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
It will hardly be possible to convince the world especially the established physicians generation to recognize the correctness of the solutions of my Unified Field Theory.

Here are both articles:

1st About Oscillating Black Holes; 2nd About the new Interpretation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Much too much thinkers are convinced of their own exotic solutions - perhaps there are ten thousands of them so that here may be a confused chaos of ideas.

I tried to study some of such exotic ideas, which are published in the web, because they are ignored by the main stream physics.

The result is: I do not understand these strange derivations, and those publishers certainly wouldn't understand my derivations relatively strange, too.

How can you prove it? Theories find their correctness by proof of praxis.

I didn't write a new exotic mathematic theory, rather I solved the Relativity Theory deeper, I corrected the interpretations of the Quantum Theory. From this, I created a complex solution, which reflects the world in a unity. My assertions result from this, which can be checked as follows:

  1. I predicted the antimass at the anti-particles like positrons and antiprotons. But it isn't provable at unstable particles as mesons. You must examine these antiparticles, which are called above. Indirect proof: Particle pairs compensate (annihilate) themselves to pure energy of radiation. This way the quality of gravitation disappears. Consequently, positive and negative gravitation should be compensated.
  2. I predicted the discontinuity of the gravitation of oscillating Black White Holes so that the total mass of a celestial body has to swell, which at least includes one oscillating black state. Proof: The behavior of the pulsars. At their whole surface, the radiation pulsates between the states divergently closed or opened, but again on its way to be locked. It is improbable that there only is sent one pole-ray if one can discover many pulsars after supernovae - a pole ray only drives a ring but it does not reach the complete space.
  3. I gave the basic law in opposition to the present opinion after which the unstable particles would lead to the beginning of all, if one would find the most unstable corpuscle of them - the "original particle": The elementary of the stable particles. But I notice: All the unstable particles are descended of the stable particles. The decay exactly leads back to the identical stable particle, which was destabilized before: This is the law of conservation of the stable elementary particles. Indirect proof: The decay leads identically to just that stable particle, which was destabilized before: principle of conservation of stable elementary particles (leptons and baryons).
  4. I predicted the existence of protocosms, which quickly arise from collapses when they are packing masses and when they become lighter as a substructured package. Protocosms lose their external mass the more internal mass they pack. They zipp the mass away then! While zipping in the computers, amounts of data will be packed to smaller values. As fast as protocosms are made, they fall out of each other and re-zipp these masses, which were packed before. Because the zipping masses and energies were ordered according to the quantum laws of Niels Bohr, rotation systems of order become free while the re-zipping. You can examine this, if you will shot the particles strongly together using particle accelerators that the so-called "black holes" would result. After the present opinion, they had to exist a while and eat matter (today one thinks at cosmic periods until the black hole will burst). But I say: protocosms will be made by the crash in particle accelerators, which will have a very short existence time. Then the protocosm will decay very fast. The decay speed can be calculated. At small Black White Holes of this feature, the decay speed reaches to the smallest fractions of a second like well known of unstable particle decays. While its existence time, the protocosm is wandering away with next to light speed. The protocosm evaporates at a different position. These processes are comparable because they are a unit! Indirect proof: After supernovae, one finds new or young stars near this area. I think, there are always pairs of them.
  5. If a mass free of electric charge is rotating or moving, then a gravitomagnetic wave is arising - consisting of the static gravitational field and of its movement in the shape of its gravitomagnet. This already EINSTEIN was able to derive. My theory, consequently showed that between the electrodynamics and my gravitodynamics an absolute connection is given. Just one difference is valid: While in electric state the same polarizations are repelling themselves, they are attracting themselves in gravitation. So, you will some times have a proof at fast rotating masses, which gravitomagnets of the same denominator will attract themselves. Indirect proof: All the planets rotate into one direction. Just like them, the suns rotate around the galaxy core. The gravitation magnets add themselves preferentially in the center of the orbits, because the pole with a common denominator attract each other above and below their orbit areas.
  6. I gave the theoretical explanation of the corpuscles: CORPUSCLES especially both the stable particles - protons and electrons - are spherically pulsating microcosms. Because of their oscillation, particles become to primary oscillators. Their exchange of the external momenta by waves makes the primary gravitation force between the particles. Well known, you can't reach vacuum light speed at the perimeter, when the return of the coupling woud be possible. Because this is impossible, all the particles stay in gravitation to each other inside of their given momentum exchange. Proof: The gravitation acts monopolarly and all over as the electrostatics, too.
  7. Consequently, anti-particles of anti-matter would be coupled with each other to be gravitational. It is logical that they should be repelling against our ordinary matter. I think on masse and antimass. Indirect proofs: 1st Annihilation to energy. 2nd Antineutrons you can turn around. They have the same electric magneton as neutrons then. What ever shoud distinguish them from each other? I say antimass and mass! 3rd Neutrinos have not e.m. properties at all.  What should distinguish them from antineutrinos? You can break the run of neutrinos and turn around their spin. So mass and antimass remain! That's my opinion.
  8. I predict that electric charges are such a feature of elementary microcosms, which are the smallest, but the strongest exchangers of energy of Tesla-waves. These mini-microcosms are cached in their gravitational microcosms of the stable particles. From there, they have the exchange of their own wave structures of Tesla-waves (primary electromagentic longitudinal-waves). This way, the electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces result. Obviously, here the coupling of the bellys and the backs is primarily given in such a way that just backs and bellys make the attraction by contrasts, and the same wavequanta lead to the repulsion. Indirect proof: The so-called "vacuum polarization of the electron". This is the measurement of a radius of about 10e-13 m, where are innumerable positive and negative charges but only one charge of them makes the negative surplus. These are the internal protocosms of the electron making a Mass Block uncharged after equalizing all the quantum numbers. Above this mass block, one negatively charged protocosm is flying in its special orbit generating Bohr's Magneton. My conclusion is: physics discovered the real radius of the electron without knowing what they have done.
All rights reserved: Arcus (Heinz-Joachim Ackermann, since1998)