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

Observing the sky, some astronomers seem to believe that they have really found Black Holes. The properties of space curvature seem to have proved this assumption. But what difference of property would you observe, if you see 85% or 95% of the curvature of a theoretical Black Hole? Do you know the correct curvature of that celestial body? I think, you don't! My theory shows, that these objects causing extreme curvature come next to the state of a theoretical black-hole-state. But they are not stationary Black Holes. Rather, they are non-stationary pre-states of them like I think of the Pulsar state being neutron stars. If their condensation is such strong that their density would reach nearly the density of a Black Hole, so the properties of both were similar. Therefore, mathematically my theory predicts only non-stationary Black Holes - so called protocosms. There aren't ideal Black Holes because the real radius of these objects just diverges against the theoretical gravitational radius while the external process of their formation - so the result of my theory!

Important: Black Holes of my theory solutions are divergently locked black-white holes! So they are never really black! This way, they are never completely closed. Therefore they open themselves after a short time getting explosions of  white holes. These are forming out the structures of the universe.

All the rest is:

Nonsense about Black Holes because they really are Darkgray Holes!

So many years after publishing my theory, physicists of main stream physics tell you about the black holes hypotheses without real knowledge:

"A black hole is an object so massive and compact that gravity prevents even light from escaping." nature, vol 407, 14 September 2000, news and views, page 146, Nicholas White: Imaging black holes

Please, imagine, if electromagnetic force even like gravitational force would be caused by exchange quanta of a wave function, what has the gravity to do when it is so dense on and inside its black hole?

Does it just prevent light from escaping? Or does it prevent itself from escaping, too?

We had to answer both questions with yes. But when we did it, no scientist could explain what for an object a black hole could be. It wouldn't be able to be identified. No light, no gravity, nothing would come out. It would not exist at all (therefore I say: black holes of present opinions do not really exist!).

My theory doesn't give such a black hole imagined above by present scientists. I myself see a solution of oscillating black holes. When the complete mass is closed under the inside coordinate system of my black hole, the only property or quantity at the outside is the measurement of its oscillation frequency. The more of it, the heavier is this non-stationary black hole (please, remark: this body is a sphere, its oscillation is a spatial body vibration into all directions with the same action and the same intensity like we know it well of gravity and electric charge). Such a large black hole cannot vibrate so fast in the same time while a smaller one does it (vibration speed is always light speed). So the bigger black hole is lighter than the smaller. This kind of non-stationary black holes I named: protocosms when they are unstable particles, and when they are stable, then they are our well-known particles like protons and electrons (they are real microcosms). Have you ever seen into a proton? Isn't it black enough? But if you give some energy into it, a little while later, it will eject this surplus energy from its inside at the outside, newly quantized, either as radiation or as particle pairs. After this the balance of the stable "black hole", of our particle, is equalized. When you destabilize stable particles successively you will reach the pre-protocosm state. When you produce a quantity of such unstable particles that they are compressed all together, they will make of their intensity that original state I called the protocosm. A gigantic unstable particle filled with real unstable particles, antiparticles and energy. This state is not closed forever. After a quarter period it has its reversion of its collapse - its anticollapse. It explodes!

These explosions are the small bangs instead of the "big bang"! GRBs come from them!

My protocosms are objects all over the world, all inside of the centers of celestial bodies, so inside of galaxy cores and also inside of star cores. But they are not stationary. The little time they are collapsing, they get closed and loose their inside gravity for a short time. After this they come to an anticollapse. While this process of opening the inside gravity comes to the outside again and it is acting there for a another short time (this is the outside living time!). Additionally this protocosm ejects quantized masses, so subprotocosms. These bodies are running into the spheres of the core, and there they are installing new objects, so new and young stars for example. This is the sex of cores: some mass and energy come into the core with vibrations; then the core closes; inside of it an evolution is running for birth of a new feature of life; then it opens and ejects the new life into the environment. A birth of pre-states of life after a process of pre-sex analogously to ours. After all the central protocosm eats matter from the environment and gets some special matter with vibrations and so it is closing with a collapse for the next short time ... and so on.

There nothing is static forever. Everything is in motion! Even the old Greeks knew this. Nevertheless, present scientists search for that Black Hole. Only because of Hawking they think at the possibility that such a stationary thing could get non-stationary exploding sometimes and after an eternity of its existence. But all these constructions are nonsense based on the errors of quantum mechanics!

May 2003

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