Absolute Theory - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2025-08-20T09:52:41Z

Till:

Main Page

2025-08-20T09:52:27Z

Till:

Main Page

2025-08-20T09:51:59Z

Till:

Equivalence of space and time

2024-06-11T15:36:54Z

Till: /* Sketches */

== '''History''' ==

Albert Einstein discovered the [[equivalence of mass and energy]]. He recorded this in the equation [[E = mc²]]. This means that energy and mass grow or shrink in the same proportion. You have an energy of 3. Then you have a mass of 3. The units of measurement are deliberately left out. c is equal to 1. c² also. This results from the division of Planck space and Planck time. Both correspond to 1 [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Einheiten].

== '''Theory''' ==

In Albert Einstein's equation [[E = mc²]] there is actually already the knowledge that the speed is always c. During my physics class at school, a big question from the old days was whether work and energy are one and the same. W = m * v² applies to the work. This can be deduced from the fact that the work is equal to the force times the displacement, i.e. W = F * s. The force F in turn is m * a and a is v / t. So we get W = m * v / t * s and since s / t = v, W = m * v². If work and energy were the same now, one could equate the two equations and would already have v = c or, transformed, s = t * c. Hence, space and time would be equivalent terms. Albert Einstein also saw it that way and based his four-dimensional time on the vector (x1, x2, x3, ict), which ultimately means that vector (s) = time times unit vector c.

But there is another way. Space and time are both quantized. That is, they consist of a multiple of a basic unit. In mathematical terms:

<b> Space = Planck length * natural number </b>

and

<b> Time = Planck time * natural number </b>

Planck length is: l (p) = 1.616252 10 ^ −35 m.

Planck time is: t (p) = 5.39124 · 10 ^ −44 s.

These are the smallest possible dimensions of time and space.

What is the equivalence now? You can see that both are dependent on a natural number. Critically, one can say that the set of all natural numbers is not always the same, i.e. that m = n does not hold.

Let's assume two different numbers m and n. Natural numbers, I always think of induction as evidence. So:

Let us consider the case <b> n = 1 </b>:

Time is Planck time. Now let's go through the possibilities.

The case of natural number m = 0: Then space = 0 and time = 1. The speed is space through time, i.e. speed = 0. Einstein said that nothing stands still, that is, that the speed cannot be 0. Accordingly, this case falls out.

m = 1. Then we get a speed of 1 or c.

m > 1. If m is the space greater than 1 with a constant time of 1, the result is a speed greater than 1 or greater c. Einstein ruled that out too, so m cannot be greater than 1.
For n = 1: v = 1 or v = c.

Let's consider the case <b> n -> n +1 </b>:

That's easy. We have m = n = 1 for the case n = 1. If we now add +1 we get: n + 1 = m + 1. This means that our equation v = 1 or is also correct for the case n + 1

''v = c''

== ''' Conclusion ''' ==

After complete induction, v = c applies. One can also say that the speed is always equal to the [[speed of light]], even if we have to change the concept of speed for this. Up to now, v has only ever described the speed of movement in physics, but sometimes I used it synonymously with the total speed, which is more than the movement. More on that later. Since speed = space / time, s = t * c or s = t, if you use the unit system of Planck units. You can see that as with [[E = mc²]] the division always results in 1. Space and time develop in the same way. They are equivalent terms. But there is also the [[faster than light]] of locomotion.

Now you can critically note that not everything moves relative to me with c, that you would see. Yes, that is a fallacy. In any case, v = c applies absolutely. A distinction must be made between the speed of movement and the speed that sweeps over the same space several times, such as rotation or frequency. According to Pythagoras, these are composed as follows: v (red) ² + v (for) ² = v². That much is clear. So we get v = sqr (v (red) ² * v (for) ²) = c. In each case, the abbreviation red applies to the speed that covers several places and for for movement. This is also a wonderful simplification for Einstein's relativistic root. The relativistic root, also known today as the gamma factor, is sqrt (1 - v² / c²). If you first expand this with c, i.e. sqrt (c²), the result is the expression sqrt (c² - v²). but this is ultimately just another term for our equation above with v (rot) and v (for). It turns out that this expression becomes sqrt (v (red) ²). Then the relativistic root expanded with c is nothing else than our velocity v (red) which sweeps over several places. With this one can considerably simplify many of Einstein's equations (see also the main article [[Relativistic root]]). If you are bothered by the double use of v and would rather leave v as the speed of movement, you can also use the following equation:

'''(f / f (max)) ² * c² + v² = c²'''

I will deliver the constant f (max) later. I still have to see if it really is f (max) in the mks system. But the check works: I replace f / f (max) with the relativistic root and get: (1 - v² / c²) * c² + v² = c² <=> c² - v² + v² = c² <=> c² = c².

In absolute terms, we move not only in the world, but with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the galaxy, and with the galaxy around higher systems to the center of the universe. This applies to the speed of movement, partly also to the rotation. So when the earth rotates, we rotate with it. This center of the universe can therefore be used as a reference point for the speed of movement. Point of reference, the physicists are puzzled because one of Einstein's great axioms was that there is no absolute point of reference, and since my theory is based on Einstein, that would be a contradiction. It's unbelievable that this can also be solved. There is no absolute reference point, but 2. With regard to the speed of rotation, the light and precisely the light that moves with c is the reference point. Of course light has a mass according to the [[Conservation of mass]] and is therefore subject to gravity. If it is subject to gravity, however, it will move more slowly, which means that it is no longer light per se in the sense of my theory. I mean ultimately the light with the [elemental mass]]. Of course, Einstein's cosmological principle then becomes shaky in my theory because there is a direction in the universe to the reference point and away from it. I plan further explanations on the page [[Structure of the Universe]].

You can also see that black holes, because they are reference points and move less, that the speed v (red) crossing several locations must be higher for them. In the case of the black hole in the middle of the universe, it is [[speed of light]], which means that time passes incredibly quickly here.

In addition, it must be stated that we all operate on a micro level. We are all made of light, which contains the [[elemental mass]] and of which quarks are also made. These move back and forth at the speed of light, according to the plausible theory. But since space and time have to be preserved after the maintenance of the basic quantities, the velocity also remains constant when two photons or quarks are connected. From this point of view, too, v = c results. If we assume an [[elemental mass]] has the extension s = 1 and the time t = 1 and connect 2, then they have the extension s = 2 and t = 2, in a simplified and abstract way. Whereby more and more v (red) comes into play with the mass, so that the space as an extension is replaced by the space that is swept over several times.

And last but not least, it can also be that relatively v = c applies, apart from the space-time vector already shown. This is awesome. It is now not so easy for the reader to express, but many have drank too much alcohol in their youth, so that everything revolves around you. In doing so, the brain loses our normal view of what we consider to be relative. Babies also experience this in their first few months until human vision asserts itself. You may not believe me or accuse me of an island talent, but I think I remember. Of course, I don't want to encourage anyone to have borderline experiences with alcohol. And these statements are a bit like in the allegory of the cave and are not yet firmly established. One can also say that at the quark level everything moves relatively with c. The way is open here to draw interesting conclusions about the curvature of space according to Einstein and to analyze the structure of our world. And if someone starts to stress again, you could simply say: "I'm already moving at the speed of light, I can't go any faster.

== '''Einstein and the equivalence of space and time''' ==
Albert Einstein also assumed that every object moves in space-time with [[speed of light]], so that accordingly v = c and that space and time are equivalent terms. In his opinion one can convert time into space and vice versa. For example, with an object that moves quickly, time passes correspondingly more slowly in order to maintain the equivalence of space and time. According to the absolute theory, however, space cannot be converted into time and vice versa, mainly because of the [[space conservation law]] and the [[time conservation law]]. The proven fact that time passes more slowly can only be explained by the fact that when time is measured by means of a balance wheel, the time is determined based on the tremor, i.e. the multiple passing of the same places. If a body moves, this movement slows down and with it the time measurement. Einstein also saw this in a similar way, he says, if one were to measure the time with a pendulum, that a different value would result for the time dilation.

== '''Pulsating speed''' ==
In retrospect, I noticed that Plato's distinction between the speed of rotation and speed of movement still needs to be expanded, namely by the pulsating speed or the overall frequency. So the more a body pulsates, the less it rotates with constant movement. This explains the discussion about the [[equivalence of rotation speed and mass]], namely that Venus rotates less than the earth, but still has the same mass. Venus has a higher temperature and accordingly pulsates more, which also explains the contraction of places according to the theory of relativity. The pulsating speed crosses places several times during the contraction, so one can also speak of a compression of the places here. This pulsation can certainly also be viewed as a frequency.

== Recommended books ==
I particularly recommend Einstein's original texts. All of my youth I have only read secondary literature. The true genius of Einstein can only be seen in the original texts.

== '''Sketches''' ==

<htmltag tagname="script" src = "https://mbgt.de/lib/js/graph.js"></htmltag>
<htmltag tagname="script"> window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX : 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function ( x) {return 100 - (x * x);}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 120); context.fillText ("v ( fort) ", 650, 70); context.fillText (" v (rot) ", 650, 15); context.fillText (" c ", 354, 10); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); var centerX = canvas.width / 2; var centerY = canvas.height / 2 + 55; var radius = 75; var startingAngle = 0 * Math.PI; var endingAngle = 2 * Math.PI; var counterclockwise = false; context.beginPath (); context.moveTo (centerX + radius, centerY); context.arc (centerX, centerY, radius, startingAngle, endingAngle, counterclockwise); context.lineWidth = 3; context.strokeStyle = "blue"; context.stroke (); context.beginPath (); context.moveTo (centerX - radius, centerY - radius); context.lineTo (centerX + radius, centerY - radius ); context.lineTo (centerX + radius - 5, centerY - radius - 5); context.moveTo (centerX + radius, centerY - radius); context.lineTo (centerX + radius - 5, centerY - radius + 5); context.lineWidth = 3; context.strokeStyle = "black"; context.stroke (); context.beginPath (); context.moveTo (centerX, centerY - radius); context.lineTo (centerX, centerY - 2 * radius); context.moveTo (centerX, centerY - 2 * radius); context.lineTo (centerX + 5, centerY - 2 * radius + 5); context.moveTo (centerX, centerY - 2 * radius); context.lineTo (centerX - 5, centerY - 2 * radius + 5); context.lineWidth = 3; context.strokeStyle = "red"; context.stroke (); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("v (rot)", centerX + radius -10, centerY - radius -10); context.fillText ("v (fort)", centerX + 10, centerY - 2 * radius + 10);}; </htmltag>

<htmltag tagname="canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "200"> </htmltag>
Sketch 1

<htmltag tagname="canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300"> </htmltag>
Sketch 2

== '''Links''' ==
[https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Essay and proof, translation together with Bernhard Hagen] can be downloaded for a small donation.

Main Page

2024-01-04T19:48:30Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Main Page

2024-01-04T19:44:10Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe type="text/html" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups" width="336" height="550" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen style="max-width:100%" src="https://lesen.amazon.de/kp/card?asin=B09S6KQRKT&preview=inline&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_3RSVED068VC54VBE7KQB&tag=wwwdieabsolut-21" >
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2024-01-04T19:43:02Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe type="text/html" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups" width="336" height="550" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen style="max-width:100%" src="https://lesen.amazon.de/kp/card?asin=B09S6KQRKT&preview=inline&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_3RSVED068VC54VBE7KQB&tag=wwwdieabsolute-21" >
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Dedication

2023-10-10T00:23:08Z

Till:

I dedicate this theory to my brother Fritz, who committed suicide. He was one of the greatest critics of my theory before he understood an essential connection of my theory shortly before his suicide, namely the [[equivalence of space and time]]. In my schizophrenia I saw him ascend to heaven after his death, I am sure he will be happy there.

I thank my friend Thomas "Tom" Schmitz for helping me research the [[Structure of the Universe]]. I also thank my friend Marius Schaper not for his skepticism, but for supporting my mathematical endeavors with mathematical specialist knowledge and mathematical specialist literature. This led in particular to the development of [[Division by Zero]] and the article [[Complex numbers]].

Furthermore, I would like to thank my friend Bernhard "Berni" Hagen for his help with translations and for understanding the [[equivalence of space and time]] and that I was instrumental in the idea for my [[Weltformel]], the equivalence of space, time and mass. You could say it came from him.

Main Page

2023-10-07T09:29:07Z

Till:

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2023-09-27T21:31:49Z

Till:

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Sponsored by the US Government Small Business Grant

Absolute Theory:General disclaimer

2023-04-12T18:16:28Z

Till:

Responsible for absolutetheory.com:

Till Meyenburg

Vorgebirgstrasse 332

D-50969 Cologne

Germany

till.meyenburg(at)gmail.com

+4916096508486

Introduction for Newbies

2022-02-09T16:57:49Z

Till:

So, I have decided to write an introduction to absolute theory for newbies, because many still do not understand my explanations. The first thing you have to do is record the essay on [[Conservation of mass]]. This is an important basic building block for various derivations. Then the [[Equivalence of space and time]] is also important. Einstein set this up himself, but only drew relativistic conclusions. In the context of absolute theory, it is transferred to an absolute, quasi-Newtonian framework. All equivalences are derived from this equivalence. The math like [[Division by Zero]] can be viewed independently. Although it arose from physical considerations, it is an independent structure. The [[Weltformel]] is to be understood in exactly the same way without preceding; important conclusions are also drawn from it. If you have any questions, let's not shy away from the discussion and get in touch at till.meyenburg (at) gmail.com

Structure of matter

2022-01-17T11:57:54Z

Till:

== Quarks & Co. ==
Previous physics has always assumed that matter is composed of ever smaller masses. At the beginning, the molecules were discovered, then the atoms, until one noticed with protons, neutrons and electrons that the atoms are not indivisible either, as the name actually suggests (atom comes from ancient Greek and means indivisible unit). However, quantum theory tells us that the basis of basic physical quantities such as mass are natural numbers and not, as one would mathematically assume, the real and / or complex ones. Accordingly, the ever further subdivision and the ever ongoing discovery of smaller particles has set a limit by quantum theory, the [[elemental mass]]. A photon or a quantum have the [[elemental mass]], it doesn't get any smaller in our universe. All particles are made up of quanta, especially the quarks as far as they are not quanta themselves.

== Division by Zero ==
The [[Division by Zero]] that I have defined affects the structure of matter. From this one could deduce the [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. The new numbers, which are around zero in the epsilon environment, also suggest that the quanta are also built up from smaller ones, quasi-spiritually (or virtually as particle physics calls it). These particles have a mass greater than 0 but less than any real number before the redefinition. A quantum would then be made up of an infinite number of virtual particles.

== The electron and the proton ==
The electron has mass, a mass greater than the elementary mass. Accordingly, it consists of several quanta or photons (I use these terms synonymously, although the photon is ultimately only a quantum of light). Ultimately, the [[proton]] is also only made up of quanta.

== The structure ==
Ultimately, everything consists of quanta if you get to the bottom of it. We humans also consist of quanta, the deeper you go. First come the molecules, then come the atoms, then come protons, neutrons and electrons and then quanta. From this also follows the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Since the quanta move at the speed of light in any case, this speed must be maintained when merging. Space and time are preserved so that the quotient always remains constant in the structure of matter, so the speed always remains constant c.

== Forces of attraction and particles ==
In collaboration with a friend, who also appeared frequently as a commentator, I developed a very simple explanation for the cohesion of matter on Facebook. He got me on it by posting a paper on quantum chromodynamics. Ultimately, one can say that molecules are held together by the valence electrons. Atoms, in turn, are held together by gluons, which for a long time are assumed to be nothing other than photons. This can now be confirmed, as an electron can be split off from the atom by photon bombardment. It is probably even possible to split off all electrons through intense bombardment, so that atomic nuclei can be produced very easily. The atom itself consists of neutrons and protons. Neutrons can be split by neutrino bombardment, so that the neutrino is the element that holds the neutron together. The proton in turn consists of quarks. Now, as the paper emerged, one can release neutrinos here by bombarding them with gluons. So here the cohesive element is again a gluon. This gluon here is smaller than photons and if it is not a very small neutrino itself, smaller than a neutrino.

Ultimately, the electron is then also a gluon, for molecules. And the photon is indeed a gluon for the atom. That obeys the principle of the simplest explanation.

Introduction for Newbies

2022-01-17T11:51:06Z

Till:

Introduction for Newbies

2022-01-17T11:50:40Z

Till:

So, I have decided to write an introduction to absolute theory for newbies, because many still do not understand my explanations. The first thing you have to do is record the essay on [[Conservation of Mass]]. This is an important basic building block for various derivations. Then the [[Equivalence of space and time]] is also important. Einstein set this up himself, but only drew relativistic conclusions. In the context of absolute theory, it is transferred to an absolute, quasi-Newtonian framework. All equivalences are derived from this equivalence. The math like [[Division by Zero]] can be viewed independently. Although it arose from physical considerations, it is an independent structure. The [[Weltformel]] is to be understood in exactly the same way without preceding; important conclusions are also drawn from it. If you have any questions, let's not shy away from the discussion and get in touch at kontakt (at) till-meyenburg.de

Introduction for Newbies

2022-01-17T11:50:01Z

Till:

So, I have decided to write an introduction to absolute theory for newbies, because many still do not understand my explanations. The first thing you have to do is record the essay on [[Conservation of Mass]]. This is an important basic building block for various derivations. Then the [[Equivalence of space and time]] is also important. Einstein set this up himself, but only drew relativistic conclusions. In the context of absolute theory, it is transferred to an absolute, quasi-Newtonian framework. All equivalences are derived from this equivalence. The math like [[Division by zero]] can be viewed independently. Although it arose from physical considerations, it is an independent structure. The [[Weltformel]] is to be understood in exactly the same way without preceding; important conclusions are also drawn from it. If you have any questions, let's not shy away from the discussion and get in touch at kontakt (at) till-meyenburg.de

Division by Zero

2022-01-08T06:38:32Z

Till: /* Prehistory */

== Introduction ==
Since Newton at the latest, physicists have been crazy about division by zero. Ultimately, I couldn't solve this problem. I had a proof in 1999 that at least postponed the problem, but unfortunately a Chernobyl virus on my computer lost all data at that time (unfortunately also an initial essay about the structure of the universe). The approach is actually easy: r * 0 is defined as 0, r * 1 as r. Assuming the case that r * 1 were defined as 1, one would also have problems with the normal division. 1/1 would suddenly be r or not defined and you would end up in hell's kitchen. Of course you don't do that. Just as naturally you shouldn't do that with r * 0, but include the factor. I suggest the notation 0 (r) for such numbers, spoken 0 with the index r. Then suddenly you can divide by zero.

== Prehistory ==
How do you even get such an idea? Yes, I had the problem that I found out the [[Conservation of mass]]. So the pair annihilation of electron and positron resulted in the realization that photons must have mass. So why not the [[elemental mass]] and everything consists of photons, so there is, so to speak, no difference between quarks and photons. Now it is true that the mass of a photon is equal to the rest mass of a photon, divided by the relativistic root, i.e. the root of 1 minus the quotient of v² and c². If the speed of a photo is now c, then the relativistic root yields 0. Einstein also said that the rest mass of a photon is zero. So the mass of a photon is equal to 0/0, namely rest mass due to the relativistic root. If photons really have a mass according to the [[Conservation of mass]], then the quotient of 0/0 is also a natural and real number, namely 1.

== Previous mathematics and counter-evidence ==
What has been learned at universities so far is that division by zero would not be possible. The assumption 0 divided by 0 is 1 is considered successfully refuted. So so far it is true that r * 0 = 0. If 0/0 = 1, then r = 1, which is not true, since r represents all real numbers and not just 1. So after r * 0 = 0, 2 * 0 = 0 and 1 * 0 = 0. If 0/0 = 1, one obtains 2 = 1 by transforming the equations, which is a very clear contradiction. Here comes the idea of the absolute theory that r * 0 is no longer equal to 0, but that the multiplier has to be continued as an index, i.e. that r * 0 = 0 (r).

== The proof in brief ==
I will therefore have to do the proof again at a later point in time, although here are the main features of how this proof is built.
Instead of the numbers r (old), the new numbers r (new) are used. As with the complex numbers one, two new dimensions are simply added. The following applies:

r (new) = (r (old) * 0, r (old) * 1, r (old) * infinite).
Then you go through all the axioms of the real numbers and check whether they also hold. An old friend (mathematician, yes Schaper, you are meant) spoke of an inflated set, but the proof goes through and since the numbers are also unambiguous, I would not speak of an inflated set, rather r (new) is a contribution for exploring epsilon.

For the sake of simplicity, the numbers are represented as 0 (1) for 1 * 0 e.g.
The following calculation rules apply:

0/0 = 1 (0 is no longer a number, but a set of zero elements.)

0 (1) / 0 (1) = (1/1) * (0/0) = 1 * 1 = 1

0 (r) / 0 (r) = 1

e.g.

0 (3) / 0 (1) = 3

== derivatives ==
You no longer need difficult limit value calculations for the discharges (it was a horror to me at school, but I was beaten down).

E.g. for the derivative of y = 3x:

f´ = (3 * 0) / (1 * 0) = 0 (3) / 0 (1) = 3

== Higher order derivatives and division by zero ==
Now let's look at the Wikipedia example for the derivation

f (x) = x² - 3x + 2

Ultimately then delta (y) / delta (x) = (f (x (0) - delta (x)) - f (x (0)) / delta (x). To explain: It is true that one ( y (2) - y (1)) / (x (2) - x (1)) and the distance between the two x tends towards zero, in order to reduce the slope at a point (x (0), f (x (0)) to get out.

Then according to Wikipedia: (((x (0) - delta (x)) ² - (3 (x (0) + delta (x)) + 2) - (x (0) ² - 3x (0) + 2 ) / delta (x). If we now not only let delta (x) tend towards zero, but also let it become zero with the new calculation rules, the following results:

(x (0) ² + 2x (0) * 0 + 0² - 3x (0) - 3 * 0 -2 - x (0) ² + 3x (0) - 2) / 0

<=> [Several terms are deleted here]

(2x (0) * 0 + 0² - 3 * 0) / 0

<=> [with 0/0 = 1 results]

2x - 3 + 0

<=> [so that in real terms]

2x - 3

So in the end the same as with normal derivation!

== Conclusion ==
Maybe at some point I will be able to solve the problem completely, but I'm afraid that I will have to re-model the axioms of the number sets. Of course, the new set cannot be divided by 0 (0). (I was about to say but this comes to mind while writing):

0 (0) / 0 (0) = (0/0) * (0/0) = 1.

It works! Crap I have to do the proof again, crap virus!
Addendum: Of course, the correct treatment of the quantity is still missing, because then it goes on and on, with every 0 and every infinite, which is divided or multiplied, a new dimension must be added.

The correct calculation rules have actually been found, but the evidence of how the body is built remains open. The proof, which is linked at the bottom of the page, ultimately only proves that one can define the real numbers in such a way that division by 0 * 0 is not possible, by all other products of zero it is. This can be shifted further and further through the new dimensions or indices, but ultimately the mathematical, complete solution is missing to make division by zero possible now.

== Relation to the infinite ==
Of course, according to this new perspective, the infinite is the reciprocal of 0. The infinite must also be indexed, because here, too, r * infinite = infinite. 1/0 would therefore be infinite with the index 1. Division by 0 would correspond to multiplication by infinity. Under [[Infinity]] I start with an essay about it so that I don't have to put everything here.

However, I had doubts here, so that one has to reconsider. Ultimately, 1 / infinite means that something happens once in the infinity of life, so you can represent a relationship. But if something happens once in infinity, it is there and not zero. The phrase "once is never" cannot be accepted. This also results from the fact that 0.99999 ... so zero point period nine is not 1. It is 1 / infinitely smaller than 1, which is what many teenagers at school think too. This means that 1 / infinite cannot be 0 and thus infinite cannot be the reciprocal of zero, but the smallest real number. This would also correspond to the [[quantum theory]] that everything is made up of a small number. This smallest number would also be the key to the root 0. Under [[mass and momentum of a photon]] I have shown that the root 0 is not zero, but that the photon has rest mass when considered from the ratio of time dilation.

In 2020 I will have the first consistent assumptions about what the algebraic relationship might look like. infinity + 1 = 0 = 0 + 0 = 0 * (0 + 0) = 0 * 0 + 0 * 0 = 0 + 0 = 0 = infinity + 1

== Ratio of zero to the imaginary unit i ==
And finally you get to the fact that you can substitute the 0 with i and then continue to calculate as normal. Be it with division or multiplication, everything then works out. The idea comes from considering the [[faster than light speed]]. According to Einstein and Minkowski, the numbers for the masses and energies then go into the imaginary range. According to my theory, they go into the numbers that we have defined here by dividing by zero.

What could be more obvious than simply linking these two trains of thought, especially since we have realized that 0 and infinity are not reciprocal values of each other. So nothing prevents us from substituting 0 by i, even if one initially has the surprising result that 1/0 = -0. But that can be explained. If you don't give anything to nobody, nobody gets anything, so everyone gets nothing. 0 * 0 = -1 also applies just like sqrt (-1) = 0. Now I'm on my way to defining my set of numbers.

== Explanation of Euler's equation ==
Zero is an interesting number anyway. So it turns out that 0 ^ 5 = 0 ^ 1. Such a recurring pattern is well known to mathematicians from the derivatives of the trigonometric functions. The 4th derivative of sine (x) is again sine (x). This suggests that i is equal to zero with a leading sine. Then e ^ (i * Pi) = -1 would be declared. It would be e ^ (0 * -sin (Pi)) = -1, so e ^ -1 * 0 = e ^ -0 = -1.

It was also found that multiplied by i, the antiderivative is formed, but without a constant. For example, sin (x) if sin (0) = 0. The antiderivative is -cos (x). Say 0 * 0 the integral is equal to -1. I'll explain later why this is a negative integral. This is the beginning of negative ground and negative frequency. But let's look at e ^ (-sin (Pi) * i) = -1. This then gives e ^ -sin (Pi) * i = e ^ cos (Pi) = e ^ -0 = -1. This would fully explain Euler's equation. :-) Here you can find further considerations by Sandro Boliterri: [[Euler equation]]

== Set theoretical representation of the zero ==
The newly defined numbers can also be represented very well in set theory. 0 always meant the empty set. But what is a set that contains two empty sets? According to the old principle, this is also projected onto zero, but every student knows that it makes a difference whether you have no more money for one day at the end of the month or a whole ten. So 1 * 0 is also not equal to 10 * 0. You can definitely define it in such a way that information is lost with another old definition. A set of 3 has 3 ones elements, a set of 3 * 0 = 0 (3) has 3 empty sets. As simple as that.

== Division in elementary school and popularly ==
In primary school, it was always explained how to imagine the division. You and your brother have four apples, you want to split them fairly for the two of you, so each receives two apples, accordingly 4/2 = 2. When dividing by zero, this clarity is a bit more difficult: Let's take 0 (3) / 0 This means: none of you will not receive 3 apples. That means everyone receives three apples, so 0 (3) / 0 = 0 (3) / 0 (1) = 3 * 0/1 * 0 = 3/1 = 3, and you can do the same with products of 0 that are in the denominator. 0 (4) / 0 (2) means no pair does not receive 4 apples. So the couple receives four apples, and each of them receives two apples. So 0 (4) / 0 (2) = (4/2) * (0/0) = 2 * 1 = 2

== The final proof lim (x-> 0) = lim (x-> i) ==
For the final proof I already have the zero element with the new calculation rules. In old numbers (0, 0, 0) corresponds to 0 * 0 + 1 * 0 + infinite * 0. According to my calculation rules: -1 + epsilon + 0 (infinite). Since the zero element should also be 0 in old numbers, then 0 (infinite) + epsilon = 1. This results in -1 + 1 = 0. Now it would only be necessary to adjust the evidence as it is linked. It is then also interesting that infinity * results in epsilon = 1, because 1 / epsilon = infinite. As I said, 1/0 is -0 according to the calculation rules for imaginary numbers. Let's look forward to the proof. I hope to have the time to do it soon.

I have now packed all of this into a valid theorem. That's the nice thing about mathematics, at some point there is only right or wrong. The theorem is the limit value of at least every linear and quadratic equation in the real part for delta (x) against 0 corresponds to the limit value delta (x) against i. In cubic equations there is an i ^ 4 which, according to the old calculation rules, would be -1 * -1 = 1. For me, however, 0 * 0 = + -1 and + -1 * + - 1 = 0. That's why i ^ 4 = 0 for me and then it works with the derivation of cubic equations. The derivation of trigonometric functions is easier with i and leads to the same result as the derivation with the limit value towards 0.

A small example please: f (x) = x

f '(x) = delta f (x) / delta x = (f (x + i) - f (x)) / i = (x + i - x) / i = i / i = i * -i = 1

As you can see, you can replace the annoying division of the differential quotient with a multiplication by -i, which will also please some students or high school students better.

== Division by zero in R solvable ==
In 2020 I finally solved the division by zero in R, the set of real numbers. Never thought that this would work with the old set of numbers. One defines r / 0 = -r * 0 = not (sgn (r)) and calculates correctly with the zero in R.

== Links ==
I found some of the data from my old computer again. The link to my proof is available for a small donation:

[https://Paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Proof: Division by zero]

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-26T03:15:11Z

Till: /* multiverse */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== Multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[Weltformel]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[Background radiation]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[Weltformel]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[Background radiation]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:59:38Z

Till: /* Universal law of motion of the universe */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[Weltformel]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[Background radiation]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[Weltformel]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[Background radiation]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:58:49Z

Till: /* ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[Weltformel]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[Background radiation]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:58:35Z

Till: /* ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[Weltformel]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[Background radiation]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[Theory of relativity]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:57:53Z

Till: /* Expansion of the universe */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[Weltformel]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:57:34Z

Till: /* The periodic universe */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by Zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[world formula]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:57:15Z

Till: /* The periodic universe */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by Zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[world formula]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:56:48Z

Till: /* multiverse */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[Multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[world formula]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:56:24Z

Till: /* The beginning */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[Weltformel]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation Laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[world formula]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Structure of the Universe

2020-10-07T07:55:57Z

Till: /* Introduction */

== Introduction ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. [[Weltformel]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.

== The beginning ==
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothing. The big bang theory believes accordingly. However, she assumes that at the beginning there was a very hot point in which all mass and energy was already stored. According to the [[world formula]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent terms. So at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.

== Center of the Universe ==
According to Albert Einstein, the universe has no center. However, he does not base his theory on it, but says it obiter dictum, that is, casually. With the big bang theory, cosmologists get into serious trouble. The universe started at one point and it is expanding. Möbius strips or other daring geometries have to be used here to save Einstein.

According to the absolute theory, the universe definitely has a center. The origin of the universe, now populated with a black hole far from our imagination, is also the origin through which a coordinate system can be laid in order to measure the universe. Everything is absolute relative to this origin. This results in particular from the [[equivalence of space and time]]. The spatial origin is also the temporal origin. Our absolute speed in the universe is to be measured relative to this center point. We move with the earth around the sun, with the sun around the center of the Milky Way, with the Milky Way around even higher structures. All of these speeds are to be added to the absolute speed. The question of whether there are multiverses and whether this structure in turn has a center remains unaffected. The black hole in the middle of our galaxy has now been proven. Several particle detectors found it in the constellation Sagittarius. Of course, every alaxy then has a black hole in its center. In addition, there are structures of a higher order that contain a large number of galaxies, which in turn move around a black hole in the center. As I said, that goes up to the center of the universe. I developed this idea back in 1998.

== multiverse ==
Right from the start, I was fascinated by the idea of a [[multiverse]], namely that there is not just one universe, but several. The [[Conservation Laws]] suggest such an assumption. Space, time and mass are preserved, accordingly there must be positive and negative forms of these quantities. Our universe could be imagined with a twin universe. In our universe the basic quantities are all positive, whereas in the parallel universe all quantities are negative. But does that mean that time is running backwards in the twin universe and everything is running backwards. Not at all. If I am in the twin universe, all sizes there are positive for me and the sizes in my old universe are negative. God is already a great genius! This theory is also not limited to 2 universes, but can be extended to an infinite number of pairs of parallel universes.

== The periodic universe ==
I never said I did the [[Division by zero]], it's my life's work. [[Weltformel]] in the sense of Minkowski's postulate of the world, I could assume. Einstein's world formula should also be solvable, one should look closely at the electrical, magnetic and gravitational field of the earth and arrive at a dependency of the three fields via the geometric shape. What is striking here is that the gravitational lines at the equator are exactly perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic lines. That would be an equation that you only have to add a sine (alpha) to the poles, for example, in order to take the geometric shape into account and to let the magnetic field lines run parallel to the gravitational lines. At the moment, however, [[Division by zero]] has come back into focus for me. A commenter on my blog formulated the idea that my previous considerations would result in no difference between 0 and infinity. That's because at the moment I'm guessing that the imaginary number would be i = 0, so 0 * 0 = -1. But since 1 / i = -i, 1/0 = - 0 would of course also be 1/0 infinite as a limit value. But since in addition, if 0 * 0 = -1, then -0 * -0 = -1 is also, since the two minus signs cancel each other out, then ultimately 0 = -0 = infinite = -infinite. Based on the multiplication, these values would then only be periodic elements that separate one universe from the other. I am also fascinated by the idea that it is not zero, but infinity that is in the middle of the number line or numbers. That would mean the sky, the infinity, would be in the middle of the universe, around it would be the finite finitude in which we live, and outside the nothing. As I said, this nothing is then only a limit for a new universe. These ideas are not stupid, but I still have to be clear about + and -. It is clear that an account balance can become minus, but that there really are minus in nature, that still needs to be analyzed.

== Expansion of the universe ==
Physicists have long been concerned with the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. One looks for a force that triggers the expansion. Newer theories explain this with dark energy and dark matter, an energy that we don't see but that is there. In 2011 it was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Based on the observations of supernovae, sound arguments for dark matter have been found. Here, too, one does not conform to Einstein in the meantime. He had introduced the so-called cosmological constant into his equations, a construct to explain the expansion of the universe. He later discarded them. The Nobel Prize work, however, suggests that this cosmological constant must exist and that the expansion of the universe is also accelerating. Absolute theory does not need dark matter to explain the expansion of the universe. To speak with Heidegger, his mark German philosopher and unfortunately a Nazi, the being of beings happens in the niece of nothing. Ultimately, absolute theory does not believe that not does not. Nevertheless, this theorem is very applicable to the universe. The universe expands into nothing. A place of absolute zero of the temperature. Where space is actually the wrong word, according to the [[world formula]], the place only arises when mass flows into it. Nevertheless one can explain the expansion of the universe thermodynamically with it. The warm universe expands to the places of the cold to compensate for it. It's just like when I open a window in my apartment in winter. The warm air flows outside and levels itself out with the cold air. Thermodynamically, warm air always flows in the direction of the cold air in order to balance itself out. In the same way, the somewhat warm universe strives expanding outwards in the direction of nothingness, in which the absolute zero point of temperature prevails. In this way one can explain the forces that make our universe expand even without dark energy.

== Future of the Universe ==
There are 3 theories or suggestions as to how the universe will continue to evolve. On the one hand one assumes that it expands into infinity, then there is the opinion that it expands until this development is over and then collapses again. Thirdly, it is assumed that the expansion slows down more and more until the universe has reached a fixed size. The decision on this question was previously made dependent on the density.

The absolute theory assumes that the [[time flow]] is constant +1. Accordingly, time keeps moving forward. According to the [[equivalence of space and time]], space and time develop in parallel. Accordingly, with a time flow of +1, the universe will also continue to expand, and this development will never come to a standstill.

== ESA measured values and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
The ESA's Planck Telescope has investigated [[background noise]], radiation in the microwave range. This comes from the Big Bang. The astonishing result was that the radiation in one direction of the sky is stronger than in the other. So far the cosmological principle has been valid that all directions are equal, which goes back to Einstein's approach that the universe has no point of reference. This principle has been shaken by the measurement results. The absolute theory has always been based on an absolute reference point in the universe, which is, however, very compatible with Einstein's [[relativity theory]]. Einstein only said that his theory does not need a preferred reference point, that there might not be one, he just said obiter dictum and did not base his theory on it. You have to think and differentiate so precisely here.

So the measured values of the ESA now suggest that there is a preferred direction that falsifies the cosmological principle. Absolute theory could actually have predicted these measurement results, if not had to. More background radiation comes from the direction of the Big Bang, the reference point and the center of the universe than from outside. These results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theory. More in the article on [[Isotropy]].

== Dark matter and dark energy ==
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yet. Perhaps my picture of the structure of the universe can offer a different explanation. So far it has been assumed in astronomy that the galaxies are all equal. They may be, but it cannot be that there are still higher orders. The theory of the center of the universe also aims at this, that all galaxies or even higher structures and orders all move around the center. If you don't find the dark matter in the galaxy itself, then maybe external forces act on the outside of the galaxies, which seem to move against Einstein's laws. Ralf Paul, himself a theorist, made me think about it. External radiation and external gravity could also move the stars on the outer sides of the galaxy faster, and we are unsuccessful in our search for dark matter in the solar system. It is just the same with molecules that they start moving more when the body to which they belong moves itself.

In fact, it is also the case that scientists, especially astronomers, are reintroducing the cosmological constant. Albert Einstein first incorporated this constant in order to make the equations valid for his conjecture of the static universe. According to the Big Bang theory, we now strongly suspect that the universe is not static. I'm afraid that the astronomers not only build in a cosmological constant, they also make the mistake of not differentiating between constant and parameter as with the Hubble parameter, also called fuzzy Hubble constant. Thereby one has a term that is a vector and is even multiplied by a variable parameter in Einstein's field equations of the GTR for gravity. As a trained theorist, you can quickly say: Okay, not only is a constant missing, but an entire vector or tensor. I am not yet going into the difference between vector and tensor, but the tensor is very close to the vector. And with that we notice that Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (ART) is incomplete because a term / vector is missing. Thus Albert Einstein's equation of gravitation is again only a special case of a superordinate law, just like Newton's law of gravitation is to the field equations of the GTR. I suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.

== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
There is a generally valid law for the central stars from the proton and lower to the huge energy point in the middle of the universe. According to the [[world formula]], the central star always has the same electrical attraction as the orbiting object, even if the charges are different. This ensures that the matter does not collide, but that the approximately circular paths result. Due to gravity, the sun attracts the earth. Due to the electric and magnetic force, the earth is always deflected at a right angle and so flies past the sun and does not fall into it. Exactly the same principle must apply to the sun and the black hole in the middle of the galaxy. Due to gravity, the black hole attracts the sun, but electromagnetically the sun and the solar system are deflected at right angles to the left and right.

Accordingly, a very strong electromagnetic force must also emanate from the black hole of the universe. Hawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see it. Einstein had stated that a black hole emits 0 lux. This electromagnetic radiation is possibly the [[background noise]]. These are radio waves that are around 3 Kelvin warm and thus warm our earth by 3 degrees Celsius. These can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:46:26Z

Till: /* More detailed analysis */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[Conservation of energy]] and according to the [[Conservation of mass]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[Conservation of mass]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[Conservation of mass]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[Conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:45:57Z

Till: /* Refutation */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[Conservation of energy]] and according to the [[Conservation of mass]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[Conservation of mass]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[Conservation of mass]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:45:00Z

Till: /* More detailed analysis */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[Energy conservation law]] and according to the [[Conservation of mass]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[Conservation of mass]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[Conservation of mass]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:44:50Z

Till: /* More detailed analysis */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[Energy conservation law]] and according to the [[Conservation of mass]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[Conservation of mas]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[Conservation of mass]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:43:56Z

Till: /* Refutation */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[Energy conservation law]] and according to the [[Conservation of mass]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[mass conservation law]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[mass conservation law]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Conversion of mass into energy

2020-10-06T12:43:18Z

Till: /* History and nuclear fission */

== Introduction ==
It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.

== History and nuclear fission ==
In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool.

== Refutation ==
Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[energy conservation law]] and according to the [[mass conservation law]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:

== Complete induction and proof by contradiction ==
If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:

2 = 0 * 1 = 0

But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.

== Conclusion ==
As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.

== Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.

== More detailed analysis ==
It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[mass conservation law]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[mass conservation law]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.

== Sketches ==

<htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
<htmltag tagname = "script">
window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch1 <br />
<br /> <br />
<div>
<htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
</htmltag>
</div>
Sketch 2 <br />

Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.

Absolute Theory:General disclaimer

2020-10-05T09:01:26Z

Till:

Responsible for absolutetheory.com:

ScienceCologne

Till Meyenburg

Vorgebirgstrasse 332

D-50969 Cologne

Germany

till.meyenburg(at)gmail.com

+4916096508486

Absolute Theory:General disclaimer

2020-10-05T09:01:02Z

Till: Created page with "Responsible for absolutetheory.com: ScienceCologne Till Meyenburg Vorgebirgstrasse 332 D-50969 Cologne Germany till.meyenburg(at)gmail.com +4916096508486"

Responsible for absolutetheory.com:

ScienceCologne
Till Meyenburg
Vorgebirgstrasse 332
D-50969 Cologne
Germany

till.meyenburg(at)gmail.com

+4916096508486

Absolute Theory:Privacy policy

2020-10-05T08:58:58Z

Till: Created page with "I use cookies by Amazon, Google and Facebook. You can avoid your browser to accept cookies by installing an add on or change to private mode, so you won’t be traced on the i..."

I use cookies by Amazon, Google and Facebook. You can avoid your browser to accept cookies by installing an add on or change to private mode, so you won’t be traced on the internet.

Any legal discussions have to be brought to the consumer board of European Union. For internet interests they have a platform. If you have a complaint.

Neutrinos

2020-10-05T08:52:12Z

Till: /* Wild speculation */

== Opera Experiment at Cern ==
The Opera Experiment in Cern was primarily about the discovery of new types of neutrinos such as the tau neutrino. For this purpose, a neutrino beam was sent 700km on its journey. Unfortunately, the scientists did not discover the desired elementary particles, but made another, exciting discovery. The neutrinos move at [[faster than light]].

== Wild speculation ==
Even @zeitonline picked up the topic and echoed the wild speculations that followed. There was talk of the end of [[Theory of Relativity]] and the end of [[E = mc²]]. Some scientists also suspect that the neutrinos are traveling through a new dimension.

== Point of view by the absolute theory ==
Of course, the so-called [[faster than light]] of neutrinos does not bring [[Theory of Relativity]] down. At the time of Einstein, light was simply the substance with the highest known speed of propagation. That is why the letter c is also called the speed of light. But even the designation as c for constant suggests a different view. If you know the work of Minkowski, who, by the way, in contrast to Einstein, started from the physical fact of [[faster than light]], you know that c is ultimately only the transition from the real number range to the imaginary number range. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the highest speed is achieved by photons or by neutrinos. Accordingly, the absolute theory pleads for an increase of c to the now measured neutrino velocity.

== Effects on photons ==
If photons did not have the real maximum speed, this would mean that they would have a rest mass because the relativistic root does not become completely zero. This would be an additional indication of the [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. I have already mentioned in this wiki, for example under [[Experiments]], that elementary particles have quite different speeds, depending on their mass. The principle can be read under [[Anti-proportionality of locomotion and mass]]. If an electron and a positron arise from really 2 photons, as postulated and observed by Feynmann, the mass of these photons would be just as large as that of the electrons according to the [[Conservation of mass]]. You would be just as quick then. Of course the neutrino would then have a significantly smaller mass and would be correspondingly faster.

== Bet that ==
I then made a bet with the @fischblog, one of the most famous science bloggers, for a case of beer that this result would be confirmed. He bets that the result, similar to NASA's attempt to live in arsenic, will be collected again by December 1st, 2011. Let's see who will be proved right. In any case, an exciting story and as I said under [[Experiments]] I said beforehand that elementary particles have different speeds depending on their mass, so that this result is now a possible confirmation of the absolute theory at Cern.

In the meantime I've won a box and in all probability I will lose one for it too, because after December 1st, 2011 I was still betting on the final result with the fish blog. The Icarus experiment, also in Cern, measured neutrinos again at the speed of light. The neutrinos are probably only slightly faster than photons. If you compare the energies: An electron has 511 keV, i.e. around 250,000 times a photon and is measurably slower. A neutrino, however, probably already has 0.2 eV energy, which is a tenth of the photon energy. We can then measure 250,000 times, but not yet the difference by ten times.

== vacuum neutrino speed ==
I now have roughly an idea of the dimensions of the relationship between mass and speed. If we define the earth as 0 km / s. Of course it moves too, but the light moves with it in the gravitational field. Then 10 ^ -35 kg results, the mass that light has corresponds to approximately 3 * 10 ^ 5 km / s. The neutrino is a power of ten smaller in mass, so there is a speed difference of 10 ^ 1 km / s. Neutrinos should therefore move in a vacuum at a speed of approx. 310,000 km / s. When making the calculation, one must bear in mind that neutrinos in the earth's gravitational field can also become significantly slower, just as light on earth is slower than in a vacuum. But that's the way things are.

Neutrinos

2020-10-05T08:51:52Z

Till: /* Effects on photons */

== Opera Experiment at Cern ==
The Opera Experiment in Cern was primarily about the discovery of new types of neutrinos such as the tau neutrino. For this purpose, a neutrino beam was sent 700km on its journey. Unfortunately, the scientists did not discover the desired elementary particles, but made another, exciting discovery. The neutrinos move at [[faster than light]].

== Wild speculation ==
Even @zeitonline picked up the topic and echoed the wild speculations that followed. There was talk of the end of [[Theory of relativity]] and the end of [[E = mc²]]. Some scientists also suspect that the neutrinos are traveling through a new dimension.

== Point of view by the absolute theory ==
Of course, the so-called [[faster than light]] of neutrinos does not bring [[Theory of Relativity]] down. At the time of Einstein, light was simply the substance with the highest known speed of propagation. That is why the letter c is also called the speed of light. But even the designation as c for constant suggests a different view. If you know the work of Minkowski, who, by the way, in contrast to Einstein, started from the physical fact of [[faster than light]], you know that c is ultimately only the transition from the real number range to the imaginary number range. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the highest speed is achieved by photons or by neutrinos. Accordingly, the absolute theory pleads for an increase of c to the now measured neutrino velocity.

== Effects on photons ==
If photons did not have the real maximum speed, this would mean that they would have a rest mass because the relativistic root does not become completely zero. This would be an additional indication of the [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. I have already mentioned in this wiki, for example under [[Experiments]], that elementary particles have quite different speeds, depending on their mass. The principle can be read under [[Anti-proportionality of locomotion and mass]]. If an electron and a positron arise from really 2 photons, as postulated and observed by Feynmann, the mass of these photons would be just as large as that of the electrons according to the [[Conservation of mass]]. You would be just as quick then. Of course the neutrino would then have a significantly smaller mass and would be correspondingly faster.

== Bet that ==
I then made a bet with the @fischblog, one of the most famous science bloggers, for a case of beer that this result would be confirmed. He bets that the result, similar to NASA's attempt to live in arsenic, will be collected again by December 1st, 2011. Let's see who will be proved right. In any case, an exciting story and as I said under [[Experiments]] I said beforehand that elementary particles have different speeds depending on their mass, so that this result is now a possible confirmation of the absolute theory at Cern.

In the meantime I've won a box and in all probability I will lose one for it too, because after December 1st, 2011 I was still betting on the final result with the fish blog. The Icarus experiment, also in Cern, measured neutrinos again at the speed of light. The neutrinos are probably only slightly faster than photons. If you compare the energies: An electron has 511 keV, i.e. around 250,000 times a photon and is measurably slower. A neutrino, however, probably already has 0.2 eV energy, which is a tenth of the photon energy. We can then measure 250,000 times, but not yet the difference by ten times.

== vacuum neutrino speed ==
I now have roughly an idea of the dimensions of the relationship between mass and speed. If we define the earth as 0 km / s. Of course it moves too, but the light moves with it in the gravitational field. Then 10 ^ -35 kg results, the mass that light has corresponds to approximately 3 * 10 ^ 5 km / s. The neutrino is a power of ten smaller in mass, so there is a speed difference of 10 ^ 1 km / s. Neutrinos should therefore move in a vacuum at a speed of approx. 310,000 km / s. When making the calculation, one must bear in mind that neutrinos in the earth's gravitational field can also become significantly slower, just as light on earth is slower than in a vacuum. But that's the way things are.

Quantum electrodynamics

2020-09-23T09:44:12Z

Till:

<div style = "float: right; width: 85%;"> Quantum electrodynamics (QED for short) was founded by Richard Feynmann and others. She explains electricity as the exchange of photons between electrons. This is how it comes to absorption or emission of photons. Feynmann explains this very well using the reflection of light on a window pane. One cannot say which of the individual photons is reflected or transmitted, one can only establish probabilities for this. This is normally 4% for glass, but it can vary between 0% and 16% depending on the thickness of the glass. The resulting probability of an event is represented here by an amplitude vector that results from the addition and multiplication of every possible path arrow. The square of this amplitude arrow is then the probability.

With these little arrows, Feynmann explains every event in the atom and also for smaller particles like quarks, etc ... Quantum electrodynamics should also be able to explain everything on a large scale, but the possibilities here are so huge that they cannot yet be calculated well.

Feynmann naturally assumes the [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. In contrast to Einstein, he also assumes [[faster than light]]. Furthermore, it is considered to be proven that [[antimatter]] runs backwards in time.
</div>
<div style="float:left>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
</div>
<div style="clear:both;"> </div>

Quantum electrodynamics

2020-09-23T09:41:55Z

Till:

<div style = "float: right; width: 85%;"> Quantum electrodynamics (QED for short) was founded by Richard Feynmann and others. She explains electricity as the exchange of photons between electrons. This is how it comes to absorption or emission of photons. Feynmann explains this very well using the reflection of light on a window pane. One cannot say which of the individual photons is reflected or transmitted, one can only establish probabilities for this. This is normally 4% for glass, but it can vary between 0% and 16% depending on the thickness of the glass. The resulting probability of an event is represented here by an amplitude vector that results from the addition and multiplication of every possible path arrow. The square of this amplitude arrow is then the probability.

With these little arrows, Feynmann explains every event in the atom and also for smaller particles like quarks, etc ... Quantum electrodynamics should also be able to explain everything on a large scale, but the possibilities here are so huge that they cannot yet be calculated well.

Feynmann naturally assumes the [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. In contrast to Einstein, he also assumes [[faster than light]]. Furthermore, it is considered to be proven that [[antimatter]] runs backwards in time.
</div>
<div style="float:left>

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

</div>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:40:28Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691164096&asins=0691164096&linkId=64594014d19d6f6c7ed4219b498ff5a3&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:38:21Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0553380168&asins=0553380168&linkId=c95c51b275b3cfe87b5dadd349f0b2f0&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:36:41Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0262533413&asins=0262533413&linkId=8b492c701f733160679c867e21c91515&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:34:52Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0393355624&asins=0393355624&linkId=2598f46fa294d9fc599a6c0acea87b2e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:33:12Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Welcome to my theory page. Here everyone is encouraged to cheat so-called modern physics. The articles that have received the most attention so far are [[Structure of the Universe]], [[Weltformel]], and [[Division by Zero]]. Newcomers should first read the [[Introduction for Newbies]], which provides certain articles on which other insights are based. English visitors, if you want to make a [https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg Donation] please, I would be more concentrated on science.

Recently [[The Ultimate Proof]] of mathematics can also be read here. It goes on and on in [[Physics]], even after Albert Einstein's [[Theory of Relativity]]. If you are looking for the special pages, you can find the [[Equivalence of space and time]], an important part of the [[Equivalences]], and [[Conservation laws]], including the [[Conservation of mass]]. The refutation of the [[conversion of mass into energy]], the so-called mass defect, is also important for this. All articles on [[energy]] and [[mass]] are stored under the respective references. The article on [[E = mc²]], the most important formula in the world so far, is also available here. There is also a chapter on [[Weltformel]], the triad of physics. I also recommend the chapter on [[Quantum Mechanics]], a part of [[Quantum Theory]], with a thought experiment. How to combine [[Quantum Theory]] and the continuum hypothesis, this essay shows briefly: [[space-time continuum]]. Mathematically, here is a little essay on [[Division by Zero]] and on [[Complex numbers]]. Google also gave me the idea to say something about [[Planck space]], [[Planck time]], about [[mass and momentum of a photon]] and the [[elemental mass]]. It is important to have a basic understanding of [[quantization]].

Furthermore there are chapters about the [[structure of matter]], about the [[metrics]], and in the section [[experiments]] I will collect various possibilities of proving my theory. In addition, there is a short treatise on [[time flow]] and an essay on [[Structure of the Universe]]. Please also note my [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Aufsatz1.pdf Essay] together with Bernhard Hagen and an [https://www.till-meyenburg.de/download/Abstract_Till_Meyenburg.pdf Abstract] , which I actually wrote for a symposium, but it was rejected. All of this work solves a Millennium problem, [[Yang-Mill's theory]], which is based on the fact that quantum particles have a mass and which has been confirmed by many experiments. I am also currently writing a brief essay on [[String Theory]]. In addition, I also refer to current topics: [[Hawking radiation]], [[radioactive radiation]], [[EPR theorem]], [[faster than light]] of [[neutrinos]] and the [[Higgs]] boson . The absolute theory would also have an answer for the different directions of the [[Coriolis force]] on the hemispheres.

My basic idea in a nutshell is: The theoretical physics up to now has assumed that the [[Division by Zero]] is not defined. Accordingly, it continues to assume that photons have no or at least no defined [[mass]]. From this she concludes that there is no [[Conservation of mass]]. Here comes the idea that the whole thing should be approached the other way round, according to Albert Einstein's motto, no problem would be solved with the way of thinking with which it was created. The absolute theory thus takes the [[Conservation of mass]] as given. From this it follows [[mass and momentum of a photon]]. From this one can in turn derive the necessity of the definition of the [[Division by Zero]]. Have fun with my crazy but correct ideas. Finally, note my [[dedication]]. If you want to donate, my PayPal link is https://paypal.me/tillmeyenburg

== Book recommendations ==

Absolutely recommendable book links, ordered and I get a little commission. All of them not difficult to read, and none of the descriptions are excessive.

<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08J436JS5&asins=B08J436JS5&linkId=eacc1f72fe007e547a32da0dd0762c9c&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066C0&bg_color=FFFFFF">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=B08JG7B23B&asins=B08JG7B23B&linkId=b06e733756d0d4cacfdf4bc79750034d&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>
<htmltag tagname=iframe style="width:120px;height:240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="//ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&OneJS=1&Operation=GetAdHtml&MarketPlace=US&source=ac&ref=qf_sp_asin_til&ad_type=product_link&tracking_id=sciencecologn-20&marketplace=amazon&region=US&placement=0691166331&asins=0691166331&linkId=91b8e0790475413e06ec8ff5b7e4f58e&show_border=false&link_opens_in_new_window=false&price_color=333333&title_color=0066c0&bg_color=ffffff">
</htmltag>

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:29:57Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:28:29Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Main Page

2020-09-23T09:27:49Z

Till: /* Book recommendations */

Equivalence of mass and energy

2020-09-20T02:08:49Z

Till: /* Equivalence of rest mass and rest energy */

== Introduction ==

The equivalence of mass and energy is reflected in Albert Einstein's equation [[E = mc²]]. He coined the concept of equivalence in order to circumvent the same of equality. The energy E can be converted into the mass m and vice versa by means of equivalent transformations. He probably avoided the concept of equality because it could also mean identity. However, total energy and mass are not identical, you can see that in the units. Mass is calculated in kg and the total energy in joules, or in elementary particle physics also as eV, because the charge multiplied by the voltage gives the electrical energy.

== Absolute theory and E = mc² ==

Albert Einstein actually only defined this equation for the radiation output, a radiation quantum has the energy of m * c². However, according to absolute theory, the equation has a more general meaning. So one can easily derive from it the [[equivalence of space and time]] and that the absolute speed in the universe must always be equal to c. Albert Einstein also assumed a fundamental meaning of c in the course of the theory of relativity, as he defines space-time as a vector (x, y, z, ict), which means that the time vector of the three space vectors is multiplied by the product of the imaginary number i the speed of light and multiplied by time. Equivalence of mass and energy means, of course, that energy and mass grow and shrink in the same proportion and not, as is often wrongly assumed today, that there is a [[conversion of mass into energy]].

== Equivalence of rest mass and rest energy ==

The terms of rest mass and rest energy defined by Einstein, i.e. the mass and energy that a particle would assume if it were absolutely at rest, are equivalent. E (0) = m (0) * c² applies. Since m = m (0) divided by the relativistic root, one can also bring energy and rest energy into harmony. E = m * c² = m (0) * c² / sqrt (1 - v² / c²). This shows one of the few weaknesses of Einstein's theory of relativity. If the objects came in absolute rest, then the energy would be = 0 because there would be no velocity component. Accordingly, the popular belief that these values correspond to values in absolute calmness are flaws. In absolute rest, mass and energy are equal to 0. Accordingly, rest mass and rest energy must always be equal to 0, regardless of how fast a particle is. But since one can define the [[Division by Zero]], the mass - rest mass relationship always produces meaningful results from an absolute point of view, since the speed is always equal to c from an absolute point of view. Calculation example: m (0) always n * 0, v² / c² always 1: n * 0 / sqrt (1 - 1) ² = n * 0/0 = n. This corresponds to the possible states for the mass.

== Equivalence is equality in absolute theory ==
Albert Einstein coined the term equivalence. He opened the back door that there would be a [[conversion of mass into energy]]. From a purely technical point of view, this is correct: for example, atom fusion can release high-energy photons from two elements, which can be used to generate heat and generate energy from it. But strictly dogmatic, this is wrong. You cannot convert joules into kilograms and vice versa. Einstein's statement is that a mass in kilograms corresponds to an energy content and thus an energy. This means that the two numerical values (of course based on the constant c²) are the same. In contradiction, because the absolute theory answered the question of the [[conversion of mass into energy]] in the negative, one can speak of equality. In logic, equality is a place above equivalence, because it excludes conversion. However, the concept of equivalence is at best imprecise, but not wrong. However, there is then another level above the identity. So that things are the same and not the same. Here I think that there is still a difference in mass and energy so that both cannot be seen as identical. But here too the equals sign allows for both. But to understand the equivalence of mass and energy [[E = mc²]] as a quasi chemical reaction equation, so that one can be converted into the other, is wrong. Correctly, [[mass]] and [[energy]] are the same.

Equivalence of mass and energy

2020-09-20T02:08:21Z

Till: /* Equivalence of rest mass and rest energy */

== Introduction ==

The equivalence of mass and energy is reflected in Albert Einstein's equation [[E = mc²]]. He coined the concept of equivalence in order to circumvent the same of equality. The energy E can be converted into the mass m and vice versa by means of equivalent transformations. He probably avoided the concept of equality because it could also mean identity. However, total energy and mass are not identical, you can see that in the units. Mass is calculated in kg and the total energy in joules, or in elementary particle physics also as eV, because the charge multiplied by the voltage gives the electrical energy.

== Absolute theory and E = mc² ==

Albert Einstein actually only defined this equation for the radiation output, a radiation quantum has the energy of m * c². However, according to absolute theory, the equation has a more general meaning. So one can easily derive from it the [[equivalence of space and time]] and that the absolute speed in the universe must always be equal to c. Albert Einstein also assumed a fundamental meaning of c in the course of the theory of relativity, as he defines space-time as a vector (x, y, z, ict), which means that the time vector of the three space vectors is multiplied by the product of the imaginary number i the speed of light and multiplied by time. Equivalence of mass and energy means, of course, that energy and mass grow and shrink in the same proportion and not, as is often wrongly assumed today, that there is a [[conversion of mass into energy]].

== Equivalence of rest mass and rest energy ==

The terms of rest mass and rest energy defined by Einstein, i.e. the mass and energy that a particle would assume if it were absolutely at rest, are equivalent. E (0) = m (0) * c² applies. Since m = m (0) divided by the relativistic root, one can also bring energy and rest energy into harmony. E = m * c² = m (0) * c² / sqrt (1 - v² / c²). This shows one of the few weaknesses of Einstein's theory of relativity. If the objects came in absolute rest, then the energy would be = 0 because there would be no velocity component. Accordingly, the popular belief that these values correspond to values in absolute calmness are flaws. In absolute rest, mass and energy are equal to 0. Accordingly, rest mass and rest energy must always be equal to 0, regardless of how fast a particle is. But since one can define the [[Division by Zero]], the mass - rest mass relationship always produces meaningful results from an absolute point of view, since the speed is always equal to c from an absolute point of view. Calculation example: m (0) always n * 0, v² / c² always 1: n * 0 / sqrt (1 - 1) ² = n * 0/0 = n. This corresponds to the possible states for the mass.

== Equivalence is equality == in absolute theory
Albert Einstein coined the term equivalence. He opened the back door that there would be a [[conversion of mass into energy]]. From a purely technical point of view, this is correct: for example, atom fusion can release high-energy photons from two elements, which can be used to generate heat and generate energy from it. But strictly dogmatic, this is wrong. You cannot convert joules into kilograms and vice versa. Einstein's statement is that a mass in kilograms corresponds to an energy content and thus an energy. This means that the two numerical values (of course based on the constant c²) are the same. In contradiction, because the absolute theory answered the question of the [[conversion of mass into energy]] in the negative, one can speak of equality. In logic, equality is a place above equivalence, because it excludes conversion. However, the concept of equivalence is at best imprecise, but not wrong. However, there is then another level above the identity. So that things are the same and not the same. Here I think that there is still a difference in mass and energy so that both cannot be seen as identical. But here too the equals sign allows for both. But to understand the equivalence of mass and energy [[E = mc²]] as a quasi chemical reaction equation, so that one can be converted into the other, is wrong. Correctly, [[mass]] and [[energy]] are the same.