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.


<= || =>

- Register -

  Occidental culture