How does the world swing actually?|
Today, one remarks, a "big bang" would give the consequence of an
expansion of the "original world." The effect of the mass attraction
could turn the movement under certain circumstances, whereby the universe also
could concentrate itself. S.
W. Hawking are straying from this idea. His space now should eternally
prolong in accordance with the alleged "big bang".
However each simple person knows well more then a sly philosopher. He knows
namely, that on a year follows the next, etc. Everything of this world is
connected with a going to and back. States are changing and turning again on a
new manner. These things are shown by the oscillation! Therefore however the
individual state is to find in the general state of the universe!
Here given United Field Theory is available fully done as different
declarations of the present sciences, that wants to see the genius of the
presence essentially in Hawking.
Basically each cosmos swings, better it oscillates, so its space or its
microcosms! Is this premise also connected with a repetition of a "big
bang"? No, the course is much more complicated. Therefore you already can
see the old theories only as primitive constructions: bang - and the matter runs
apart, bang - and it thunders together again - completely as a mash? That
already is a quite coarse of contemplation manner, out of that you hardly can
interpret the multiplicity of the phenomena, if you don't cite the substitute
for the creator inside - the accidence.
Defiance of the complicated connections the new theory remains well
comprehensible. Underneath I’m giving here a picture from the book and an
Picture 3; 5: Each cosm in the scheme of
gravity-radiuses ro respectively incident horizon
center of gravity
Ro (maximum of the free-setting of inside
4- maximum parity
orbit of a protocosm over ½Ro, track of the light
5- area of the
vacuum sphere Ro = ro - Ro
Each light, that
of the point of 2 is getting out of starts, only can accept the maximum of the
orbit, like it is shown at the designation of 4.
Scientists suspect now several universes and
"big bangs" side by side. This thesis is near our theory. But as long
as they don't rule out the "big bang theory", they will get nothing.
No cosm seed is banging! You see it at the quasars: Spooky energy quantities
stream from them. However not in form of fogs, but in form of pairs from a
subordinate handful of cosm seeds, which on their other hand local energies are
setting free. The temperatures of these energies nevertheless don't reach to
hypothetical 1032 Kelvin like in the big bang, but only to the
maximum of 6 billion Kelvin from the electron-positron-annihilation – the
origin of the gamma radiation in series of lightning.
The "quantum-theory" therefore
leads to a fictive origin of the movement connections of the particles, to a
pure energetic origin! To an origin, which locally and temporally never existed
The following tells us: The
"quantum-theory" shows by means of their waves energy levels, on which
temperature level the particle certainly exists few-wisely. This way it also
explains, which particle-types are at these pure levels on scale. Each unstable
particle can approach itself at such a standard, but it can never give up its
programmed identity. Now it seems so, as you made a fraction distillation and
win differently high scalding fat at different temperatures. Who wants to claim
now, that at the highest temperature of this process all fats have their origin
in this one high scalding fat? For example: lard and food oil are mixed and
heated at 300 °C. Then both is miscellaneously liquid and physically without
difference. Do both fats origin from of 300 °C? No! We heat them both until
they are separating themselves into their particles. Does their programmatic
ancestry lay approximately there? No! Now we heat both fats even at almost 1032
Kelvin. Maybe do they come from there programmatically? Finally, no!
Each thing is formed out from the stable
particles. And likewise, all particles are formed from isolated particles. Does
the isolation come out from a stability into the outside? No. However lard
descends of the pig and oil descends for example of seeds of sunflowers. At 10°
C lard gets solid, the oil around swims inside. At -16 °C then also the oil was
getting solid. Has the oil turned into lard then? No!
Why therefore do we deduce all matter from
the hottest of all particles on the basis of a temperature scale in the matter
of existing particles at an assumption of the "big bang", if however
the particles live an inside construction principle? Scientists want to
standardize and to orient themselves at the alleged accidence and they don't
know how! This way the sunflower oil should come accidentally from the sunflower
seeds and the lard should also accidentally com from the pig.
However: The cosm theory ELECTROGRAVITATION
explains the origin really!
Each stable particle is given elementary.
Particles move into the existing vacuum. Furthermore they are implied under
different particle-surfaces. They form a hierarchy of systems. Never the stable
particle changes itself with energy into different stable particles! Alone at
the weak force the effect changes to a conversion, those peculiarities have
nothing to do with a "particle melting point."
An unstable particle only decays into the
direction of a stable particle, if it also has the opportunity, therefore if it
doesn't move with vacuum speed of light; but with fewer. That temperature scale
also doesn't tell us:
At the inside of the local stars the
temperature amounts to about 2 x 1013 Kelvin to the falling of the
stable protons and about 1010 Kelvin for stable electrons. To the
surface the temperatures fall on some thousand Kelvin.
At the isolated inside of the particle, which
exists in the proton, to organize the protocosms, the temperature is crucially
higher. It reaches to that suspected and of me calculated 2.4 x 1031
Kelvin for the origin. That is the temperature of the forming of pairs of
gravitons (subtrons will be shaped at 1028 K). However here into our
universe area we never find high temperatures in such a way! To the parceling of
our stars it gets right cold anyway. Never there was a hot "big bang",
but a cold zero walk through the central area of the universe in analogy of the
winter! It remains to unlock:
of the "big bang" in the consequence of such a beautiful theory of the
waves phenomena, the matter represents a head-rank of the sciences!