S P A C E A N D
T I M E
My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical
The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around
their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly
do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while
our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally
orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies
that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move
two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also
cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something
moves around a body or a point which does not move to another body
or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces,
then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.
Most people don't know anything about the dark matter,
and among the few people who know something about the dark
matter are many people who don't know wether dark matter
really exists or not.
The physicists can not explain why the matter refuses
the expansion of the universe so much, so that their calculations
are no longer correct. Therefor they have two solutions:
(a) re-launch / reintroduction of Einstein's constant;
(b) introduction of dark matter. They have decided against Einstein's
If there were no dark matter in the universe, the whole matter
would tear away because of the expansion of the universe which is
stronger than the aggregation of matter.
Because of the fact that the physicists don't really know, whether
their hypothesis of the dark matter is right or wrong,
they prefer to say it is right. And therefore I say: that is an
excuse or an alibi.
According to the currently valid theory the Plancks length
is the smallest measurable length, but not infinitely small.
The same is to be said of the other Planck-units.
If our Sun were to suddenly stop orbiting the center of our galaxy,
the Earth would either fall into the Sun or would be thrown out
of the solar system.
Maybe that the dark matter exists, but who really knows?
And because of the fact that they know nearly nothing about the
dark matter, I may say that the hypothesis of the dark
matter is false.
What I was trying to say with those two sentences was the fact
that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows?) really knows what the
dark matter really is, and that in that case, and because
of the fact that physicists are no gods (
who knows?), they
should not say that they know what the dark matter causes,
because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the dark matter
in order to support the theory of the big bang
and especially of the inflation of the universe!
According to that dark theory the dark energy
causes the ever increasing acceleration of the expansion
Dark energy: about 70%,
Dark matter: 25%,
That what we can see: about 5% .
According to that dark theory the dark energy
functions similarly to the cosmological constant.
The 1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann
Helmholtz), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius),
the 3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), and
(partly) also the 4th or 0th law of thermodynamics are important
fundamental laws in physics and applicable in all of the other natural
sciences. Thats great, isnt it?
One of the basic facts of our life is that the future looks different
from the past. But under a cosmological point of view this asymmetry
of time is perhaps only a local phenomenon.
The universe looks somehow not as it should. That sounds strange
when one considers that cosmologists have little to compare with.
How do we know how the universe should look like? Nevertheless,
we have developed over time a strong sense of what is natural,
and the surrounding universe does not meet this claim. Mind you,
the standard cosmological model describes - more or less successfully
- the consistence of the universe and how the universe develops.
Approximately 14 billion years ago the universe was hotter and denser
than the interior of a star. Since then the space has been expanding,
cooling, and losing density. Although this model explains virtually
any observation made so far, but a number of unusual properties,
especially of the early universe, suggests to us that we do not
yet fully understand the development of the universe.
Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe.
Symmetry of time means that past and future are symmetric.
The rules of physics - the basic laws of physics - are time-symmetric.
They apply to forward and backward running time equally. So the
past and the future have to be the same.
We experience time as asymmetric. We say that In our universe the
time of an ordered initial state to a disordered final state.
The time asymmetry violates the basic laws of physics. Perhaps
the asymmetry of time is just a local problem.
A theory must be well-founded, and this is merely possible in two
1. In the direction of natural science, and the foundation of natural
science is physics and chemistry, especially physics!
2. In the direction of cultural science, and the foundation of cultural
science is mathematics and philosophy, especially mathematics!
Somewhere in the universe there probably is such a reverse. The
arrow of time is what we experience - perhaps wrongly experience
-, and the arrow of time as the experienced asymmetric time violates
the basic laws of physics. What's wrong?
1.) Our laws of physics.
2.) Our experience of the arrow of time.
3.) Our laws of mathematics.
4.) Our thoughts.
5.) Some of them.
6.) All of them.
It is possible that particles do not exist and that they are merely
in the perception or cognition of the so called human beings.
According to the current mathematicians it is possible that the
time runs forward and backward, according to the current mainstream
physicists it is not possible, but perhaps the current mainstream
physicists are wrong because the universe is huge.
If we think and talk about the universe and the time we should keep
in mind what that actually means, shouldn't we?
What do you think about the theorem: The photon is a everlasting
Sometime between 10^18 and 10^27 years, the galaxies will have
lost about 99 percent of their mass and therefore effectively be
dissolved. The respective residual will then be collapsed into a
single super-massive black hole. If the theories of the elementary
particle physicists are right, then the matter will dissolve altogether.
After about 10^32 yeras even the protons, the basic building blocks
of matter, will disintegrate in positrons and photons. Will the
positrons meet an electron, the particles annihilate each other,
and there remain only photons.
Then there will be only gigantic black holes, swimming
in a sea of photons and neutrinos all-encompassing. Sometime between
10^80 and 10^130 years, with the utmost probability after 10^130
years, there will be nothing left except neutrinos and photons in
the form of extremely long wavelength electromagnetic radiation
in an extremely cold, empty universe.
Merely the energy is forever, everlasting, eternal.
Do you agree with someone saying that even the black holes will
disappear sometime between 10^80 and 10^130 years, with the
utmost probability after 10^130 years?
It is true that the modern, especially the current physicists are
religious or ideological, that they are crazy about
particles, especially exchange particles because they are materialists?
I would prefer if they were more crazy about energy.
The big bang and the theory of the inflation
of the universe should be called into question because there
is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments,
statistics, modelling, and - of course - claims for them.
Especially of the cosmological mainstream theories,
have to be called into question, because they seem to contradict
So the time arrow can also be called into question, because we really
don't know much about our universe (and perhaps other universes),
the black holes, the so-called dark matter, the so so-called
dark energy, the big bang, the inflation
of the universe, and the fact whether the universe is really
closed or not, which leads to another problem: the entropy of our
universe, including the specific direction of its time arrow.
Mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not
always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically
possible does not always have to be also possible in reality,
and what is possible in reality does not always have to be
also mathematical possible.
The current convention of the physicist about the four
fundamental interactions (forces) of nature is as follows:
First there was one unified force (fundamental interaction) of
nature, than seceded: (1.) the gravitational
interaction (a.k.a gravitational force or gravity), (2.)
the strong interaction (a.k.a. strong or strong nuclear force),
(3.) the weak interaction (a.k.a. weak
or weak nuclear force), (4.) the electromagnetic
interaction (a.k.a. electromagnetic force or electromagnetism) -
the latter two (3. and 4.)
were one unified interaction (force) before they separately seceded:
elctroweak interaction (a.k.a. electroweak force).
This secession took place during the Quark
era (a.k.a. Quark epoch), thus after the Planck
era (a.k.a. Planck epoch).
The current mainstream physicists say that the strong nuclear interaction
(force) holds the whole nucleus of the atom together, not merely
the quarks, but also the hadrons (baryons and mesons) which are
composed of quarks. And they say that the weak nuclear interaction
(force) underlies some forms of radioactivity, governs the decay
of unstable subatomic particles such as mesons, and initiates the
nuclear fusion reaction that fuels the Sun. The weak force acts
upon all known fermionsi.e., elementary particles with half-integer
values of intrinsic angular momentum, or spin. Particles interact
through the weak force by exchanging force-carrier particles known
as the W and Z particles. These particles are heavy, with masses
about 100 times the mass of a proton.
Physicists have been admitting that there are two physical worlds
for them: (1) the world of classical
physics and (2) the world
of quantum physics.
Im afraid we will have to continue to live with these two
worlds. This two worlds are similar to e.g.
the subject/object-dualism and the existence/nothingness-dualism.
If there were no time, then you would not be able to measure any
change. Change can only be measured by time and be represented also
as development (the most cases), or evolution (many cases) and history
(few cases). What I make is a kind of linguistic classification.
If you don't know which change is meant - change itself (100%) or
development or evolution or history -, you should just say change,
because it is a superordinated word.
When some people talk about nature or about universe
and time, they don't make any difference and say for example
»history« of the nature, »history«
of the universe, ... and so on, or »evolution«
of the nature, »evolution« of the
universe, ... and so on. Thats not necessarily wrong,
but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural
or universal change - thus as a general meaning
- is the word change itself, whereas the words development,
evolution and history should merely be used
in special cases.
It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts,
enemies, dualisms, ... etc.. The universe is made of opposites.
We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance
It is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic
forms (morphemes, lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes,
textemes, and even languages themselvses) have a meaning. So, the
definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions say.
If (for example) a definition saysthat charge
is electric potential, then it means that charge is
The mainstream physicists say that the density of the universe
is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).
Nature is full of violence, marked by the will to power.
The wildest market is the freest market.
If there are two pre-conditions, namely (1.) space and (2.) time,
then it can be true that there are also merely two forms of physical
existence, namely (1.) potential (the situation that brings
change, involving locations of concentrations: »Potential-to-Affect«)
and (2.) changing (the potential altering itself into new
concentrations and locations: »Affectance«). So (1.)
space => potential / situation, (2.) time => change.
Is existence that which has (the potential to) affect?
Is everything and anything that is in harmony really anentropic?
And if yes, then anentropic harmony is a tautological
Perhaps it would be better anyway, not to speak of physical laws,
but of physical rules. But on the other hand, what would be changed?
after that change? The words (cp. language)
would have got a different meaning - little by little -, not more.
Maybe the whole spiritual part of life - for example principles,
laws, rules, ideas, and all the other special cases
of a concept - has to remain in the spiritual / conceptual / energetic
realm of existence and cant reach the other realm, the physical
/ material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hasnt
If the word spirit has really become ambiguous
then it should also not refer to the physical realm
In this case ambiguous means that the reference is not
clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm
and the physical realm.
It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove
with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible
with language and with philosophy. This is roughly that what Heidegger
once said in an interview.
96% dark matter and merely 4% matter. They say: In
modern physics almost the entire Universe is missing: 96 percent.
We can only account for just 4 percent of the Universe. This is
because we cant find enough mass in galaxies to maintain their
rotational spiral shape and stop stars spinning off into deep space.
To explain why galaxies are not breaking up mankind has come up
with the idea that 96 percent of the Universe is Dark Matter! Dark
Matter is just a name; we dont have a clue what it is. The
only thing we know is that Dark Matter does not shine like stars
or reflect light or give off any detectable radiation it just creates
a gravitational pull. **
They just don't know what dark matter really is.
According to the common physicists the radio transmissions from
an antenna are the remains of the cosmological radiation (cosmic
microwave radiation); but according to James S. Saint and his RM:AO
the cosmological radiation (cosmic microwave radiation) does not
exist because the universe is indefinite, relating to both space
and time, it has no beginning and no end, so it is eternal, indefinite.
The common physicists have a huge problem with
their own theory. In former days they said that antimatter disappeared
because of the annihilation of matter and antimatter in the so-called
Hadron Epoch (10^-7 seconds after the Big Bang
until 10^-4 seconds after the Big Bang); but now they
say antimatter exists today (13.8 billion years after the Big
Bang). Thats funny.
In this example they say matter annihilates antimatter
with the outcome: animatter rare, in earlier
times they said matter annihilates antimatter with the
outcome: no more antimatter. That's funny, or,
seriously said, they don't know anything about antimatter, they
merely speculate (like their money lenders), they have no idea but
bosses with dogmas.
According to the following picture there is antimatter also today:
But if matter annihilated antimatter there could and would
be no antimatter today. **
Some physicists (seriously) say 1+1=1.9...~ because
of the mass defect (cp. E=MC²).
Can you imagine that there is no gravitational and also no other
The universe is a space including change, and the measure of this
change is the time.
It is probably true that a »four dimensional space«
is merely a pure mathematics ontology (**).
The German astronomer Carl Wilhelm Wirtz was the first who proved
the expansion of the universe. But Wirtzs observational evidence
that the Universe is expanding is not often mentioned.
Wirtz in 1918 observed a systematic redshift of
nebulae, which was difficult to interpret in terms of a cosmological
model in which the Universe is filled more or less uniformly with
stars and nebulae. Wirtz additionally used the equivalent in German
of K correction. The term continues to be used in present-day observational
cosmology, but Wirtz's observational evidence that the Universe
is expanding is not often mentioned. He wrote:
»It is remarkable, that our system of fixed stars
shall have such a very strong displacement of 820 km/s, and equally
strange is the interpretation of the systematic constant k = +
656 km. If we ascribe a verbatim interpretation to this value,
then this means that the system of spiral nebulae is drifting
apart by a velocity of 656 km with respect to the momentary location
of the solar system as the center.«
In 1922, he wrote a paper where he argued that the observational
results suggest, that the redshifts of distant galaxies are becoming
higher than more closer ones, which he interpreted as an increase
of their radial velocities with distance, and that larger masses
have smaller redshifts than smaller ones. In another note of the
same year, he argued that counter-clockwise spiraling galaxies
have smaller redshifts than clockwise spiraling ones. In 1924
he obtained more precise results, and interpreted them both as
a confirmation of an increase of radial velocities with distance,
but also as confirmation of a de Sitter universe, in which the
increase of redshift is seen as caused by an increased time dilation
in distant parts of the universe.
In 1936, Wirtz wrote a short paper alluding to the priority for
his 1922-conclusion that the radial velocities of galaxies are
increasing with their distance. **
The Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître brought Wirtz
observational evidence that the Universe is expanding into a theory,
namely a more Christian theory.
It is quite possible that the electromagnetic radiation is an eternal
B.t.w.: If the term universe includes the term space
and time, then the term universe and time means
that there possibly is also a time beyond the universe.
What do you think about that?
The figure in that picture moves, but geometric figures are actually
immobile. So, it is a question of definition, of definional
logic. If you want to describe a geometrical figure, then you actually
do only consider that that figure is static, thus that that
figure is immobile.
If we also want tz talk about the philsophical meaning of physics
and about physics itself, then moving bodies are one of the main
physical premises; but moving bodies are not the main geometrical
premises (this does not mean that it is impossible to have also
moving bodies as a premise in geometry); so we have to be careful
and should not combine physics and mathematics too much. Combining
physics and mathematics too much has been being a problem of the
physicists for so long - since the 20th century, especially since
the second half of the 20th century. Another example is the problem
of combining economics and mathematics too much, and this problem
has been existing since the second half of the 20th century (we
can talk about it in another thread). I do not say that we should
not do it, but we should be careful with that. I argue not against
the mathematics but against the domination of the megalomania in
physicis, economics, and some other scientific disciplines.
The Sun is both giver of life and taker of life. The Sun is the
source that makes life possible and impossible. We know from science
that the Sun has shone for about 5 billon years and will shine for
about 5, 6, or 7 billion years, if the scientists are right. So,
if the scienits are right, you could also ignore the Sun. But nonetheless,
you worship the Sun. Is it because of the fact that we can not be
sure that scientists are right? Or are there other reasons? And,
if so, which reasons?
A black hole as the bottom of spirituality seems to be a very interesting
If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely
its region, although not completely, then the experiments would
indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that
would explain the so-called stopped clock paradox as
well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed
so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true,
the stopped clock paradox would not exist anymore.
So you are saying that the interaction between the Earth and the
Moon is not the interaction between their masses but the interaction
between a mass and its own immediate ambient surroundings
Is it the mass of the Earth, or the mass of the Moon, or a mass
somewhere between them (but where?), or even another
mass? And if it is only the surrounding which is it? Is it more
the surrounding of the Earth or of the Moon?
GT, SRT/ART, QP are not compatible with each other and not compatible
What do you think about a cyclic universe?
Such an universe starts and ends again and again, so that every
and any situation appears again and again, each life would be lived
again and again, everything and anything repeats again and again.
One is not able to remember what was before and after one's life
with memory. One just needs a memory. If the memory of a person
does not work, then .... What is then? What happens to this person
then? - However. A person does not remember what happened during
the time when the memory of this person did not work. And in a cyclic
universe the memory refers even to both past and future. There is
merely one existence for merely one entity (being) in a cyclic universe,
and this existence is always identical with itself.
I think that the complete understandability of the universe, especially
of its beginning and of its end, is more an issue of philosophy
or/and theology than of physics or/and mathematics, because especially
the question of the physical beginning and the physical end of the
universe can merely be answered, if the framework conditions are
defined and not merely calculated / computed. Mathematics allows
too much, even the calculation of things humans can never completely
understand by using other scientific disciplines than mathematics.
I think the humans are not able to completely understand such things,
although they are able to calculate / compute them.
I meant the whole story, especially the beginning and
the end of the universe. I did not mean the ontological principles,
because I said that it is an issue of philosophy or/and theology
(for example your ontological principles), but
I meant that humans are not able to understand the whole
universe in the way they try it merely with physics and mathematics,
because nobody of them understands the beginning and the end of
the universe, and if one of them did, this one would also understand
why the universe has a beginning and an end, thus this one would
understand something which was before the beginning and after the
end of the universe. Your RM:AO
does also not refer to the time when the universe was made,
if it was made, and how it began, if it did, and how
it is going to end, if it is going to. And the answer that the universe
has no beginning and end, can be logically explained, yes, but it
is - nonetheless - not the last answer to the question whether e.g.
there is something outside of the universe.
It is possible and probable that the concept dark matter,
the concept dark energy, and other concepts are the
tabooed admission that the current physicians do not
understand the universe.
There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this
lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science
to an end. Another point is that scientists themselves get more and more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this
non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become
more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern
religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the
brainwashing of the people by propaganda.
Here follow some more examples:
- War is peace.
- Stupid is intelligent.
- Smaller is bigger.
- 7 is 13.
Another examples for the tabooed admission that the
current physicians do not understand the universe are the concept
big bang and the concept inflation of the universe.
Does the planet Earth have more affectance (=> RM:AO)
than its moon called Moon? And if so: Why?
Where does affectance originally come from?
Yes. If there is absolutely homgenitity, then there is nothing
perceptible. So absolutely homgenitity is like nothingness.
You said (**):
Every mass, Earth or Moon, is made entirely of affectance
(as is literally all things throughout the entire universe). A »heavy
mass« is merely a higher concentration of affectance than
a »lighter mass«. So of course the Earth, being a larger/heavier
mass directly implies a greater concentration of affectance than
the Moon. Weight or Mass and the degree of affectance concentration
are the same thing. **
According to RM:AO
there is no pushing and pulling; but if so: what prevents that Earth
and Moon do not migrate toward each other (**)?
You said (**):
If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity,
both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers
will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density
is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas.
According to RM:AO Earth and Moon must migrate toward each
because the concentration/density is greater between
Earth and Moon than other surrounding areas. So again:
what prevents that Earth and Moon do not migrate toward each
What do you exactly mean by tangential momentum (**),
and why can a tangential momentum cause an orbiting?
Since Galilei, Kepler, and Newton the physicists have been explaining
the cause of the orbiting by two forces.
According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect
Do you know an established physicist who is brave enough to say:
Yes, we are going to stop the mainstream physics?
In our daily life we use the geocentric time (b.t.w:
this geocentric time would still be the cosmological
time, if the science did not prescribe another cosmological
time, although there is no proper definition for it).
In our daily life we use the geocentric space (b.t.w:
this geocentric space would still be the cosmological
space, if the science did not prescribe another cosmological
space, although there is no proper definition for it).
There are two realms of existence (count them - »two«).
There is the physical realm (the one you can't seem to think beyond).
And there is the »Conceptual Realm« historically called
the »Realm of the Divine, the realm of »things«
like angels, gods, principles, ideas, strategies, and ... »laws
of physics«. (**).
Do this two realms of existence interact with each other in such
a way that somtehing of the first realm can become something of
the second realm and something of the second realm can become something
of the first realm? For example: Is it possible that an atom can
become a word or an idea an electron?
If one logic statement (for example: as a part of a syllogism)
contradicts another, then one has to check it again and to eliminate
the false one.
An example from the realm of physics and chemistry:
In the past scientists claasified all metals as being heavier
than water. So this was the syllogism: Major
premise: Gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on are heavier
than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME
Minor premise: Metals are are gold,
silver, ..., iron, ... and so on.
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than
water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME
That syllogism had been true for a long time - until the potassium
was discovered. Since this discovery of the potassium the following
syllogism has been being true:
Major premise: Potassium is lighter
than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
Minor premise: Some metals are potassium.
Conclusion: Some metals are lighter
than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
You see: The first syllogism (see above) had to be corrected by
the second syllogism (see above), because scientist discovered the
Einstein did not use the word infinite, because he
did not believe in an infinte universe. There is no other meaning
behind it than a religious, theological, metaphysical meaning.
What caused the universe?
What caused the time?
I guess you (**)
know which question will be the next one: What caused the affectance?
According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect
so I could also ask: What caused the existence? And I guess
that your answer will be: The affectance (existence) was never
»caused«; it was never »started«; the cause/reason
of the affectance (existence) is the logic of the situation (referred
to as »God«).
Do you think or believe that it is possible to have a reversed
time in this or another universe?
If one says there definitely was a big bang, then this
one should not be taken as seriously as that one who says the
Earth orbits the Sun.
Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has
been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about
it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about
it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte
und Theorie des Himmels, 1755.
Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the
sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2)
a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal
force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3)
the planets were glued in this dust disk with floating
particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in
a rotating cloud of gas that has thus become dense so that it collapses,
and planets originate as collections of sun durst parts.
Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using
the own intellect.
According to the current mainstream physics everything becomes
faster near massive objects (because of the gravitation), but according
to the affectance ontology photons become slower near massive objects.
I know according to the affectance ontology there is no pushing
and pulling. Do the density of the photon's ambient affectance (mass/gravity
field) and the near massive objects (because they are also
affectance) strengthen each other, so that we have to add their
amounts together and note that both slow down the speed of
travel of that said photon?
Today the Moon shows us always the same side, becasue the Moon
is synchronisated by the Earth. The physicist call that effect synchronisation
or synchronous rotation.
There are some analogyies between the time reckoning of Christianity
and the time reckoning of the big bang theory:
Both times start at zero.
The future of both times is infinite.
The birth of Jesus Christ and the big bang are singularities.
There are two possibilities for the reason why there are large
rocks in the Kuiper Belt: (a) they were formed when our solar system
was formed, or (b) they got there because of movements of neighboring
solar systems or other objects.
Basically there can be ice in many areas of the universe; hydrogen
is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen is one
of the most abundant elements in the universe.
Fractal is a mathematical concept, thus very theoretical;
so it is a very reckless idea to believe in it as if it were a physical
One orbit around the galactic center of our sun takes about 250
million years. This is called a galactic year.
So the following picture shows about 42 miilon years more than
2 galactic years (about 500 Million years):
Frequency distribution of extinctions on Earth in the last 542
million years (1 galactic year = ca. 250 million years).
Perhaps mass particles need photons, but photons do not need mass.
Whithout photons there won't be any mass particles.
The theory of the Big Bank is true, but the theory of the Big Bang
is probably not true.
Energy will probably exist forever.
Look at the rectangles in the following picture:
Energy is probably everlasting.
The atomic level of things is also called microphysics. So there
is macrophysics too. And Newton's physics is not true in both microphysics
and macrophysics, but it is true in mesophysics.
Knowledge about mesophysical laws has a likelihood of about 98-99%
truth. The primary task of our senses and brains is not to know
complicated laws but to support our surviving.
If gravity force and spacetime warping
are unproven and even unprovable, then they are arguments for unproven
premises, thus examples of the petitio principii, possibly
also of a proton pseudos or even of a proton kinun
(lat.: primum movens), and this means that they are proof
errors, thus: they are logically false.
The aether theory has not been proved wrong
but merely been replaced by the relativity theory.
Is the law of conservation of energy right?
Is the universe an isolated system, thus something like a thermodynamic
system enclosed by rigid immovable walls through which neither matter
nor energy can pass?
The question whether the universe just appeared or was made by
a creator is very similar to the question whether nature is because
of itself or because of god. This leads to the question whether
god is what we call nature or nature
is what we call god? The subject is called pantheism
with all its various modes.
God as a principle and as the one (the unmoved mover?) who caused
the universe (**).
Has this also to do with the impossibility?
If there is only one causer (this can be doubted), then it is the
first mover, the unmoved mover, the causer
of the universe.
Without the human beings and especially without the occidental
culture with its enormous technologies there would be e.g. no internet
(yet). But who or/and what caused the human beings to be resp. to
develop; and who or/and what caused the occidental culture to be
resp. to develop? The latter can be explained by genetics, geographical
aspects, especially environment (landscape etc.) and climate; but
the former is one of the most interesting questions, especially
I know much about the biography and the works of the physicist
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and that he and, for example,
Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg were members of the Uranprojekt
(Uran Project) before and during the Second World War.
The mainstream physicists and probably also the most
mainstream biophysicists say: The universe
is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus
a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation
systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information
and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings
are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short
time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at
least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.
Assumed that there is macrophysics, mesophysics, and microphysics,
I would say that we can know much about mesophysics, which is -
by the way - the main part of physics, but not much about macro-
and microphysics, namely something about the beginning and ending
of the universe or of the so calledquantum world. I
guess that micro- and macrophysics are more like metaphysics than
physics, because almost everything they deal with is - more or less
- theoretical, mathematical, logical, just metaphysical, thus philosophical.
What do you think about the following?
The Sun (Solar System) is orbiting the center of the galaxy. It
is said that it takes the Sun about 250 million years and that it
touches the electromagnetic field of the galaxy four times during
this 250 million years.
Our galaxy does not rotate to the same degree in any part of it,
and it is oddly that its edges rotates slower than other parts.
Therefore the mainstream physicists invented the dark energy.
The shape of movement could be a spiral.
Our galaxy is spiraling inward, contracting into the speculated
black-hole center. But what if our galaxy itself is also spiraling
and finally contracting into the speculated black hole center of
another galaxy (the Andromeda galaxy for example)? But Andromeda
is not big enough to be the center of that large a nebula. Maybe
the whole Local Group (thus: including Milky Way and Andromeda)
is contracting into (the speculated black hole center of) the Virgo
I guess that the Virgo Supercluster is supposed to be spinning.
The Virgo Cluster is supposed to be the central cluster of
the Virgo Supercluster, and according to that the black hole
as the center of the Virgo Cluster would be the center of
the Virgo Supercluster too. Nevertheless, there is a lot
of speculation about it.
You can see in the animations
above that the bodies are also curving (circling) due to a center,
but - geometrically said - curving (circling) is merely two-dimensional,
whereas spiraling is curving (circling) three-dimensionally.
At the same time when our Earth orbits our Sun, our Sun orbits
the center of our galaxy. According to this facts the movement of
the Earth can only be three-dimensional, thus spiral.
One can nevertheless call it circling in a three-dimensional
way, because it means spiraling. I am talking
about a geometrical difference - not about spiraling inward or outward
(that would be another issue).
The galactic center is causing the orbit of the Sun. The spiraling
helix the animation shows is the orbit of the Earth. The Sun is
causing the Earth to orbit the Sun, while the galactic center is
causing the Sun (and thus also the Earth) to orbit the galactic
center. What can be seen is that the Earth (but not the Sun)
has two orbits: (1) an orbit caused by the Sun, (2) an orbit caused
by the galactic center. That spiraling helix is the visual (optical)
result of that two orbits of the Earth (and not of the Sun).
As long as there is no observer who makes a measurement, the cat
remains both alive and dead.
The physicist Harald Lesch said: Unser Universum ist kein
buddhistisches Universum, sondern ein protestantisches (translation:
Our universe is no Buddhistic universe but a Protestant).
It is not true what certain physicists say: the vacuum is
nothing, and nothing is not nothing, so that something can be created
out of nothing, the vacuum. It is not true, because it is
impossible - by definition.
All what physicists may get in that case is a linguistic change,
thus a new meaning of the word nothing which leads to
a new meaning of physics and other science sectors, to a new belief,
a new religion, a new theology, a new philosophy. That is what they
want, because they want what their rulers want them to want. Physicists
and other scientists depend on politico-economic rulers because
of the research funds, thus: money.
So at last science will completely lose its meaning.
Do you believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect?
There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and
sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends
on how the times are, how the respective situation is.
With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect,
there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal
minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic
greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion
- other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly
contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system
of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word
exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already
a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic
greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.
Will our Sun become a red giant and later a white
dwarf? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the planets Mercury, Venus, and probably also our planet,
the Earth, be eaten by our Sun (having become a red
giant)? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will our planet be kicked out of our solar system?
If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way become a bigger galaxy (by eating other galaxies)?
If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be eaten by the black hole
which is in its center? If not: What will happen instead of that?
Will the Milky Way be eaten by a bigger galaxy? If
not: What will happen instead of that?
According to RM:AO
the prime mover is spiritual, whereas the universe
is physical. So there are two universal realms: (1) the spiritual
realm as the foundation of any and all motion (changing); (2) the
physical realm containing the motion itself (physical spirit).
Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck and the mathematician
Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity theorie
[GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!]
Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert).
According to the general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary
in spacetime beyond which events can never affect an outside observer.
Let us compare the set linguistics and its subsets
with the set sun and its subsets.
Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.
If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics
instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of
little children, does).
Observe your little children when they try to calculate in a really
mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they
use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come
closer and closer to the real mathematics
Words like life and birth should not be
used for the Sun.
The phase of the white dwarf will be followed by the
phase of the black dwarf (is not considered in the picture).
Do you (**)
believe what Stephen Hawking says?
The statement that we have only a very short time for leaving
this planet is similar to the statement that we need
more money for the urgent research (or at least to make this
3 billion years are a very long time, thus almost irrelevant to
human beings with a lifespan of about 80 years. 10 thousand years
are not a very a long time, but also almost irrelevant to most human
But okay, here are some objects that could become relevamt:
1) Jupiter's moon Europa ....
2) Saturn's moon Titan ....
Both moons are relatively (compared with the planet Earth) small
for the current 7.4 billion human beings ....
But 1% of the current 7.4 billion human beings could comfortably
live on Europa or on Titan.
A computer-generated image representing space debris as seen from
high Earth orbit (HEO). The two main debris fields are the ring
of objects in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and the cloud of
objects in low Earth orbit (LEO):
Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his
work be limited by the laws of physics?
Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human
beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition,
God is the creator of everything.
So those who believe in God and his laws do not believe that everything
in the universe is limited by the physical laws. (**).
One has to consider two aspects here: the philosophical (especially
metaphysical) and the scientifical (especially physical) one.
If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical
aspect (science dictates this, and the word physics
shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect,
if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this,
and the compound word metaphysics shows distinctly that
physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences
that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists,
although they claim to be objective, are subjective because
of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods.
The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.
Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject
determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine
what they are.
We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not
know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it
exists (note that universe is a concept) ... and so
on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those.
Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be
answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.
If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability
of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the
godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas
the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God
is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.
Kant knew much about science.
Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics
and metaphysics, but he made significant contributions to other
disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about
the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy
Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions
useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to
Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well
when, in 1775 , he wrote his General Natural History
and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account
for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe,
upon Newtonian Principles."
In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens
(Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755),
Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that
the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus
he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac
Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant
also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of
stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning
cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also
be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations
opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending
astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic
Kant knew much about the biological sciences too, ecpecially about
anthropological sciences. Kant was really ingenious.
You can measure the distance between the Sun and the Earth, but
this does not necessarily mean that this distance is random; and
you can know how the system of the Sun and its planets has developed
since its beginning (Kant has given a theory that is still valid),
but that does not necessarily mean that you can answer all philosophical
or theological questions. And the anthropic principle for instance
is a metaphysical (thus: a philosophical or theological) issue,
although or even because it is deduced from physics (thus: science).
When physicists try to answer a metaphysical question like the question
whether their physical constants (natural constants) are caused
by randomness or not, then they are already metaphysicians
(the more proper word is metaphysicists). The natural
constants (physical constants) do not have to be caused by randomness,
they can also be caused by a spiritual machinist, a
creator, a God or a principle which is not random. Physicists do
not know either anything about the events before the big bang,
if there was a big bang at all, or about an existence beyond our
universe, if there is one at all.
Venus and Mars were habitable planets. But it became too hot on
Venus (perhaps because of something like a greenhouse effect),
and Mars had and still has a too weak atmosphere in order to have
higher living beings.
The anthropic principle is physically or cosmologically related
to our planet Earth, our Moon, our Jupiter,
our Sun, our Milky Way ... and so on. It means metaphysically
that all this physical constants (natural constants) are as if someone
has set them consciously.
Questions about, for instance, the anthropic principle
or about the first cause should not be answered by scientists,
but by philosophers or theologians, because die Wissenschaft
denkt nicht (science does not think), as Heidegger
once said, so scientists are not really capable of answering philosophical
or theological questions.
A strong argument would be that this cosmos literally
1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs
(objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and
semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception
and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2)
and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception
and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2),
on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.
Now an example: We want to know what a circle philosophically means.
If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions,
then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to
get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements
(in their mathematical language).
The higher Occidental mathematics has much more to
do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become
a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle
when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician
denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently
valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion about 1
= 0.999...~? (**).
1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental
mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because
functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.
And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset
do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the
Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist
that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by
the Earth rotation? No.
In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle
is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate
in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on
I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely
in the world of your perception? Certainly not.
So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always:
subjectivity versus objectivity (**).
Can you imagine that everything that was, is and will be is always
the same and merely changes from matter to energy and from energy
to matter and will remain forever?
Newtons physics was true till Clausius second law (entropy)
of thermodynamics, in any case till Plancks constant, Plancks
quantum theory, and Einsteins (actually Hilberts) relativity
theory. The truth about dynamics and about time changed.
Both truths are very typical for the Occidental culture.
One of the both led to the knowledge that the aspect of entropy
and irreversibility make probabilities and statistics
more relevant, more true; the other one of the both
led to the knowledge that time is more organic than anorganic,
more historical than physical, more chronic than mathematical.
Oswald Spengler (translated
Since Newton, the assumption of constant mass the
counterpart of constant force has had uncontested validity.
But the Quantum theory of Planck, and the conclusions of Niels
Bohr therefrom as to the fine structure of atoms, which experimental
experience had rendered necessary, have destroyed this assumption.
Every self-contained system possesses, besides kinetic energy,
an energy of radiant heat which is inseparable from it and therefore
cannot be represented purely by the concept of mass. For if mass
is defined by living energy it is ipso facto no longer constant
with reference to thermodynamic state. Nevertheless, it is impossible
to fit the theory of quanta into the group of hypotheses constituting
the »classical« mechanics of the Baroque; moreover,
along with the principle of causal continuity, the basis of the
Infinitesimal Calculus founded by Leibniz is threatened (1).
But, if these are serious enough doubts, the ruthlessly cynical
hypothesis of the Relativity theory strikes to the very heart
of dynamics. Supported by the experiments of A. A. Michelson,
which showed that the velocity of light remains unaffected by
the motion of the medium, and prepared mathematically by Lorentz
and Minkowski, its specific tendency is to destroy the notion
of absolute time. Astronomical discoveries (and here present-day
scientists are seriously deceiving themselves) can neither establish
nor refute it. »Correct« and »incorrect«
are not the criteria whereby such assumptions are to be tested;
the question is whether, in the chaos of involved and artificial
ideas that has been produced by the innumerable hypotheses of
Radioactivity and Thermodynamics, it can hold its own as a useable
hypothesis or not. But however this may be, it has abolished the
constancy of those physical quantities into the definition of
which time has entered, and unlike the antique statics, the Western
dynamics knows only such quantities. Absolute measures of length
and rigid bodies are no more. And with this the possibility of
absolute quantitative delimitations and therefore the »classical«
concept of mass as the constant ratio between force and acceleration
fall to the ground just after the quantum of action, a
product of energy and time, had been set up as a new constant.
(1) See M. Planck, Entstehung und bisherige
Entwicklung der Quantentheorie (1920), pp. 17, 25.
If we make it clear to ourselves that the atomic ideas of Rutherford
and Bohr (2) signify nothing but
this, that the numerical results of observations have suddenly
been provided with a picture of a planetary world within the atom,
instead of that of atom-swarms hitherto favoured; if we observe
how rapidly card-houses of hypothesis are run up nowadays, every
contradiction being immediately covered up by a new hurried hypothesis;
if we reflect on how little heed is paid to the fact that these
images contradict one another and the »classical«
Baroque mechanics alike, we cannot but realize that the great
style of ideation is at an end and that, as in architecture and
the arts of form, a sort of craft-art of hypothesis-building has
taken its place. Only our extreme maestria in experimental technique
true child of its century hides the collapse of
(2) Which in many cases have led to the
supposition that the »actual existence« of atoms has
now at last been proved a singular throw-back to the materialism
of the preceding generation.
Amongst these symbols of decline, the most conspicuous is the
notion of entropy, which forms the subject of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. The first law, that of the conservation of energy,
is the plain formulation of the essence of dynamics not
to say of the constitution of the West-European soul, to which
nature is necessarily visible only in the form of a contrapuntal-dynamic
causality (as against the static-plastic causality of Aristotle).
The basic element of the Faustian world-picture is not the attitude
but the feed and, mechanically considered, the process, and this
law merely puts the mathematical character of these processes
into form as variables and constants. But the Second Law goes
deeper, and shows a bias in nature-happenings which is in no wise
imposed a priori by the conceptual fundamentals of dynamics.
Mathematically, entropy is represented by a quantity which is
fixed by the momentary state of a self-contained system of bodies
and under all physical and chemical alterations can only increase,
never diminish; in the most favourable conditions it remains unchanged.
Entropy, like force and will, is something which (to anyone for
whom this form-world is accessible at all) is inwardly clear and
meaningful, but is formulated differently by every different authority
and never satisfactorily by any. Here again, the intellect breaks
down where the world-feeling demands expression.
Nature-processes in general have been classified as irreversible
and reversible, according as entropy is increased or not. In any
process of the first kind, free energy is converted into bound
energy, and if this dead energy is to be turned once more into
living, this can only occur through the simultaneous binding of
a further quantum of living energy in some second process; the
best-known example is the combustion of coal that is, the
conversion of the living energy stored up in it into heat bound
by the gas form of the carbon dioxide, if the latent energy of
water is to be translated into steam-pressure and thereafter into
motion. It follows that in the world as a whole entropy continually
increases; that is, the dynamic system is manifestly approaching
to some final state, whatever this may be. Examples of the irreversible
processes are conduction of heat, diffusion, friction, emission
of light and chemical reactions; of reversible, gravitation, electric
oscillations, electromagnetic waves and sound-waves.
What has never hitherto been fully felt, and what leads me to
regard the Entropy Theory (1850) as the beginning of the destruction
of that masterpiece of Western intelligence, the old dynamic physics,
is the deep opposition of theory and actuality which is here for
the first time introduced into theory itself. The First Law had
drawn the strict picture of a causal nature-happening, but the
Second Law by introducing irreversibility has for the first time
brought into the mechanical-logical domain a tendency belonging
to immediate life and thus in fundamental contradiction with the
very essence of that domain.
If the Entropy theory is followed out to its conclusion, it results,
firstly, that in theory all processes must be reversible
which is one of the basic postulates of dynamics and is reasserted
with all rigour in the Law of the Conservation of Energy
but, secondly, that in actuality processes of nature in their
entirety are irreversible. Not even under the artificial conditions
of laboratory experiment can the simplest process be exactly reversed,
that is, a state once passed cannot be re-established. Nothing
is more significant of the present condition of systematics than
the introduction of the hypotheses of »elementary disorder«
for the purpose of smoothing-out the contradiction between intellectual
postulate and actual experience. The »smallest particles«
of a body (an image, no more) throughout perform reversible processes,
but in actual things the smallest particles are in disorder and
mutually interfere; and so the irreversible process that alone
is experienced by the observer is linked with increase of entropy
by taking the mean probabilities of occurrences. And thus theory
becomes a chapter of the Calculus of Probabilities, and in lieu
of exact we have statistical methods.
Evidently, the significance of this has passed unnoticed. Statistics
belong, like chronology, to the domain of the organic, to fluctuating
Life, to destiny and incident and not to the world of laws and
timeless causality. As everyone knows, statistics serve above
all to characterize political and economic, that is, historical,
developments. In the »classical« mechanics of Galileo
and Newton there would have been no room for them. And if, now,
suddenly the contents of that field are supposed to be understood
and understandable only statistically and under the aspect of
probability instead of under that of the a piori exactitude
which the Baroque thinkers unanimously demanded what does
it mean? It means that the object of understanding is ourselves.
The nature »known« in this wise is the nature that
we know by way of living experience, that we live in ourselves.
What theory asserts (and, being itself, must assert) to
wit, this ideal irreversibility that never happens in actuality
represents a relic of the old severe intellectual form,
the great Baroque tradition that had contrapuntal music for twin
sister. But the resort to statistics shows that the force that
that tradition regulated and made effective is exhausted. Becoming
and become, destiny and causality, historical and natural-science
elements are beginning to be confused. Formulas of life, growth,
age, direction and death are crowding up.
That is what, from this point of view, irreversibility in world-processes
has to mean. It is the expression, no longer of the physical,
but of genuine historical, inwardly-experienced time, which is
identical with destiny.
Baroque physics was, root and branch, a strict systematic and
remained so for as long as its structure was not racked by theories
like these, as long as its field was absolutely free from anything
that expressed accident and mere probability. But directly these
theories come up, it becomes physiognomic. »The course of
the world« is followed out. The idea of the end of the world
appears, under the veil of formulas that are no longer in their
essence formulas at all. Something Goethean has entered into physics
and if we understand the deeper significance of Goethe's
passionate polemic against Newton in the »Farbenlehre«
we shall realize the full weight of what this means. For therein
intuitive vision was arguing against reason, life against death,
creative image against normative law. The critical form-world
of nature-knowledge came out of nature-feeling, God-feeling, as
the evoked contrary. Here, at the end of the late period, it has
reached the maximal distance and is turning to come home.
So, once more, the imaging-power that is the efficient in dynamics
conjures up the old great symbol of Faustian man's historical
passion, care the out-look into the farthest far of past
and future, the back-looking study of history, the foreseeing
state, the confessions and introspections, the bells that sounded
over all our country-sides and measured the passing of Life. The
ethos of the word time, as we alone feel it, as instrumental music
alone and no statue-plastic can carry it, is directed upon an
aim. This aim has been figured in every life-image that the West
has conceived as the Third Kingdom, as the New Age, as
the task of mankind, as the issue of evolution. And it is figured,
as the destined end-state of all Faustian »nature«
Directional feeling, a relation of past and future, is implicit
already in the mythic concept of force on which the whole of this
dogmatic form-world rests, and in the description of natural processes
it emerges distinct. It would not be too much, therefore, to say
that entropy, as the intellectual form in which the infinite sum
of nature-events is assembled as a historical and physiognomic
unit, tacitly underlay all physical concept-formation from the
outset, so that when it came out (as one day it was bound to come
out) it was as a »discovery« of scientific induction
claiming »support« from all the other theoretical
elements of the system. The more dynamics exhausts its inner possibilities
as it nears the goal, the more decidedly the historical characters
in the picture come to the front and the more insistently the
organic necessity of destiny asserts itself side by side with
the inorganic necessity of causality, and direction makes itself
felt along with capacity and intensity, the factors of pure extension.
The course of this process is marked by the appearance of whole
series of daring hypotheses, all of like sort, which are only
apparently demanded by experimental results and which in fact
world-feeling and mythology imagined as long ago as the Gothic
Above all, this is manifested in the bizarre hypotheses of atomic
disintegration which elucidate the phenomena of radioactivity,
and according to which uranium atoms that have kept their essence
unaltered, in spite of all external influences, for millions of
years and then suddenly without assignable cause explode, scattering
their smallest particles over space with velocities of thousands
of kilometres per second. Only a few individuals in an aggregate
of radioactive atoms are struck by destiny thus, the neighbours
being entirely unaffected. Here too, then, is a picture of history
and not »nature,« and although statistical methods
here also prove to be necessary, one might almost say that in
them mathematical number has been replaced by chronological.
With ideas like these, the mythopoetic force of the Faustian
soul is returning to its origins. It was at the outset of the
Gothic, just at the time when the first mechanical clocks were
being built, that the myth of the world's end, Ragnarok, the twilight
of the gods, arose. It may be that, like all the reputedly old-German
myths Ragnarok (whether in the Voluspa form or as the Christian
Muspilli) was modelled more or less on Classical and particularly
Christian-Apocalyptic motives. Nevertheless, it is the expression
and symbol of the Faustian and of no other soul. The Olympian
college is historyless, it knows no becoming, no epochal moments,
no aim. But the passionate thrust into distance is Faustian. Force,
Will, has an aim, and where there is an aim there is for the inquiring
eye an end. That which the perspective of oil-painting expressed
by means of the vanishing point, the Baroque park by its pint
de vue, and analysis by the term of an infinite series
the conclusion, that is, of a willed directedness
assumes here the form of the concept. The Faust of the Second
Part is dying, for he has reached his goal. What the myth of Götterdammerung
signified of old, the irreligious form of it, the theory of entropy,
signifies today world's end as completion of an inwardly
necessary evolution. **
Quantum physics (mechanics) and Relativity physics (theory) are
so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer
to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these
described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other
and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either
one or both must be false.
Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most
accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone
wants to imagine how full the universe is of affectance according
it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according
to the ether theory. But anyway, the ether theory and RM:AO are
not the same.
The relativity theory (1905/1916) made the aether theory redundant
according to the mainstream physicists after the test during the
total solar eclipse on 29th May 1919, although this test was criticized.
1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 km.
2.54 million light years = 24,030,025,540,000,000,000 km (9,460,730,472,580.8
km x 2,540,000).
Light speed = 299,792,458 m/s = 9,460,730,472,580.8 km/year.
In other words: You need 2,54 million times more than the light
needs in one year.
In other words: You need 2,54 million years if you travel as fast
as the light does.
Our current technoloy allows us at most about 0.1% of the light
So, if you will use our current technology and start tomorrow,
then you will arrive at Andromeda 2.54 billion years later. And
when you will come back from your trip after 5 billion years from
now, then you will have missed 10 geological Pangaea
on our planet Earth, if it will not already be outside of the habitable
zone of our solar system (**|**).
So, realistically said: Forget your trip (**)!
But if you necessarily want to travel, then okay: Have a good trip!
I will try to wait for you.
If the collision of our Milky way and Andromeda will come true,
then you will need less time for your trip (**),
but your trip will still take too much time. Believe me. My advice
is that you should first travel to the Moon, then to the planet
Mars and be happy there (**).
The orbit of our Sun: