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