It is the same procedure a 20 years ago. Scientists believe in
that Big Bang because of the signs of their measurements. Don't
they know that measurements have the potency to prove more
than one theoretic conception?
They say that they do not need a new theory since they
have a complete and brilliant theory. What is the reality?
In the journal "bdw" 6/2001, pp 52, scientists
are proud of their results. But 62% of this concept is made by chance - that chance that vacuum would have
supported intrinsic energy into the complete universe
following the arbitrary shift of lambda-parameter of
relativity theory. How can somebody be sure at all that a
part of about 62% free precondition coming from anywhere would
be a significant condition of a proof? Is this real science
now or a fairy tale?
Using all the measurements, my theory of Small Bangs
instead of one Big Bang in that the first Small Bang is guided
by many further Small Bangs around the center of that
first Small Bang has been proved, really!
Then the center was driven out of another by the energy
of the small and heavy protocosms of large numbers. Inside
this space of less than just a tenth of the universe diameter,
Euclidean coordinates are valid. But outside this central
start space, the density is essentially larger and so the
coordinates are more curved than you ever can imagine. The
universe is locked, but its center - coming out from the first
Small Bang - is still open the complete universe is
locked and oscillating.
Examine it, and you will see, that my theory is better
without need of use of such a lot of nonsensical
preconditions as one single Big Bang!
