Extracts from the article by Russell K Bonney, Paradigm lost



"The law is reason free from passion." Aristotle


Beginning with that quote of Aristotle's is primarily to relate the idea that even though he quite obviously had a different law in mind, the underlying principle remains the same with regard to empiricism and the laws of physics. I would suggest that Impassioned arguments    based       solely on preconceived notions (pet theories or parts thereof) should have no place in theoretical physics and neither should logic be demeaned and usurped by subjective rationalism, no matter how passionately felt.

I am about to support the case which already asserts the need for a new physics. This is based on what we understand regarding the known laws of physics and the physics itself. Such an embarkation can be seen to require a subjugative theoretical approach in that we become constrained to derive legal reasons (preeminent laws) whereby the existing laws of physics are then legally able to be conditionally usurped by a priori supersedence. Any other approach which simply accepts the noted anomalous violations of the laws of physics without deference to any legal framework, is un-empirical by default.

Empiricism per se is at risk of being thrown under a faltering bus, loaded to capacity with theoretical presentations, many of which approach to the absurd at the very least. Legality of both process and form becomes an imperative in order to signpost the road leading to perhaps the periphery of a true understanding of the nature of things. Simply making a change to the meaning of the word 'empirical' is ironically un-empirical and an illegal sleight of hand, and for those of you with some remaining common sense, that has been done and isn't acceptable.

Apart from the serious threat posed to the classical (physics) understanding of empiricism by the impertinently illegal behaviors of some errant physical objects/bodies, which is noted at both the micro and macro levels, there isn't really much wrong with physics in a practical sense. From that realization though we could easily make the argument to simply shelve the enigmas, change the meaning of words to suit our fancy and continue with 'business as usual'. The rhetorical question to be asked here is. Is that the scientific method?

The problem is that classical physics seems to have become impotent by its (by now intrinsic) legal intransigence       in the face of some 'illegal' but factual    observances. Therefore it stands to reason that any evaluation of newly discovered 'strange facts' by the scientific method demands that we not only need the framework of a new physics which is able to explain them but one which also maintains empiricism!

That means: In theorizing any new physics we must first have declared such noted errant behaviors to be factual. Upon so doing we are furthermore forced to redefine a similarly post modern legal approach to how we understand the processes and forms with regard to the treatment of the laws of physics, in both practical and theoretical endeavors; from the fundamental lowest order of particles through to the highest order of the behavior of bodies.

In the (following) thesis I will attempt to demonstrate, how by simply approaching the physics from both of those coherent standpoints, that the result promotes a better understanding of how the physics actually works by deriving a better fit model from both a physical and legal perspective.

It should be evident to the astute that the theorizing of either illegal and/or illogical fantasies can never hope to lead to a better and brighter future. With that in mind it becomes incumbent upon theorists to develop ground rules for any future theorizing; rules which are able to offer the greatest security for such an altruistic hope by demanding stringent application of such necessary requirements toward the 'best practice' maintenance of legal empiricism.

The first requirement to be imposed on new theories should demand that they be empirical in both the legal and logical sense (rational). Secondly; they must also show ability for the necessary level of (universe wide'energy state real-time balance') to be achieved. As well as that, they must also show an absolute ability to be able to operate in an omnidirectional manner without exhibiting logical flaws.

This then presupposes that the universe is Euclidean. Based on the known laws of physics, that MUST be the case and any other geodesic theory then becomes illegal*. These two requirements become retro-applicable to all historical theories. In this regard most of the post Newtonian theoretical offerings fail to a greater extent than the classical physics they purport to replace, as do a host of fantastical and metaphysical ideas.

Legal requirement however should not stand in the way of the embryonic development of ideas. This proposal is simply a call to put newly formed hypotheses to the test of legality (even if it is from the viewpoint of a theorized but rational legal structure) before continuing too far down any theoretical path. Such self/peer censorship won't necessarily destroy a theory if some problems only exist as an aside and which are not required to be given any 'theory critical' explanation, but instead such an approach might just help guide the fledgling theory onto a pathway to further and useful enlightenment by critical adjustment. I consider myself to have taken that tack in developing the G-theory featured in the thesis; being the end result. This doesn't preclude other theories from being created and evaluated by the academy but they should all be put to the test.

* Un-empirical: Does that ring any bells? ...even alarm bells?  






It's no secret that many are beginning to recognize that the science we currently have is ill equipped for providing reasonable answers to the growing and disconcerting list of weird observational phenomena; which fact becomes starkly evident upon any serious perusal of modern physics, and it then becomes obvious that new science of some description is required. This reasonable appellation recognizes problems likely to be encountered upon such an undertaking and it offers solutions based arguments aimed at all the naysayers confidently expected to show up in the process of just 'breaking ground' in preparation for the necessary deconstruction and reconstruction efforts. The fully expected metaphysical 'blah de blah' would no doubt arrive alongside backlash in the form of further expected obstructionism congruent with historical as well as current behavioral data. This whole work is an appeal to reason and a proposal well suited for post modern physics. The halcyon days of resting on the laurels of an impressive library consisting of pages of mathematics are probably gone.

First and foremost it is reasonable to suggest that there isn't much wrong with our current understanding of the physics and laws of the world and universe that we find our place in, outside of those 'few weird observations' and some historical and post Newtonian errors. If that was all the fuss was about, we could probably ignore them until with the passing of time, understanding under the current physics might perhaps catch up with the observations.

However that doesn't appear to be a likely scenario any more, so with such enigmas needing to be solved firmly in hand, we can see that the real dilemma going forward exists in the additional and far more problematic failure of the contemporary theoretical models by their inability to show a unified mechanics of how it 'all' works on a broad based cosmological and sub quantum level sense. Currently we should all be able to concur in the knowledge that there is not even a reliably consensual omni-homology let alone a cohomology. Right there lies the main litmus test unmistakably indicating the existence of a serious model problem with the currently understood fundamental underpinnings of post Newtonian physics, and it should by now be recognized that no amount of time is going to deliver solutions for the problems unless we begin an unencumbered search outside the box for a new paradigm. The problems don't reside in a lack of understanding of the physics we have, and astute scientists will/are realize that there must be a fundamental problem with the physics itself. There does seem to be a glaring flaw in the paradigm but what is it?

 I'll allow the question to stand rhetorically for the moment but I will say that many attempts are being currently undertaken to patch up the theories and seek unification between the parts by several endeavors which extend the paradigm into dark and dubious corners but that's not science and -no matter how noble the intent- success from those ends currently -but not surprisingly- remains elusive as well. From a historical perspective it seems that such piecemeal approaches which involves manufacturing disjointed and weird physics parts without a blueprint is unlikely to lead to any success in arriving at anything even approaching the theory of everything. In actual fact 'The theory of nothing' is the actual outcome naturally expected.

To rational minds this continually repeated tinkering without results is reminiscent of the well known definition of insanity, and the lack of a solution to four fundamental enigmas in particular is causing a confluence of confidence in the promised likelihood of such negative outcomes. For this reason timorous but desperate calls for new science are even now beginning to emanate from respected scientific institutions. However these calls are usually accompanied by restrictions aligned with the fact that science has become stringently inured to applied relativity*. That cozy relationship could very well turn out to be a love story from hell that has actually conceived the very child of dilemma, and -because of the many so enamored- if new science ever does become advocated by consensus, constant recidivism is to be expected. In order to find a real solution it may be that we need to keep the baby but completely throw out the bathwater and start all over.

*Relativity being presented as applying any virtual force of action resulting in any action at all or causing any distortion or change of constants.


Of course taking such a course of action may result in having to entertain a theory or two which completely shocks human sensitivities. Sensitivities, which seem to be more comfortable with populist retention to clichéd attachments firmly locked to the favored, traditional ideas that lie so easily, close to the heart. ...How about head, not heart! Huh?

In most cases the head seems to be where the heart is and the promised discomfort associated with the very thought of paradigm change -at this stage of human history where we instinctively maintain a great deal of pride in our consolidated and solidly entrenched yet mind blowing-ly massive 'knowledge' bank, whether such pride is displaced or not- is likely to be very, very off-putting indeed. If we wish to take comfort in something common, then perhaps we should let it be the underlying solid rock of empirical physics that we already have, and dourly consider our technological prowess as though it really could have been even better. Perhaps such reaffirmation of empirical science, might just give us a much needed prehensile anchor for our scientific souls. Yes empiricism is able to be maintained but not down the post modern road science has blindly taken. The driver obviously ignored the GPS. Perhaps he should be fired if he refuses to turn around!

Only by being determined to do just that -short of firing ourselves- and by consequence having to remove some substantially real and present bulwarks from their place dear to our hearts; we may then -and only then- be able to move forward and hopefully engage the search with open minds and unfettered imaginations in order to re-evaluate and find a best fit model of causality and universal sustenance which is fully applicable to, and compatible with the known empirical physics. Such a theory being presented to academia within the featured body of the work on offer, is G-theory.



It is a known fact that quantum physics doesn't fully comply with classical physics, and while the reasons remain unclear such a dilemma is problematic. However with the new science presented herein, valid reasons are given to why this is able to be, and that the laws which apply to each are in fact demonstrably compatible and co hospitable. The apparent incongruity confronted first, turns out to be an appreciably acceptable fact of reason once it becomes knowledge that such seemingly aberrant behavior is actually predicated by laws. Please refer to the definition of the 'Laws of disassociation.'

Technological prowess is not to be diminished. Within the assertations presented within the thesis are several possible technological and medical postulations that are tendered for the application of suitable scientific research. In general, these must be garnered from the thesis.

G-theory simply rationalizes the known physics by providing a multiplex –space division- construct without which nothing is able to fully obey the laws of physics because the derivation of those laws has been with a modicum of flawed reasoning and I can state with certainty that unification will not be a foreseeable end under any current paradigm. Authors of some other post modern theories already understand this. Unfortunately they have in the most part succumbed to the self imposed 'wedlock' restrictions previously noted. They are in effect on the right track but going in the wrong direction.   Note: For most intents and purposes the laws as they stand are admirably suited, true for our corner of the universe and those require no change. What do you think the laws pertaining to a black hole might be?

Modern theoretical physics is travelling down the road which leads to -everything being made of 'energy'- They don't yet understand that the precursor of matter is 'force' not energy. They have deviated from the true definition of mass and energy. This will all be comprehensively proven in this work. Particles as 'wavelets' or energy as 'wave function' and charge currents simply don't exist. That's all 'up the garden path stuff' that stems from the wave function and M-E equivalence sleight of hand!

Physics at the quantum level is about to come up against a wall. Even the very particle which is supposed to cause mass is itself endowed with mass. What then causes that mass, and what causes the logically expected mass of the causative particle below that. Does this all keep vanishing to infinite smallness. That idea is really buffoonery related to metaphysics. There is a real reason for mass which is even more fundamental than the Higg’s boson, and that is fully fleshed out in the thesis.

There are many other enigmas in physics, and you can discover the answers to some in the website. The others are solved in the thesis.