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:
Oscillating Black Holes; 2nd
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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
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.