Structure of the Universe

From Absolute Theory
Revision as of 04:15, 26 October 2020 by Till (talk | contribs) (multiverse)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search


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.


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.