Why don’t string theorists come to a point?

Especially the string theories, but also the Big Bang theories, have considerable flaws already in their theory bases.

For example, singularities are not sufficient with the current perspectives (written mildly), but actually not at all, can be explained.

These current models of thought, although this is not in fact recognized in the field of science, are in fact based on completely unreal assumptions, which are still not noticeable today.

A. Since the rise of the natural sciences since industrialization, a priority has been given to material and energetic world objects and effects within physical formulas, because physics sees itself as a science of forces. effects.

For this reason, physics has acquired the erroneous notion that there can really only be effects of the energetic and material nature of world objects.

Of course, objects of a non-energetic and non-material nature are excluded, since supposedly all effects can only be energetic-material, and thus other forms of interaction are impossible.

Since all effects can and may ultimately only be of an energetic-material nature, non-material-energetic objects are thus excluded, since they would then also be intangible and therefore non-existent by interaction. Could.

B. Mathematics has been subject to elementary assumptions much earlier.

And since the emergence of the (religious) spirit ideology, i.e. the ideology of the Holy Spirit (without describing this in more detail now for reasons of scope), logic has been a product of a so-called human spirit, which is nothing more than pure Mysticism, more precisely:

A mystification of the Natural Logical Principles, as if man had invented logic, which to this day actually keeps the minds of mathematicians violently in the unreal.

All principles of logic are present in nature, and are discovered, formalized and symbolized by physics and mathematics only there.

Logic is recognizable exclusively by their logical references, i.e. by references that are recognizable between natural objects.

More details are described in:

Ron Heide’s response to What does the term “logic” mean?

Ron Heide’s answer to Why should I trust logic?

In other words, logic is not an invention, it is not a spiritual effusion of man, but a natural effect that has been found by man in nature, but which man still claims to this day that he invented logic, which is one of the greatest and worst myths of the history of science.

C. Mathematics, on its basis of spirit ideology, has so far not developed any explanation for the origin of numbers, since there is the assumption that numbers are also just an invention of man, and thus number symbols are not a symbol of any kind of are natural numbers, but numbers are TO BE, i.e. as a ghost cast of man would have come into the world.

In fact, numbers are nothing more than symbols of natural de-itatarian units of existence, which form the basis for all world objects of the universe, and are particularly recognizable by Planck’s quantum of action.

See point c. and d. below.

*

Now turn the true realistic findings in A.B. and C. on the string and big bang theories, then (shortened) a completely different picture emerges.

a. The world is actually held together by effects that bind the objects of the universe, whether quantums, quarks, atoms, molecules or cells.

But these are not strings, but it is the logical effects that the quantums, and thus all world objects, relate to each other, bind them and thus format them into objects.

Thus, the string theories are ultimately right, because they are based on a fundamental misconception.

b. The world is based on logical reference effects between objects.

Since logical references are unenergetic and intangible, the question arises as to how these can then affect material-energetic world objects.

Quite simply, there are only two types of effects, namely:

  1. the logical effects
  2. the constant effects (each constant represents an effect on the existential objects of this universe, which then appear in quantum forms)

See:

Planck Units – Wikipedia

The Planck units show very clearly and correctly that all objects of this universe arise from constant effects and their reference logics, more precisely already described in the upper links (see operators).

This means that the logical effects can only form world objects via the constant effects, and vice versa:

All constant effects receive their energetic-material reference effects only through the logical effects, which mathematics and physics still completely overlook to this day, although EVERY formula of physics is only used by means of the logical effects, which are used as operators in formulas, can map a physical function.

For reasons described in B., it was therefore not possible in physics and mathematics to detect and directly use unenergetic and intangible effects, although they are used continuously on the basis of the logic signs (operators), but because of the does not recognize and accept spirit ideology as a natural effect.

c.According to the descriptions in b. and A.as a consequence, there must be immaterial objects that have no energetic or material forms, and thus do not interact in this form.

Quantums depict these deitary objects in an energetic-material form (see h and the Planck units), but only through the logical and constant effects that enable the formation of world objects.

Ron Heide’s answer to What is causality?

World objects are therefore only the result of their deeper form of existence, so they are based exclusively on a de-itary basic form, i.e. on completely unenergetic-intangible, i.e. deituary, basic objects.

Without describing this in more detail, every de-itatarian object form is always time-free, space-free, and actually NEVER possesses object form, even if one is forced to always use the term object out of worldly, i.e. spatial-temporal description possibilities, because there are generally no words for this elementary form of existence.

d. The so-called Big Bang is also unrealistically described to this day, since it is a so-called “big bang”.Start-up, but which is not realistically explained, described or proven in today’s theories.

With the help of quantum mechanics, however, this can be done if one takes the above findings into board, i.e. assumes that there are logical and constant effects, and of course also de-itatarian objects (C.),especially since these also form the basis of all numbers.

h, i.e. the Planck iana, becomes measurable only via energetic interaction, if at least the constant effects pi, G, c, etc.are involved in this.

If pi is not involved, h does not form any spatial-temporal form, and only a deitē›²re object exists, even if some other constants are bound to it.

Without the constant effect pi, h does not form any space-time continuum, which is why the original form of all world objects is linked to h, more precisely its basic de-itatical form, with the constants pi, G, c, etc.Is.

A big bang, i.e. the insertion of energetic levelling, and the resulting time and space, is therefore only understandable if one understands how the initialization of such a process can be understood by the coupling of different constants to entitarian basic objects. arises.

*

In the natural quantum fluctuation, which takes place everywhere and everlastingly, small universes are constantly created, which, however, also constantly disintegrate again, but nevertheless by certain rules and laws some objects in worldly existence arise. and thus a continuous big bang exists.

Also so-called.Dark matter and energy can thus be easily explained, since interaction can also arise without which pi is involved as an effect, and thus, for example, gravity acts, but no central effect arises, since this can only be used by the pi effect.

See at Time, Big Bang, etc.too:

Ron Heide’s answer to Is there a time outside the now?

See on time and observer position:

Ron Heide’s Answer to Could Time Be Described as Measuring Cause and Effect?

See logic and quantum entanglement:

Ron Heide’s answer to How does quantum entanglement fit into the current scientific model?Isn’t it completely at odds with our entire understanding of the world, as it bypasses locality and the speed of light?

Leave a Reply