Directory – Introductory Preface

–Administrator Posted 6w

Blog-A Bonitistic Geometry “€” Time, 4D Space and Matter

  1. How can I understand space-time as string theory?
    The structure of the room = bonitistic geometry.
    WHEN does WHAT go, WHERE?
  2. How does 4D geometry work?

How does a movement in electromagnetic and gravitational fields describe itself.

  • What is a substantial bonitist management effect?
    Why is searching for gravity illusory?
  • What is time and what is space.
  • Where is inside or outside a 4D world.
    What is time, what is movement,
    what does it have so stable at the speed of light
    and what causes the contraction of the oil?
  • What does it all ultimately have to do with the quantum of action?

  • The crooked principle of everything.
    How to plausibly declare the structure of the entire universe by logical conclusion alone.
  • The change of direction of movements is the mother of all effects?
    Description of the topology of gravity, what is mass
    and why it is always confused with matter.
  • Is time available at all, what is time and why it cannot be measured or stretched?
  • What makes us always think of strings?

  • Ist gravity the electromagnetic?
  • And how does it become matter, anti-matter or mass, and why is the search for gravity illusory?

  • To keep the speed of light, space bends so that the world does not sink into the swamp of the occult notion of time.
  • From the duration of the process instead of time dilation to the constancy of the speed of light to the curvature of space and its dimensions.
  • Scientific facts and their interpretation.
    Certain commentators, usually the place deer of the corresponding topics, give a good example of what I like to call the self-proclaimed Einstein Inquisition and call it collective ignorance.
    They are quite intelligent people who let me know time and time again about destructive comments that they do not want to believe what I say and are unwilling to reinterpret information that contradicts their “trained faith” and because of the lack of knowledge, therefore cannot argue constructively.

    So I am often asked by the destructive commentary, I may explain where my own evidence is, which proves and substantiates my claims.But I have to keep up with it and answer:

    I only interpret the academically correct facts, I only contradict the obsolete interpretation of the facts under today’s knowledge and argue not only out of pure faith, as my opponents, but the reader can check with his own mind what would be right or wrong.For it is by no means contradicted by the scientific findings, but merely the interpretation, where knowledge is absent, the insight is in a dead end and gives us up to things that do not continue.

    So I always offer only a new alternative approach with greater probability, to check the known academically bested facts.So you don’t need to just believe, you can only know for yourself what you’re just called science. And obviously some of my opponents still have to practice that.

    Leave a Reply