Difference between pages "Structure of the Universe" and "Weltformel"

From Absolute Theory
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "== Introduction == A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki. World formula and Conservation laws have a direct effect on th...")
 
(Created page with "== '' '' 'Introduction' '' '' == Albert Einstein spent 20 years of his life searching for the world formula. For him it was mainly the connection between forces, especially...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Introduction ==
+
== '' '' 'Introduction' '' '' ==
A modified picture of our universe results from the knowledge gained from this Wiki.  [[World formula]] and [[Conservation laws]] have a direct effect on the picture of the structure of our universe and its history.
 
  
== The beginning ==
+
Albert Einstein spent 20 years of his life searching for the world formulaFor him it was mainly the connection between forces, especially gravitational and electrical forcesIn my opinion, however, one should think about the three basic quantities space (s), time (t) and mass (m)All equations are made up of these.
It is already written in the Bible that God created the universe from nothingThe 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 storedAccording to the [[world formula]], this cannot be because space, time and mass are equivalent termsSo at point in time 1, space 1 and mass 1 must also have applied after nothing.
 
  
== Center of the Universe ==
+
== '' '' 'Equivalence of space and time' '' '' ==
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 structuresAll 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 centerIn 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.
+
I have already written in this wiki that space and time are equivalent terms.  We have v = c, or also s = t * cThe basic quantities space and time are already related to this.  Now all that's missing is the mass.
  
== multiverse ==
+
== '' '' 'Refutation (in parts) of the big bang theory' '' '' ==
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 ==
+
According to the big bang theory, the universe began at a point, but with a black hole, so to speak, i.e. a point of infinite temperature, infinite energy and infinite massBut that can't be the case, the mass as well as space and time depend on nAccordingly, mass is also an equivalent term to space and timeAt point 0, the mass 0 must also have applied at time 0.
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 nothingAs 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 ==
+
== '' '' 'Concept of mass - harmony between mechanics, electrics and magnetism' '' '' ==
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 PhysicsBased 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 universeTo 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.
+
This [[quantum theory of mass]] only applies to how we see mass at the momentSince the mass would have to be three-dimensional in a world formula, the concept of mass has to be redefinedFor example, you can see from the fields of the earth that the gravitational field of the earth is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
  
== Future of the Universe ==
+
Even according to the three-finger rule, the motion field, electric field and magnetic field are each perpendicularIt is only too easy to assume that the following equations hold.
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 againThirdly, 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.
+
Gravitational force vector * Electric force vector = 0
  
== ESA measured values ​​and possible confirmation of the absolute approach ==
+
Gravitational force vector * Magnetic force vector = 0
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 principleAbsolute 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 outsideThese results have to be interpreted so clearly. This might confirm the absolute theoryMore in the article on [[Isotropy]].
+
Of course, these two equations still have to be broken down to the geometry of the body, so e.ga sin (alpha) can be incorporated, since if you look at the earth, the equation only applies to the equatorAt the poles e.g.  the magnetic field lines based on the gravitational lines.
  
== Dark matter and dark energy ==
+
A concept of mass m, charge Q and magnetic flux phi combined would then be conceivableWith the geometric restrictions of above, but as a vector (sin alpha * m, Q, phi)This physical term would be very interesting for anyone looking for an abstract explanation of things.
When describing the expansion, I was already somewhat indulgent about dark matter and dark energy, which have not really been measured yetPerhaps 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 lawsRalf 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 GTRI suspect that Einstein only described the gravity of relatively static objects, and that a description is missing for non-static objects.
+
However, my friend Gregor pointed out to me that the earth's electric field is normal, as is the case with lightning, perpendicular, i.e. along the gravitational field linesThen would apply
  
== Universal law of motion of the universe ==
+
Vector of gravitational force * constant * vector of electric force = vector of gravitational force squared
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 universeHawking was right in assuming that electromagnetic radiation leaves the black hole, even if we as humans don't see itEinstein 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 CelsiusThese can also be used as a form of energy, similar to solar cells.
+
I still have a lot of research to do, as I was convinced that with these three forces I could open it up in a Cartesian way.  Accordingly, the magnetism should also be 2-dimensional, namely not only north-south, but also west-east.  One of our experiments has shown that with the right structure you can turn the earth's magnetic field around without any problems.  Then you can certainly manipulate it in such a way that where north is shown there is also the west.  There is still a lot to do with the vectorial view.  Any help will be gratefully accepted.
 +
 
 +
== '' '' 'World formula' '' '' ==
 +
 
 +
Just like with the [[equivalence of space and time]] one can now establish an equivalence of these two quantities with respect to mass.  The following applies: s = t * c = Plank elementary length * n. According to the [[quantum theory of mass]] n = m / Plank elementary mass also appliesSo the world formula applies:
 +
 
 +
'' 's = t * c = (Plank elementary length / Plank elementary mass) * m' ''
 +
 
 +
If that's too mathematical for you, you can also make it physically clear.  Ultimately, we measure time with a balance wheel, i.e. with a frequency.  The higher the frequency, the more time we measure.  So let's say for example 50 Hz is defined as one second on earth.  Then we know when the balance has moved back and forth 50 times that a second has passed.  If we now come to a system where the frequency is higher, i.e. moves back and forth 100 times in one earth second, we measure 2 seconds with our watch.  This is also the basis of the time dilation, so the frequency is lower at high speed.  Accordingly, we measure less time, which means that time passes more slowly.  In any case, you can determine the proportionality between frequency and time.
 +
 
 +
You shouldn't be fooled by what we physicists have been doing for a long time, that the frequency has the unit 1 / sec, that is, that the time is in the denominator.  Heinrich Hertz was so clever not to define the frequency as 1 by time, but as 1 by the period of circulation and was also so clever to give this period of circulation the letter capital T, not lower case t.  This circulation time is actually inversely proportional to the time.  Here is also the key to the three-dimensionality of time as described under [[Planck Time]], namely that t = t1 * t2 / T, but my findings are still in their infancy.
 +
 
 +
Back to the proportionality of frequency and time.  Since the frequency itself is equivalent to the energy according to E = hf and the energy in turn is equivalent to the mass according to [[E = mc²]], we can see that time and mass are definitely proportional, which is also evident.  The older our universe gets, the more mass there isIn the world formula we even go so far that we assume the equivalence of time and mass and also the equivalence of space and mass.  This ultimately says this world formula, which extends the space-time of Minkowski / Einstein by the mass or the equivalent energy.  Minkowski himself held the [[equivalence of space and time]] as the basis of space-time for the world postulate.
 +
 
 +
Unfortunately there is still no catchy letter for this constant, [[Planck space]] through [[elementary mass]], like for the speed of light.  This can now also be calculated, since I estimated the [[elemental mass]] in the linked article to be 10 ^ -70.
 +
 
 +
== '' '' 'Conclusion' '' '' ==
 +
 
 +
Now, in the triad of physics, all three basic quantities of the mks system are related to each other and in connection.  All other variables result from this connectionUnfortunately, there is still little research done, especially since time and mass are three-dimensional just like space.  For the time there is at least the power where it is divided by t³, i.e. by a three-dimensional time.  This is where the approach is to really derive the equations by first breaking down the time and the mass.  But I'm not that far yet: o)
 +
 
 +
== '' '' 'Einstein's world formula' '' '' ==
 +
Einstein's world formula is ultimately different from mine, but now I also have a wonderful idea.  Actually, I have known the solution for years since Feynmann spoke about the strange analogy of Coloumb's law of attraction of electrical charges and Newton's law of gravitation in his book "On the Nature of Physical Laws".  The transformations have only made little sense so far.  But now I've transformed it so far.  Both laws have d² in the denominator.  Then one can dissolve and equate.  Then you can transform it to such an extent that
 +
 
 +
'' 'Q = constant * (E / a) * m' ''
 +
 
 +
or for the world:
 +
 
 +
'' 'Gravitational acceleration g (0) = electric field strength E / charge Q * mass m' ''
 +
 
 +
is.  Since we assume that the earth's mass and charge are relatively constant, we get
 +
 
 +
'' 'Gravitational acceleration g = constant g (e) * field strength E' ''
 +
 
 +
Now we have to calculate the constant, let's call it g (e), as the gravitation of electricity.  After the transformations g (e) is: Coloumb constant k (c) * charge of the earth / Newton's gravitational constant * mass of the earth.
 +
 
 +
g (e) = 8.987551787 * 10 ^ 9 Vm / As * 6 * 10 ^ 5 Cb / (6.67384 10 ^ -11 m³ / kg * sec² * 5.972 * 10 ^ 24 kg)
 +
 
 +
'' 'g (e) = 13.5299772573 V * m * sec / Cb * sec / (m³ / sec²) = 4 Pi V * sec² / Cb * m² = 4 Pi Ohm * sec / m² = 10 ^ 7 / epsilon  (0) * c² Ohm * sec / m² = 10 ^ 7 my (0) Ohm * sec / m² '' '
 +
 
 +
That means overall with constant charge and acceleration one can change the mass by changing the electric field strength.  I'm going to try it out with a friend now.  It would be fun if we could make things float faster than the billion dollar Cern with its Higgs particle.
 +
 
 +
In short, the law is:
 +
 
 +
Gravitational acceleration g * magnetic field constant my * 10 ^ 7 = electric field strength E and even shorter:
 +
 
 +
'' g * my (0) * 10 ^ 7 = E ''
 +
 
 +
It's getting better and better here :-)
 +
 
 +
The equation thus applies on the earth's surface
 +
'' 'g * 4 Pi kg / Coloumb = E' ''
 +
, where, as I said, E does not mean the energy but the electric field strength  Accordingly, if you switch off the electric field strength locally on earth, you would have to make things float.  An experiment based on this is planned.
 +
 
 +
In retrospect, the connection is actually quite clear again.  With constant mass and charge of the sun e.g.  and the earth in the solar system does not care what the distance between the two is, the relationship between gravitational force and electrical force remains the same.  The experiment wants to make use of this connection on the earth's surface by minimizing the local electrical force or by turning it around in order to make objects float or fall upwards.  It will look like magic, but it isn't.
 +
 
 +
== '' 'World formula and planetary movements' '' ==
 +
This is what a [[quantum gravity]] could look like.  The moon would only fall gravitationally on us.  But since it also has an electric and magnetic field, which on the side facing us has the same charge and the same magnetic poles as our side facing it, it is always directed past the earth to the right and left.  If there was only gravity, it would immediately fly towards us.  The same with earth and sun.  With only gravity, the sun would devour us directly; we would fall straight into it like an apple from a tree.  However, since we apparently have the same charge and the same north-south orientation as the sun, although these poles are opposite each other, we circle around the sun because we are deflected.  When I was a child I had train wagons as toys that could be connected to one another with magnets.  If you connected blue and red for north and south, they were chained together.  At some point we got bored and tried to bring north and north together.  That doesn't work, you get closer to 2 cm and then slide left or right, depending on which twist you haveThis would also mean that light is negatively charged.  The glow of the sun and the resonance glow of the earth would repel each other so that the elliptical movement would occur.
 +
 
 +
== '' 'World formula and movement in the atom' '' ==
 +
The same applies to the atom, but you have to be careful here.  The proton actually appears to be an antiparticle.  This [[antimatter]] has the same properties as its partner, only that the charge is reversed.  Since positrons move upwards in the gravitational field, I assume that the electric field strength E is reversed in the case of antiparticles.  But that would mean that they would exert the same electrical force as their partners.  In other words, the proton would be positively charged, but would attract positive charges like a negatively charged antiproton.  And it would repel negative charges.  This would explain why so many protons gather in the nucleus, namely that they would gravitationally and electromagnetically attract each other.  There should be a lot of collisions.  On the other hand, the orbit of the electron could be explained because it is gravitationally attracted by the core, but then electrically repelled like the earth around the sun, so that there would be these typical right and left movements as in the magnetic wagons of my childhood described.  Probability equations would no longer be needed, but could be determined cleanly.  And all forces with gravitational, electric and magnetic arrows.  Weak and strong nuclear power are then no longer necessary.

Latest revision as of 15:20, 18 September 2020

'Introduction'

Albert Einstein spent 20 years of his life searching for the world formula. For him it was mainly the connection between forces, especially gravitational and electrical forces. In my opinion, however, one should think about the three basic quantities space (s), time (t) and mass (m). All equations are made up of these.

'Equivalence of space and time'

I have already written in this wiki that space and time are equivalent terms. We have v = c, or also s = t * c. The basic quantities space and time are already related to this. Now all that's missing is the mass.

'Refutation (in parts) of the big bang theory'

According to the big bang theory, the universe began at a point, but with a black hole, so to speak, i.e. a point of infinite temperature, infinite energy and infinite mass. But that can't be the case, the mass as well as space and time depend on n. Accordingly, mass is also an equivalent term to space and time. At point 0, the mass 0 must also have applied at time 0.

'Concept of mass - harmony between mechanics, electrics and magnetism'

This quantum theory of mass only applies to how we see mass at the moment. Since the mass would have to be three-dimensional in a world formula, the concept of mass has to be redefined. For example, you can see from the fields of the earth that the gravitational field of the earth is perpendicular to the magnetic field.

Even according to the three-finger rule, the motion field, electric field and magnetic field are each perpendicular. It is only too easy to assume that the following equations hold.

Gravitational force vector * Electric force vector = 0

Gravitational force vector * Magnetic force vector = 0

Of course, these two equations still have to be broken down to the geometry of the body, so e.g. a sin (alpha) can be incorporated, since if you look at the earth, the equation only applies to the equator. At the poles e.g. the magnetic field lines based on the gravitational lines.

A concept of mass m, charge Q and magnetic flux phi combined would then be conceivable. With the geometric restrictions of above, but as a vector (sin alpha * m, Q, phi). This physical term would be very interesting for anyone looking for an abstract explanation of things.

However, my friend Gregor pointed out to me that the earth's electric field is normal, as is the case with lightning, perpendicular, i.e. along the gravitational field lines. Then would apply

Vector of gravitational force * constant * vector of electric force = vector of gravitational force squared

I still have a lot of research to do, as I was convinced that with these three forces I could open it up in a Cartesian way. Accordingly, the magnetism should also be 2-dimensional, namely not only north-south, but also west-east. One of our experiments has shown that with the right structure you can turn the earth's magnetic field around without any problems. Then you can certainly manipulate it in such a way that where north is shown there is also the west. There is still a lot to do with the vectorial view. Any help will be gratefully accepted.

'World formula'

Just like with the equivalence of space and time one can now establish an equivalence of these two quantities with respect to mass. The following applies: s = t * c = Plank elementary length * n. According to the quantum theory of mass n = m / Plank elementary mass also applies. So the world formula applies:

's = t * c = (Plank elementary length / Plank elementary mass) * m'

If that's too mathematical for you, you can also make it physically clear. Ultimately, we measure time with a balance wheel, i.e. with a frequency. The higher the frequency, the more time we measure. So let's say for example 50 Hz is defined as one second on earth. Then we know when the balance has moved back and forth 50 times that a second has passed. If we now come to a system where the frequency is higher, i.e. moves back and forth 100 times in one earth second, we measure 2 seconds with our watch. This is also the basis of the time dilation, so the frequency is lower at high speed. Accordingly, we measure less time, which means that time passes more slowly. In any case, you can determine the proportionality between frequency and time.

You shouldn't be fooled by what we physicists have been doing for a long time, that the frequency has the unit 1 / sec, that is, that the time is in the denominator. Heinrich Hertz was so clever not to define the frequency as 1 by time, but as 1 by the period of circulation and was also so clever to give this period of circulation the letter capital T, not lower case t. This circulation time is actually inversely proportional to the time. Here is also the key to the three-dimensionality of time as described under Planck Time, namely that t = t1 * t2 / T, but my findings are still in their infancy.

Back to the proportionality of frequency and time. Since the frequency itself is equivalent to the energy according to E = hf and the energy in turn is equivalent to the mass according to E = mc², we can see that time and mass are definitely proportional, which is also evident. The older our universe gets, the more mass there is. In the world formula we even go so far that we assume the equivalence of time and mass and also the equivalence of space and mass. This ultimately says this world formula, which extends the space-time of Minkowski / Einstein by the mass or the equivalent energy. Minkowski himself held the equivalence of space and time as the basis of space-time for the world postulate.

Unfortunately there is still no catchy letter for this constant, Planck space through elementary mass, like for the speed of light. This can now also be calculated, since I estimated the elemental mass in the linked article to be 10 ^ -70.

'Conclusion'

Now, in the triad of physics, all three basic quantities of the mks system are related to each other and in connection. All other variables result from this connection. Unfortunately, there is still little research done, especially since time and mass are three-dimensional just like space. For the time there is at least the power where it is divided by t³, i.e. by a three-dimensional time. This is where the approach is to really derive the equations by first breaking down the time and the mass. But I'm not that far yet: o)

'Einstein's world formula'

Einstein's world formula is ultimately different from mine, but now I also have a wonderful idea. Actually, I have known the solution for years since Feynmann spoke about the strange analogy of Coloumb's law of attraction of electrical charges and Newton's law of gravitation in his book "On the Nature of Physical Laws". The transformations have only made little sense so far. But now I've transformed it so far. Both laws have d² in the denominator. Then one can dissolve and equate. Then you can transform it to such an extent that

'Q = constant * (E / a) * m'

or for the world:

'Gravitational acceleration g (0) = electric field strength E / charge Q * mass m'

is. Since we assume that the earth's mass and charge are relatively constant, we get

'Gravitational acceleration g = constant g (e) * field strength E'

Now we have to calculate the constant, let's call it g (e), as the gravitation of electricity. After the transformations g (e) is: Coloumb constant k (c) * charge of the earth / Newton's gravitational constant * mass of the earth.

g (e) = 8.987551787 * 10 ^ 9 Vm / As * 6 * 10 ^ 5 Cb / (6.67384 10 ^ -11 m³ / kg * sec² * 5.972 * 10 ^ 24 kg)

'g (e) = 13.5299772573 V * m * sec / Cb * sec / (m³ / sec²) = 4 Pi V * sec² / Cb * m² = 4 Pi Ohm * sec / m² = 10 ^ 7 / epsilon (0) * c² Ohm * sec / m² = 10 ^ 7 my (0) Ohm * sec / m² '

That means overall with constant charge and acceleration one can change the mass by changing the electric field strength. I'm going to try it out with a friend now. It would be fun if we could make things float faster than the billion dollar Cern with its Higgs particle.

In short, the law is:

Gravitational acceleration g * magnetic field constant my * 10 ^ 7 = electric field strength E and even shorter:

g * my (0) * 10 ^ 7 = E

It's getting better and better here :-)

The equation thus applies on the earth's surface 'g * 4 Pi kg / Coloumb = E' , where, as I said, E does not mean the energy but the electric field strength Accordingly, if you switch off the electric field strength locally on earth, you would have to make things float. An experiment based on this is planned.

In retrospect, the connection is actually quite clear again. With constant mass and charge of the sun e.g. and the earth in the solar system does not care what the distance between the two is, the relationship between gravitational force and electrical force remains the same. The experiment wants to make use of this connection on the earth's surface by minimizing the local electrical force or by turning it around in order to make objects float or fall upwards. It will look like magic, but it isn't.

'World formula and planetary movements'

This is what a quantum gravity could look like. The moon would only fall gravitationally on us. But since it also has an electric and magnetic field, which on the side facing us has the same charge and the same magnetic poles as our side facing it, it is always directed past the earth to the right and left. If there was only gravity, it would immediately fly towards us. The same with earth and sun. With only gravity, the sun would devour us directly; we would fall straight into it like an apple from a tree. However, since we apparently have the same charge and the same north-south orientation as the sun, although these poles are opposite each other, we circle around the sun because we are deflected. When I was a child I had train wagons as toys that could be connected to one another with magnets. If you connected blue and red for north and south, they were chained together. At some point we got bored and tried to bring north and north together. That doesn't work, you get closer to 2 cm and then slide left or right, depending on which twist you have. This would also mean that light is negatively charged. The glow of the sun and the resonance glow of the earth would repel each other so that the elliptical movement would occur.

'World formula and movement in the atom'

The same applies to the atom, but you have to be careful here. The proton actually appears to be an antiparticle. This antimatter has the same properties as its partner, only that the charge is reversed. Since positrons move upwards in the gravitational field, I assume that the electric field strength E is reversed in the case of antiparticles. But that would mean that they would exert the same electrical force as their partners. In other words, the proton would be positively charged, but would attract positive charges like a negatively charged antiproton. And it would repel negative charges. This would explain why so many protons gather in the nucleus, namely that they would gravitationally and electromagnetically attract each other. There should be a lot of collisions. On the other hand, the orbit of the electron could be explained because it is gravitationally attracted by the core, but then electrically repelled like the earth around the sun, so that there would be these typical right and left movements as in the magnetic wagons of my childhood described. Probability equations would no longer be needed, but could be determined cleanly. And all forces with gravitational, electric and magnetic arrows. Weak and strong nuclear power are then no longer necessary.