that anything which can be constructed by the Universe must exist and re-exist infinitely.
Although this materialist theory is consistent with all evidence it obviously needs development through more and detailed interpretation and generation of experiments and observations. There is also the matter of the exploration of the possibility of the direct quantitative representation of the theory. If this direct quantitative representation were obtained then it would clearly constitute a paradigm shift revolution in physics.