have soap bubbles to do with galaxies? Already in 1975, when the
PRINCIPLE OF BEING was written down for the first time, it ensued from
this principle that the structure of the cosmos would actually have to
look like foam made of soap bubbles, with giant voids between
the galaxies, which are located at the "skins". In the chapter
GALAXIES, the cause of this “lather” will be revealed. That the
cosmos really looks like that became only known after the publication of
the book. The surprising discovery of the astronomers is one of the
proves for the PRINCIPLE OF BEING!
Let’s describe in a few terse sentences how the cosmos obtained the image it presents today: in the beginning, light quanta especially rich in energy were produced by disturbances in T.A.O. and from them sprang the protons. They formed nothing else but plasma, this absolutely dynamic condition of matter which soon was set into motion - and thus the protons squeezed themselves to centres of energy, the stars. These stars pressed one another into new centres, the stellar groups. And those soon displaced each other to form new superorders, the galaxies. And these galaxies again displaced each other into new systems, the hyper-galaxies ... and these into open clusters and open superclusters and globular clusters and globular superclusters and so on...
This went on as far as the cosmos goes, up to those borders behind which the chaos presumably still reigns today...
If it really happened in such a simple way, the creation of matter and of the universe? How can we know all this? The answer is: we don’t know – and will never ever learn. What we can know is that there can never have been a real beginning of the universe for logical reasons, that we live in a world of change and that we do not know from which image today’s image of the universe developed. But if we absolutely want to believe in a beginning of the universe we should at least acquire some theories that are reasonable and plausible. The theory of the Big Bang isn’t in any case.
Therefore, we will not rack our brains uselessly but turn our attention right away to the first thing that comes to mind when we think of the wonders of the cosmos: the galaxies. Actually one expects of a galaxy that it is expanding as well because of the total expansion of the universe. But considering the fact that, on the whole, even a galaxy forms a field again, united and strengthened by its main magnetic field, the understanding is gained that stars are pressed into the galaxy. For that reason, galaxies contract, i.e. they are shoved together by the universal pressure.. For the same reason, atoms rich in energy are getting smaller instead of bigger within a certain environment after all, as already learned. And the galaxies repel each other in the same way as the atoms. All observations made by astronomers are quite in accordance with the truth, and almost without any exception, they are inconsistent with the theory of the Big Bang. The universe expands like a gas which drifts apart because of the motion of its atoms. We will see that these observations are interpreted with a lot of imagination by the scientists – after all, it is possible to theorise very casually in this special field because who would travel to the next quasar to see for himself if everything is as the astrophysicists claim it to be. Little wonder that this field is teeming with black holes...
Of course the freedom of unverifiability is at our disposal as well. The repulsion principle, however, will provide a more logical explanation for many a mystery of cosmology than the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Even the astronomical realities appear completely different now. Thus, for example, the centre of a galaxy is not necessarily the birth place of new stars but mainly the grave of old ones which are practically building up an enormous hyper star there. From this hyper star matter flows in the same way as from any other star – back into the galaxy again in the form of individual atoms and as gas and plasma respectively - building material for new globules and stars.
Thus every galaxy has its cycle of living which postpones its final going up in the hyper star for a very long time but not forever.
The shrinking of our own milky way has a pleasant side effect: the diminishing of the gravitational constant (the expansion of the universe reduces the universal pressure) is slowed down by it and with it the expansion of the planetary systems is slightly delayed. Nevertheless even the sun and with it all the planets in the centre of the galaxy (which, seen from the Earth, lies behind the constellation of Sagittarius) will disappear some day.
There are examples to be found in the cosmos for all intermediate stages of this diminishing process of a galaxy. The variety of forms of the galaxies ranging from spherical cluster shape to the ellipsoid of revolution are explained by it. The causes for the rotation of the galaxies are absolutely the same as for that of the individual star: electrodynamic effects of their magnetic field with each other or in the superdimensional magnetic field of the universe itself.
Understandably the transmission of their rotational moments to each other through the field of the universal pressure takes place from the outside to the inside. This explains the fast motion of the outer stars which appear to be practically advancing the rotation of the galaxies, to disregard Kepler’s laws and to create spiral arms. The latter are therefore not dragged behind without exception but point into the direction of rotation now and then, as is the case for example with the stellar vortex NGC 4622 (figure 107a).
All these peculiar characteristics of a galaxy - sufficiently verified by observation - have remained unsolved down the line so far. According to the repulsion principle, many of these mysteries can be substantiated in a surprisingly logical manner. For explaining the unexpectedly high velocities of the outer stars of a galaxy (and the being too slow of the inner ones!), the astronomers have two solutions at the ready: the so-called Dark Matter or the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (M.O.N.D.). None of the explanations is comprehensible and none of them is necessary.
Moreover, the arms of the spiral galaxies prove that their form is not the result of gravitation due to rotation because in that case the elementary shape of the galaxies would have to be the bar - which is absolutely out of the question of course. It is more logical that the spiral arms were dragged out because the drive of the galaxy came from the universe and the impulse was transmitted from the outside to the inside.
Faced with figure 107b one has to ask oneself what the starting position of the galaxies at the beginning of the rotation might have looked like. With a rotation from the inside to the outside it has to be a bar – and besides none of the galaxies would have completed an entire rotation. All previously presented hypotheses about the development of the galaxies are therefore unbelievable. There are even theories which postulate the formation of galaxies before the development of the stars by claiming stars could only come into existence inside of galaxies. But that these big vortexes originally “rotated out “ of an originally homogenous distribution of stars is actually apparent at first glance (in exactly the same way as proton fields “rotated out “ of T.A.O. because of the encounter of the impulses).
If the expansion of the universe had not already been discovered, we would have to demand it. But what we do not know exactly is the average velocity of this expansion. The corresponding figures are corrected year after year; in principle, however, this remains without any meaning. It is a uniform expansion, in which galaxies move away from each other like raisins in the yeast dough. It cannot be attributed to an explosion but results from the pressure which came about when T.A.O. started moving2.. Since we know that the curving force intensifies the illusion of “gravitation“ and since this curving force also concerns the total field of the cosmos, the velocity of the expansion has to increase continuously – because the radii of the fields increase and the surfaces get flatter! But with that the repulsions predominate more and more – and as a result we have an accelerated expansion as it was discovered with amazement by the astronomers. [iii]
In the chapter “Proton“, we already implied that there was a solution to the mystery of the quasars. For them and for the radio galaxies there is, however, yet another solution: a proton flying at the velocity of light would not appear as a stationary field to a stationary observer but as a sequence of impulses distributed over the distance covered. With that even the proton becomes a wave which can certainly be subject to Doppler shifts. In the same way as the light of far away galaxies shifts into the range of red wavelengths, protons and atoms of fast moving galaxies shift into the wave range, too - for us relatively stationary observers they become light!
When a galaxy has superluminal velocity relative to our milky way, and there is no reason not to assume this, the “image of light” it transmits shifts into the range of radio waves whereas its protons occur as hard X radiation. When complete galaxies shift into these ranges of the spectrum we don’t see them directly any longer. That’s why they give the misleading impression as if relatively small objects (they are probably much farther away then previously assumed) would emit incredibly high energies in radio and X radiation. Thus quasars are presumably nothing else but galaxies with extremely high Doppler shift. Pure roentgen galaxies have to be put into the same category as well. But of course it is possible that they are phenomena which existed billions of years ago and to which we won’t find any parallel in the present at all.
The previous theories about age, structure, gravitation, and stability of the stars along with their classification in the spectrum are not plausible in all probability. It is likely that the truth is just the other way round; old stars are actually young and young stars have been in existence for billions of years... But one could easily do without theories which can neither be confirmed nor falsified even in the future!
Since one had calculated up to then that stars can only remain stable up to max. 120 000 times the sun’s mass, one had to learn otherwise in July 1981 when the super-sun R 136 A was discovered in the 30-Doradus nebula. This sun has obviously 300 000 times the sun’s mass, and thus it doesn’t give a damn for the theories of the astrophysicists. R 136 A has a diameter of about 150 million kilometres, which means it would fit exactly into the orbit of the Earth. It shines 100 million times brighter than our sun, its surface temperature is nearly 60 000 degrees Celsius which is not particularly much in relation to its size. It’s possible that R 136 A is a hyper star as we expect one to be in the centre of a galaxy.
Actually R 136 A should have collapsed to a black hole a long time ago if the relativists had their way with their theories. That it hasn’t done so demonstrates that something can’t be right with the theory of the black hole. For us, R 136 A is no particular mystery. We know that even the mass dependent, space curving gravitation as defined by Einstein cannot exist as (to be exact) potentially infinitely great force. There is, however, the curved space and the “real” holes between the stars as those places in which globules like to come into existence. By the way, they only become visible if they stand in front of a bright gaseous nebula.
Incidentally, relative superluminal speed of galaxies also means that we won’t learn anything about them which is in the range of the visible light. For that reason, the night sky is black which makes it possible to solve Olbers’ paradox as well. .[iv]
There still is chaos outside of the farthest galaxies, as we even suspect, this will also be the place where the expansion ends. Or where it doesn’t. Of course the far away galaxies do not fly into this chaos at superluminal velocity because they are not faster themselves than our own galaxy. The high relative velocity only comes about because of the great distance.
The theory of the Big Bang begins to sway considerably when one finds a galaxy which has an impossible direction, i.e. which dashes along perpendicular to the other galaxies. Already in 1980, the first of such galaxies was actually tracked down but yet there are other obvious indications. For example, beyond the constellation of Virgo one discovered an enormous cluster of stars which is sucking in whole solar systems, among them our own milky way, at a speed of 1.6 million kilometres per hour. The diameter of this super-galaxy is about two billion light years according to NASA information! NASA scientist George Smoot explained that because of this star cluster there were grounds for the assumption that the matter of space has never expanded explosively and monotonically.
The so-called “proof“ of the Big Bang, the isotropic thermal radiation of 3 degrees Kelvin is possibly explained - as we already demonstrated - by means of the waves coming out of chaos which still arrive at the Earth exhibiting an extraordinarily high Doppler shift. Moreover, these waves should differ considerably from any terrestrial radiation. As it is, they would of course exhibit both right-hand and left-hand spin, i.e. have a peculiar polarisation (which has to be verified yet). We certainly know that in chaos the decision for right-hand or left-hand spin should not have been made yet.
The Doppler shift of background radiation provides us with a possibility to roughly calculate the size of the universe. Because originally it has been extremely hard gamma radiation after all as it is required for the creation of protons or as it is finally created during the decay of them.
Wavelengths in the heat range are in an order of magnitude of 10-2 cm (0.01 cm). Gamma radiation of extreme hardness is in an order of magnitude of about 10-11 cm (0.00000000001 cm). Protons can be compared to a wavelength of ca. 10-12 cm.
In order to turn gamma radiation into heat waves we have to expand it approximately by a factor of 1010. Calculated in light years, the result is thus a distance of 1010 light years, i.e. 10 000 000 000 light years. We could claim already that chaos would have to be about 1010 light years away from us - which would be a little over-hasty, though.
Einstein calculated the radius of the world with
Using Hubble’s constant the event horizon due to the expansion is calculated with
From a cosmic viewpoint these are still good correspondences – at least concerning the dimension if one acknowledges that Hubble’s constant has undergone several corrections in the meantime. At a dimensional distance of about 1010 light years there lies therefore the area in which galaxies exceed the velocity of light. We could now say the visible cosmos has approximately a radius of 1010 light years (at the moment the average value stated in the specialised literature is ca. 14 billion light years). [vi]
If the background radiation was really absolutely isotropic - superficially thinking - one would have to assume that we were coincidentally in the centre of the world. Therefore one mistrusted this background radiation as a test in California proved in which one tried to measure this radiation exactly by means of a U2 equipped with microwave antennas. With that one expected to find differences in the range of thousandths of degrees. This endeavour, however, proves also that one does not take the Theories of Relativity too seriously because if one had done so, one could have saved oneself the test. In the meantime, one has in fact succeeded in determining and measuring the absolute state of motion of our galaxy relative to the background radiation. According to the Special Theory of Relativity, this should not be possible at all. But obviously it is exactly that way as we assumed in our hypothesis of repulsion: spheres of light propagate absolutely in the space and motions can be measured relative to the light.
However, now we have to consider as well that when looking into the distance we also look into the past at the same time. That means nothing else but that the event horizon of the universe was at the distance of 1010 light years calculated before already about 1010 years ago. In other words that means that today we exist in a background radiation which was produced 1010 years ago! With that, every project to determine our location becomes an act of pure stupidity because not a clue at all can be found as to our momentary location. At best, the isotropy and the absolute propagation of the radiation spheres make it obvious that we have in fact a relative motion compared to them but that our true position in the universe cannot be ascertained. Where should the “centre“ of an endless universe be?
But when the universe already had a radius of 1010 light years 1010 years ago the theory of the Big Bang drops completely out of the running. It can never have happened! Even if our cosmos seems to end after 1010 light years this value does not mean its real expansion at all. Because it has continued to expand for 1010 year! Where are its boundaries today?
We don’t have to write down this number any more. It becomes meaningless because it is unimaginable. At best it will give us an idea about infinity itself, about the immensity of the universe, which we would so like to restrict. But instead of new boundaries we only find new conditions for which there are new words ... and all these words finally lead to the one word which is without boundaries and free from characteristics because boundaries and characteristics are not contained in it: T.A.O. - which does not know any sizes nor any distances at all as long as no standards are applied...
Thus the question for the size of the universe is meaningless and was asked senselessly. The universe is neither small nor big because all scales are relativised to our thinking, to our mind, and to our very own logic! But that means also that concepts like infinite or restricted are also just rooted in our thinking and don’t have any universal validity!
Let’s turn our attention again to the background noise of the universe, this time looking at it from the aspect that we could possible be perceiving pure “matter“ – that is to say a Doppler effect of matter: in an infinite, homogenous universe every straight line of sight which is drawn in any direction must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. According to that, every point of the sky would have to have about the same surface luminosity as the solar disc. According to Boltzmann’s law, the result would be an isotropic irradiation of ca. 4000 degrees Kelvin onto the Earth. Luckily the stars have never heard of Einstein. As we mentioned, after about 1010 light years, they simply exceed the velocity of light and in this way they are stealing away from our universe.
Will we really never again get to know about them? We have to realise that the expansion of the universe itself does not take place at superluminal speed on any account. The impulses of the galaxies farthest away make traces in the universe which remain independent of the movement of the galaxies and are expanded by the high velocity. In this way even a star flying at superluminal speed can leave its track in the universe (figure 108).
After all, light is composed of impulses independent of each other. Thus even a body moving very fast leaves its naturally extremely stretched trace, which sets out on its voyage at the velocity of light in the universe. In the course of time this stretched wave arrives at our place and is identified as radio wave or heat.
An oscillating proton with the maximum frequency of 1017 oscillations per second would have to cover far more than 300 000 kilometres in this second in order to leave a light wave - i.e. it would have to fly at superluminal speed. Well, the background radiation consists of considerably longer radio waves, though. Therefore we can imagine the velocity at which the galaxies beyond the cosmic fringe are moving!
Well, electron impulses or light shoves are exactly that “stuff” of which every vibrating atomic field is created in principle, holding its own against other fields. What is flowing in to us from the farthest galaxies and regions of the universe is nothing else but the universal pressure which, all in all, forms the field of the universe - and what was measured with a radiation of 3 degrees Kelvin is its temperature - one proof that every apparently empty space is filled with this universal field...
IIn this giant field of force, which stands there like a colossal colourless crystal, the “images” of our world develop, and our brains create the three concepts which are sufficient to comprehend the function of the materially and spiritually detectable: energy, space, and time.
Countless books have been filled with theories and hypotheses in order to explain the beginning of this world. The most bizarre and obscure assumptions have been made, the most fantastic speculations and far too complicated theories have been flowing from the thinking brains of the scholars and philosophers - but the “truth“ is certainly very simple...
physicist J. J. Shapiro already measured the alteration of the
gravitational constant experimentally in the seventies. Published in
Physical Revue Letters: G diminishes every year by about 2 * 10-10
of its value (hobby no. 18, 1-9-1971, page 128). A similar result
was published by Stephen Merkowitz on May 1st, 2000
(Congress of American Physical Society).
postulated a “dark matter“ which is said to fill at least 90% of
the universe - but so far nobody has discovered even a whiff of this
ominous substance. We don’t need it, though, astrophysicist
Mordehai Milgrom says, who consolidated the MOND theory first
proposed by Stacy S. McGaugh. MOND stands for „Modified Newtonian
Dynamics“, a simple modification of Newton’s laws of gravitation.
According to Newton, the heavy mass (responsible for the
gravitational force) is always equal to the inert mass (responsible
for the centrifugal force). If one of them is known, the other can
be calculated. Now this identicalness is just doubted to be
applicable for the giant masses at the outer fringe areas of the
galaxies. There, inert and heavy mass are not equivalent anymore.
The consequence is: the centrifugal force is getting lower (and the
GTR is no longer valid!). Milgrom arbitrarily calculated a
“reduction ratio” without substantiating it (an absolutely usual
way of proceeding in physics!)
and found his law “confirmed” with several galaxies.
Moreover, one believes to be able to deduce the inertia of all
bodies casually from the heavy masses of the whole universe by means
of the MOND hypotheses (Mach principle).
[iii] The idea of the accelerated expansion of the universe stems from Saul Perlmutter (University of California in Berkeley) and Brian Schmidt (Mount Stromlo Observatory, Australia). They realised that the light from supernovas is diminished by about 20%. From that they concluded that the world had expanded slowlier in former times - and will expand faster in future. But the astrophysicist Michael Rowan-Robinson of the Imperial College, London, claims to have proved blatant errors in the measurements, calculations, and interpretations of the authors. As is generally known, cosmic dust dims the light of stars behind it. Mark Phillips of the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile determined a dimming factor of 25% for close supernovas - something which had been ignored by the supporters of the accelerated expansion. In addition, the supernovas were only observed when they had already reached their maximum luminosity. Thus their greatest brightness could not have been measured at all. When calculating the raw data again the phenomenon of too little brightness vanished immediately. The acceleration of the expansion could therefore be figments of the imagination.
question why it is dark at night although there are almost
infinitely many stars is a problem which was already discussed in
the 17th century and became popular through Olbers in
1823. Olbers’ paradox asks why the night sky does not appear
bright if the universe is infinitely big and there are everywhere as
many stars as in our vicinity. Olbers thought that there had to be
dark matter between the stars which, however, cannot be the solution
at present. We know meanwhile that the light of far away stars is
shifted to red by the expansion of the universe and - depending on
the distance - into a non-visible range of the spectrum.
[v] When the physicists Wilson and Penzias discovered the cosmic background radiation, it had exactly the wavelength which it should have according to predictions of the theoreticians (especially of George Gamow). It corresponded to a “black body”, a uniform emitter of radiation, of 2.7 Kelvin. And the cosmic background radiation was also as uniform as the cosmologist needed it. But one does not need a Big Bang for explaining the cosmic background radiation. As the physicist André K.T. Assis of the University of Campinas (Brazil) demonstrated there were other physicists before Penzias and Wilson who calculated the temperature of the empty universe and they did it from the radiation of the stars and galaxies alone by means of the fourth power law of radiation. And they made better predictions than Gamow! Here are some examples (K = degrees above absolute zero): C.E. Guillaume (1896): 5-6 K; Arthur Eddington (1926): 3.18 K; E. Regener (1933): 2.8 K; George Gamow (1952) 50 K (!). All authors who started out from the light of the stars alone achieved pretty good values. Only Gamow, who took the Big Bang as a starting point, calculated an absolutely wrong temperature. What’s even more: When the insights about the background radiation gained acceptance among experts, Gamow pointed out in a letter to the discoverers that he had predicted exactly the measured temperature (2.7 Kelvin) - yet his value was twenty times as high!
to current understanding, the radius of the universe is to be about
1023 km (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km). But the
determination of distances is a bit of a problem in astronomy. Many
distances can at best be determined relative to others, some
distances on the other hand only on certain assumptions. One of
these assumptions is that supernovas of type Ia always have the same
brightness distribution curve. But if they don’t, and there is cause to suppose so according to the latest insights,
the astronomical house of cards will collapse.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall used a radio telescope of the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory’s Very Large Array for studying the
number of radio galaxies far away from our own galaxy. The density
of these galaxies was found to be higher by one percent in the
direction of movement of our galaxy than in the opposite direction.
The study also matches observations of the Doppler shift of cosmic
background radiation which is also caused by the movement of our
Nebula M 31, object type: spiral galaxy, distance from Earth: ca.
2,500,000 light years (77,000 parsecs), diameter of the galaxy:
160,000 to 200,000 light years. The great
galaxy in the constellation Andromeda is the biggest galaxy
in the cluster of galaxies which also contains our milky way. The
galaxy M 31 contains more than 300 billion suns. It is orbited by
three times as many spherical star clusters as the milky way.
M 31 is also the object farthest away which is visible with
the naked eye. Two satellite galaxies NGC 205 and M 32 can be seen
in the same region. By measurements of the background radiation one
also knows today that our milky way is moving towards the Andromeda