Discussion

Home - Download The Document - TFI - Alternate Doc - Contact The Author - FAQs - Discussions

Introduction to the Discussions

The primary purpose for these discussions is to provide some more in-depth presentations of a few significant topics that require more extensive coverage than is provided in the FAQs page.

In what we are presenting, we are not only challenging many of the leading concepts in what is referred to as “modern” physics, but we are also challenging some of the foundation approaches and techniques that have become heavily preferred in current physics and science. We are not doing so lightly. We are fully aware that there will likely be a great many scientists, both in and out of the mainstream, who will look at how we are choosing to approach this effort and dismiss it because they feel that the techniques and/or the content are not valid – primarily because we are not following the currently accepted norms. We are not following those preferred and heavily promoted norms because we believe that they are deeply flawed. We maintain that at this point they have actually become part of the problem.

The discussion of “Why Did I Take the Approach That I Did?” discusses a few of those deviations, and why I purposely chose to deviate from the accepted norms that are specifically addressed in that discussion. It is something that I would encourage you to read if you are wondering why I have taken some of the approaches that I have.

One of the topics that I have addressed in both the discussion of my approach as well as in the FAQs is that there is currently far too great of an emphasis and dependence on mathematics in physics and science today. I maintain that mathematics does not have the capability for keeping us on-track with the truths of Reality that many today seem to believe that it does – and that it is that reliance on mathematics that has been a major factor in “modern” physics getting well off-track from the truth of Reality. The foundation that we need to be building on instead is what I have dubbed “Phenomenoscience”. Good phenomenoscience is a rather challenging endeavor, which (I suspect) is a major part of the reason why it has not been used as fully as it should, and is often even actively shunned at times as mere “Philosophy”. Despite what some may feel, good phenomenoscience is not philosophy, but is instead a critical part of good science. We cannot afford to ignore it if we truly hope to understand how Reality actually works. Phenomenoscience is the primary underlying approach behind the Theory of Field Interaction, even though I did not coin the term “phenomenoscience” until after the book was initially published online. The discussion of “What Is Phenomenoscience?” is an attempt to provide some sort of introductory discussion of this crucial, yet challenging technique for getting, and then keeping, physics and science truly on-track with the truths of Reality.

The rest of the discussions should be somewhat self-explanatory.

Discussion Links:

A Little About the Author -

What Is In the Book? -

Why Did I Take the Approach That I Did? -

What is Phenomenoscience? -

Is This Philosophy or Science? -

An Allegory of Quantum Wave Functions -