ARCUS:  The World Formula and its Solutions

Consequently constructed using the results of Albert Einstein and Max Planck leading to the Unified Field Theory

The Preaching

Base: Giordano Bruno GB, selected and introduced by Elisabeth von Samsonow into "Philosophy Now!" returned by Peter Sloterdijk, Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-423-30690-4

"About the infinity, the universe and the worlds"

(My antitheses are coloredly removed). Nonsense is respectively:

GB: The lines (geodetic lines) of the universe would be straightly lined up into the metric infinity. The universal lines are curved to themselves so that the universe forms a closed ball as a black hole.

GB: There wouldn't be any area outside the universe. The area outside the universe cannot be discovered with our experimental means since our coordinate system is closed into itself.

GB: The limitation of the senses would be the reason of the impossibility to be able to aware the infinity. One cannot be aware of some. One nevertheless then makes use of a kind of drawing with which the imagination is completed -  these are the highly imaginative buildings of the mathematics!

GB: Bruno concludes then, if no matter of our understanding was outside the world, there should be nothing and the nothing should to treat as an object of the philosophical absurdity. Other empires lie there which obey other laws.

GB: Aristotle already was ahead of Einstein’s ideas by the fact that he saw the curved world closed into itself. Bruno doubted this when he made the mistake that he wants to use just his senses for this decision. A world closed into itself is a black hole. Every movement leads to a curvature. The metric longest curvature in the form of the bend of 17.6 billion light years completes the universe. One simply cannot see this! One cannot measure this. One must take this from the complex world model which head solutions are right.

GB: In evaluation of Aristotle to Bruno, our world would be in the nothingness. If one cannot describe the outside world legally and physically from the inner world, then it is not such a matter like ours of the residents of this world. However, no matter is simply "nothing" - nothing which we know here, nothing which happens here. But something else as this what we know here, other events, as our laws allow! Therefore the primitively prudent trifle even is a little, namely something else anyway!

GB: Bruno cannot separate the spaces since he is missing the fourth dimension in his knowledge. Therefore he thinks to mean that the space were infinite to itself like the universe. And in this universe space, there would be infinitely many worlds, with „worlds“ he will have meant our earth worlds well. For Bruno it is inconceivable that a space could be limited completely and that it could be able to separate itself from other spaces of other laws by the compactness of its coordinate system completely,  through what it would finally become finite.

GB: Bruno thinks, this universe would be perfect by the fact that the things of the universe would be perfect. This is wrong. All things in the universe are incomplete and transitory, why they consist of the stable particles by combinations of them. Just the four stable elementary corpuscles as well as the universe corpuscle are perfect, because they are absolutely stable, when we don’t know if they even wouldn’t get support by the outside for stability has to seem as such a feature and has to be conserved.

GB: Bruno equates the putative trifle with the emptiness and no location. This is then the statement problem of a finite universe which would be nowhere. What but prevents us to explain that behind this universe a different kind of world lies whose construction we cannot explain with the laws to our manner of the world. With our imagination nobody impedes us to think God would hold the world in his hand. Is the ignorance better than imagination? Ignorance is a hole! Must we ignore God and his outside, so that we more simply can concentrate us to the inside? No. The people want to philosophize about things which they will never prove because they lie in the outside. Others will see that they cannot explain this outside. They will refer to this inside. And they can assume or ignore the existence of the outside. This has no influence on the outside. It is a purely human property, to believe something or not. May we actually forbid faiths und ignore faiths? Doesn't every invention begin with faiths? Doesn't everyone believes in himself without any experimental certainty? Faith is ubiquitous as a condition which isn't religious anyway. Religious faith is only a special condition of faith. The whole inner truth in a head depends on faith conditions for the most part.

GB: Bruno says his ideas as PHILOTHEO, the universe would be „altogether infinite, because it had neither edge nor limit still surface. Absolute mistake! By the fact that the universe is a black hole, it has a radius, a size, a surface and a limit as well as also an edge. An earthly man knows that he cannot overcome the extremely big strength at about ten high fourty Newton to go out of the edge, the limit or the surface with his spaceship, though! From this the question surrenders for me: With the knowledge of the Einstein's space curvature, how can today's scientists still follow Bruno’s fantastic ideas, which do not correspond to any scientific clues no more, because, at that time, they couldn't follow these?

GB: He then says the universe would „not“ be „all-embracingly infinite, because every part we can take from it ...is finite." This is the cardinal error, which all the scientists have run behind to this day uncritically. If the universe was metrically infinite (because the talk is of edge, limit and surface), then every any old inner size would be infinite since you define mathematically: An infinite number divided by any number is equal to infinite!! The philosophical thought of Bruno is absolutely erroneously and intolerably shared by in this point.

GB: Bruno regards the universal causality as infinite. But inside the inferred universe, the finite number of all things is practically a condition for the fact, that the causality must refer to the finite things, that it has no liberty for something resulted,  but it has the compulsion to be able to arise something willed by God. This kind of included causality is a program like in a computer. Only arbitrariness can use the program so that it opens the causality into the future following coincidental changes. However, who can make arbitrariness in an inferred program if not one internal nature that this ability got programmed? If there wasn't the nature of the arbitrariness, the program would go off from start to end and the repetitions at once eternally. Bruno couldn't know that the world oscillates and goes off in repetitions with that. Only living nature - particularly the people - whose reflection ability produces the arbitrariness is able to change the program and to influence the causality in the smallest measure. The world however doesn't consist of causality but of networks and discontinuities. The networking of the finite leads to the sluggishness effect. Every change of the networking has its influence on the whole net for welfare. This however doesn't consist of extremely little bodies but of hierarchical structures whose stock cannot be changed by the change of a minimal size. Well: it is insignificant in the parable, whether the macro bodies' man has eaten a blueberry or a strawberry. This doesn't change him lastingly. The transition of cosmos to cosmos goes discontinuously because the coordinate system doesn't follow from everything continuously. Only the primary has an all-embracing coordinate system in the hierarchy. The elementary, e.g. the proton inside, at its inside, has a closed coordinate system of its own, otherwise it wouldn't be apparently eternally stable like also the electron particle. We shake a bag full of protons and electrons, then in its inside no single particle changes lastingly, so that it would change into other particles or unstable particles! Even then, if one destabilizes a proton by core processes, it decays back into itself and into that energy again.

Bruno has understood the movements of the stars as rotation systems correctly. Perhaps he must dramatize, but to explain the universe as infinite, otherwise he would have been able to list no reasons to take the center away from our earth world.

Bruno also correctly understood changing the things, like the life makes it. Definitely my protocosms discovery confirms the principle of the universal life. These transformations however aren't infinite and not inexhaustible.

Living in a finite universe sphere, I also can notice that the information cannot be able to desert this body. Consequently, it has to revolve or to circulate in it in the form of light and strengths. Therefore the same laws are valid everywhere and we see the development which follows these laws everywhere. However, we don't see the same everywhere! A gigantic black hole as rest of the Small Bang lies in the center of the universe. The cold gasses of the homogeneous Small Bang are stored on him. About this the first larger collections of matter as stars and small galaxies lie each to another in homogeneous form almost narrowly. About this the space is more stretched before bigger galaxies are taken up in still larger distances of each other. This streching present science means to explain as "inflation". But this is a mistaken understanding. Inflation is a picture of an installation. It is not a reflection of a dynamic action. Above this central area, the galaxies form systems in the form of galaxy heaps whose distances become larger and larger of each other the more you came to the edge of the universe  or  the more you may leave the universe center. The edge of the universe is an area which is held together by the gravitation of all the masses and which forces these masses that they cannot to fly out from a precalculated surface while their movement. The orbits of the masses have to turn around. Only their radiations, their energies can be moved once again beyond this edge except for the double of the edge radius. There the radiations curve to the turning back as the inner radiations also turn around. Returning radiations burn back the objects living there in the meantime into black holes which fall on curved orbits to the center of the universe then. After and after all these protocosms fall back to the center with almost light velocity where the first and last protocosm waits to become united with all the other protocosms and to contract. After its contraction to its minimum the primary protocosm expands, ejects the Small Bang, (innumerable miniature protocosms, which cause the condition of the homogeneity and which give the appearance of the big bang). On the surface the other protocosms are flying, accelerated by the radiation of the Small Bang forming the so called and observed "inflation" of the universe now.

Everything of this, Bruno could not know and not include, why his wild philosophizing mostly leaves the impression that he simply didn't come on because he was missing the facts of future. The greatest portion of his representations in this respect is simply wrong.

ARCUS on February 15th, 2005, correcting 2013

· All rights reserved: Arcus (Heinz-Joachim Ackermann, since1998) ·