Peter Kinane

In my late teens I sensed a logic leap in Western philosophy, from the flux of Mother Nature to universal absolute forms.

Mother Nature could not be abolished but neither could there be coherence with Father Supernatural. Incoherence was very clear.

I could see from a glance at Western philosophy books, of which there were mountains, that almost all writers were trying to resolve the incoherence and had been for 2,400 years.

So, there was no point in my joining that effort, which meant there was nothing for me to read.

I did my own thinking and developed independently.

Readers may be interested in a brief outline of what emerged, perhaps thereby each getting a sense of its value, perhaps in terms of the nature of things, including themselves.:

1. A new philosophy system emerged – E-PS

2. Subsequently I brought E-PS to bear on fields of physics.

Initially it informed a grid system, EGS - an alternative to S.R.

It is extremely different to Special Relativity.

3. Now, I have brought E-PS-informed EGS to the issue of light curving near great body, EGSLCF emerged – an alternative to G.R.

This sequence is much as Albert Einstein build on his Special Relativity and produced General Relativity.

It is very different to G.R.

EGS and EGSLCF are informed by radically new E-PS whereas A.E. was informed by rather fossilised concepts, though he did mature beyond Isaac Newton’s absolutism to Relativism, but not to E-PS nor Quantum Dynamics.

Also he produced S.R. at age twenty five. He probably was hasty in choosing premises, if it occurred to him to reflect on them at all.

But of course E-PS did not emerge until ninety years later … and I know how much reflection that required.

So, due to the failure of Western philosophy, he was stuck with incoherent concepts.

Soon after, he concluded that S.R. frame hopping could not be applied to - cohere with - Sun-Earth gravitation.

‘Fortunately’ for S.R. ‘and for the world’ he was (happily) inspired to change space and time to warped spacetime … and it sold …thanks to theory and observation as a standard of rigour of value.

Rigour of value is best tested through bringing a system into tension with any alternatives. One will thrive, the other decline.

Theory and observation are circular.

Theory: Elephants hold up the world and get restless,, causing earthquakes. Observation: Earthquakes occur. The model is best tested for rigour through tension with the helio-centric model - momentum and undefined gravity.

Also, concepts do _not_ translate or transfer across system … no elephants in Helio-centric Cosmology, no momentum and gravity in Flat Earth Cosmology.

Now there is E-PS and EGS and EGSLCF.

Also, it’s not about attempting to differentiate between whether I or Albert, or I or Plato, started with theory or observation and the other with the opposite - they are circular.

It’s about theory-quality.

I am proposing new systems with profound significance for Philosophy, Physics and indeed Politics, which latter features global tensions between monster regimes and democracy. I believe it is important for democrats to do what they intellectually can to ensure democracy prevails. There is the further factor to take an active interest: Mankind now has the technology to thoroughly self-destruct.

Note: It does not make sense to me for a democracy to allow freedom of speech to someone, or to an ideology, that does not itself allow it.