WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

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 way.

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.

Spiralbewegungen

Spiralbewegungen


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 constant.

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 Planck’s 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 speed.

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. That’s great, isn’t 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 scientific directions:

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.
7.) Nothing.


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 phenomenon”?


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 spiral-cyclicity.

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 fermions—i.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”.

I’m 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. That’s 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 with it.


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 “says”that “charge is electric potential”, then it means that “charge is electric potential”.


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 term.


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 can’t reach the other realm, the physical / material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hasn’t occured.

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 can’t 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 don’t 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”). That’s funny.

** Universum

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:

**
Universum

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 attraction?


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 Wirtz’s observational evidence that the Universe is expanding is not often mentioned.

Wikipedia:

„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 phenomenon.


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?


Geometry

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 one.

**


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 with RM:AO.


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 an 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.“

Brainwashing.

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 other“ (**), 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 other“?


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 FALSE) !
Minor premise: Metals are are gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) !

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 potassium!


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 fact.


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):

Häufigkeitsverteilung von Aussterbeereignissen in den letzten 542 Millionen Jahren

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?

Dampfbetriebener Motor


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 for philosophers.


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 called„quantum 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 Supercluster.

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).


Schrödingers Katze:

Schrödingers Katze

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?


Habitable zone according to the luminosity of the Sun


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.

1) Set: Linguistics 2) Set: Sun
1,1) Subset: Logic 2,1) Subset: Hydrogen
1,1,1) Subsubset: Mathematics 2,2) Subsubset: Helium
1,1,2) Subsubset: Others 2,3) Subsubset: Others

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


Development of our sun

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 subject relevant).

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 beings.

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):

Space debris


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 [1755], 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 realms.“ **

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 requires life.


Four steps:

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 perspectives?

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?


Newton’s physics was true till Clausius’ second law („entropy“) of thermodynamics, in any case till Planck’s constant, Planck’s quantum theory, and Einstein’s (actually Hilbert’s) 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. 17-2.5.

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 the symbolism.

(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« in entropy.

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 age.

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 »th 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 to RM:AO, 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 speed.

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“ cycles (**) 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 (**).

Good luck!


The orbit of our Sun:

Sonne - Umlauf als Lebenslauf


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

  Occidental culture