Again and again: Proofs for big bang?
It's the same like 20 years before. Scientists believe in the 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 the part of a 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 for a proof? Is this real science now?
Using all the measurements, my theory of small bang guided by a lot of
further small bangs around the center of that first small bang has been proved!
Then the center was driven out of another by the energies 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 closed, but its
center - coming out from small bang - is still open and expanding while the
universe is closed and oscillating.
Examine it, and you will see, that my theory is better without need of use of
such a lot of nonsensical preconditions!