HEAVY ERRORS and their concequences E-Book

Christian Främbs

• Herausgeber: BoD - Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 475

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

The initial impetus for his research was the book series Ether-Physics and-Philosophy Volume 1-4 (German edition) by Prof Alfred Evert, last published in 2011. Using basic mathematics, he identifies false assumptions and is questioning nothing less than our common astrophysical world model. Today, it seems undisputed that our universe must contain some dark matter and that the vacuum is filled with infinite energies. Highly admired academics and despised lunatics speculate about parallel worlds and the possibility of multiple dimensions. Esotericism and science equally work with vague definitions and often wrong assumptions. As a non-academic amateur, Christian Främbs' doubts were growing the more he researched the fundaments of our dominant and very rarely questioned astrophysical explanation of the world. The author's brother - an experienced Navigator and Mariner - convinced Christian Främbs to write an essay covering his thoughts, analyses, questions and alternative conclusions. Rewriting the proverb that an apple doesn't just fall far from the tree describes the spirit of his work. The key element and basis of his suggestion of another alternative world model is the good old and widely forgotten physical concept of the ether. The Key Statements of this publication: - All perceptions are illusionary projections of reality. - Only two facts are undoubted: There must be SOMETHING and MOTION. - The ether-theorem is based on just these two hypotheses: a single real substance which is vibrating in itself. - Many different movement patterns represent the phenomena, from the photon, electron and atom to the stars and galaxies. - There are no fixed particles. In analogy to sound, only the structures of MOTION are wandering forward within the ether. - Gravity only exists in the immediate vicinity of a celestial body, but its cause is not based on mass. - There are also no forces attracting the mass; the Earth, for example, drifts passively in an ether-whirlpool around the Sun. - The geostationary satellites, for example, provide clear proof, as they are contrary to the usual laws constantly dancing around. - Everything is made of ONE. This ancient wisdom/spiritual concept becomes a physical/scientific reality: The homogeneous ether fills the universe without gaps, and all phenomena are only movements within this medium. - New approaches for a more understandable and plausible world model are presented.

Leseprobe

Essay – to my brother ...

The observation of the universe by means of the general theory of relativity shows that the law of conservation of energy is not applicable to the universe as a whole. In particular, gravitational energy cannot always be clearly defined in a way that applies to the universe as a whole. The total energy of the universe is therefore neither conserved nor lost – it cannot be defined.

Tamara M. Davis, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, November 2010

Content

01 Historical Outline

02 Double and Multiple Star Systems

03 Space-Time-Quantum-Zero-Point-Energy

04 Celestial Maths

05 The Solar System

06 Space Telescopes

07 Voyager I Mission

08 Cosmic Velocities

09 Galaxies

10 Black Holes

11 Galaxy Milky Way

12 Ether Model of Atoms

13 Ether – All from One

14 The Sun

15 Structure of the Earth

16 The Nature of Gravity

17 Ether-whirlpool Earth

18 Cosmic Radiation

19 The Consequences

20 About the Author

21 Source Reference

03 Space-Time-Quantum-Zero-Point-Energy 62]

Nebulous Space-Time Curvature

In his younger years, Einstein used to put his disciples (purely mentally) into rockets or trains or dark lifts and surprisingly many believed (and believe) him that there can only be subjective, relative views of the world, regardless of the fact that, for example, the stationmaster has objective knowledge regarding currently stationary and moving trains. Not all of them travel through space at almost the speed of light, but Einstein nevertheless explained (still plausibly for many) that space is connected to time – and that this spacetime is curved by mass. He could not explain all the cases of attractive force effects mentioned above, but only attributed the effect of gravity to curved space (without explaining why and how mass should produce this curvature).

Everyone knows this dented blanket (Fig. 03.01 top row centre), along whose slope the planets fall around a Sun, always straight ahead, whereby straight in this case means a curve. I doubt whether anyone could gain a concrete idea of space-time or understand Einstein's theories of relativity – because it is not possible to understand what is wrong, but at best to point out the errors (which is sufficiently available in extensive literature). Here, for example, is an arbitrary compilation of images on gravitation through space-time curvature from the Internet (like these from websites of renowned scientists). It is up to everyone to agree with these visualisations, but I would just like to ask the following questions:

As with the blanket above, the grid of space-time is dented downwards in all the images – but why or what should pull this blanket or grid under the respective mass in each case?

If a planet or moon were to slow down a little, would they fall into an orbit south of the south pole?

The funnel at the bottom left is intended to show the powerful curvature into a black hole. Do masses only have a gravitational effect in one direction or should there not be many such funnels around the black hole?

Does it make sense to visualize this model in this form? And can this idea of space-time curvature exist in reality?

03.01

Illustration bottom centre: Robin Dienel

Mind you, the experts spend decades to visualise this crucial fact in apt images. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from high-ranking scientists, practically all main-stream physicists still invoke the validity of the theory of relativity. I also refer to Einstein, but to his late statements on the real existence of an ether.

Four-Dimensional

In this context, the report on the 25th International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid is interesting. The mathematician Grigori Perleman from St Petersburg, sometimes described as the most intelligent person in the world, does not accept the Fields Medal – one of the highest honours – although he has – possibly – solved one of the most difficult problems in mathematics: the nature of the surface of four-dimensional bodies (and thus significance for this space-time world view). He would possibly be entitled to the one million dollar reward by the American Clay Foundation for the clarification of the Poincare conjecture, on which experts have been racking their brains for 100 years.

I was previously believing that maths, as the clearest of all sciences, had no problem calculating in any number of fictitious dimensions. But obviously the problem must not concern real relationships such as the surface of a fictitious body. On the other hand, it is reassuring that maths refuses to find a solution when overly unrealistic fictions are put forward as axioms. In this respect, it should be clear that Einstein's famous mathematics cannot reflect reality either (as has been pointed out many times).

But again, I agree with Einstein: Curvature plays a crucial role in reality, there is no such thing as an exactly straight line. Figure 03.02 shows a curved space at A (see curved X-, Y- and Z-coordinates) and in it something is supposed to move from E to F on a curved path. Relativity mathematicians will have fun calculating this inclined path relative to the respective curvature of space, specifying all locations and accelerations.

03.02

However, I am struggling with direction of where the vector of inertia is pointing. Straight ahead, of course, but this does not mean exactly forwards, but a direction in all current curvatures in all three dimensions (if you ignore time as the fourth dimension of this movement in space-time, i.e. if you only consider a three-dimensionally curved space).

For example, when a comet comes close to the Sun, it intersects the spectrum of curved space lines inwards. At its reversal point it moves on a circular section around the Sun, i.e. its inertia now also points into the circular line – and how should it ever be able to leave it again? If you judge by the pictures above, in the end they all gather south of the south pole.

The Term Space

Colloquially, space is used in the sense of, for example, living space, intermediate space, hollow space and the like. In a scientific sense, space is a purely geometric concept. To describe shapes, locations, distances, movements, etc., a rectangular coordinate system is useful, the zero point of which can be chosen arbitrarily. Einstein is right: pretty much everything is curved – everything can be curved, especially the paths of movements. Only these fictitious coordinates of an abstract space (at B) must not be curved, but must theoretically be thought of as completely rectilinear, otherwise not even a curvature can be described.

Only in this purely geometric sense the clear term space is used, within its arbitrarily chosen section each location can be clearly defined with simple X, Y and Z specifications (for the figurative meaning of space the common term universe is used). Terms such as left/right, front/back, top/bottom, which always refer to this fictitious coordinate reference system, are usually sufficient to describe it.

The picture at B again shows the movement of something from E to F. This is an illustration of a real movement. The something must be real, otherwise it could not move in reality. Space, on the other hand, is not real, but exclusively a fictitious concept, only necessary for the exact observation or discussion or communication of real processes. Non-real space can never have energy. Only the ether is real in space and the energy is only ever the movement of the ether.

The term ether, which is perceived as old-fashioned today, is used here intentionally. This is because the more up-to-date term space-energy is merely an abstract combination of two fictitious terms, i.e. empty words whose use only causes confusion and can never provide an explanation. Nor should we equate space with ether, because space is an abstract concept, whereas ether is a real substance.

Concept of Time

In the picture above at C again coordinates X, Y and Z are drawn resp. areas of green, blue and red characterise this space. Something (G) moves unevenly in it on an uneven path. Twelve positions (easily defined by coordinates) of this red point are marked during the course of the movement. Next to it at D a clock is shown, whose hands are moving in known manner (and twelve positions during movement are marked at border of clock-face). Here in this picture, the red dot assumes the above positions one after the other (and the distance it has travelled is marked). The illustration also shows various positions that this clock hand assumes one after the other.

Only the movements are real, whereby those of the red dot and those of the hand are completely independent of each other. Of course, the dot and the pointer can only be at one specific position in space at a time and then move to the next position. In this rough visualisation, it naturally takes a moment for both to reach their next position, but there is no such thing as time anywhere in reality.

In us and around us there is no real space (the green-red-blue walls above), but only the continuous movement of everything (including what appears to be at rest) is real. There is no such thing as time as a real phenomenon; rather, every measurement of time goes back to some suitable movement.

Only when a person wants to determine the speed or its change of a moving something do we bring the abstract concept of time into play.

However, these measurements are only ever a comparison of two independent movements. To determine the distance, a fictitious reference frame of space is used and to determine time, an event that repeats itself as uniformly as possible is chosen (which is ultimately also a distance of the same length as a movement). Theoretically, the scale for distance and time can be chosen completely arbitrarily – and this clearly shows that the dimensions of space and time are completely abstract, while only movement can ever be real – and movement always logically implies a real something.

In this sense, the argument about time has been settled, yet new mysteries are constantly being invented. In fact, time is not constant, insofar as the same clock is ticking differently in a different environment. Clocks are made of atoms, atoms are ether-vortices whose speed depends on the behaviour of the surrounding ether. Even on a mountain, the clock ticks faster than in a valley. The clocks of the GPS satellites have to be calculated backwards (but by a factor of 20 compared to what would result from the theory of relativity).

It is therefore in my opinion a fiction or completely absurd to try to explain the real events in the universe on the basis of the purely abstract concepts of space and time or their combination as space-time or even on the basis of a curved four-dimensional abstraction.

Quantum Theories

If the theories of relativity do not work, then the second pillar of modern physics, quantum mechanics (or its subsequent theory variants), serves to explain this world. Jim AI-Khalili, for example, has illustrated the developments and statements of this science in his book Quantum, for example by means of these magnificent pictures (see Fig. 03.03). The subtitle promises Modern physics to marvel at.

It is astonishing to read the following: On the one hand, quantum mechanics forms the basis for our understanding of the world, but on the other, no one really seems to have understood what it actually means. The paradoxes of quantum mechanics are discussed using the famous double-slit experiment as an example, because no other experiment illustrates its riddles more impressively and beautifully.

Of course, Planck's findings regarding quanta and Einstein's Nobel Prize for the introduction of the photon and explanation of the photo-effect are explained. As a result, it is stated that today the wave-particle duality is established beyond doubt, followed by the observation that physicists find the concept of photons rather confusing.

03.03

Schrödinger devised his famous wave function, the interpretation of which was disputed for decades and is still disputed today. Heisenberg generated the uncertainty principle, which, for example, only allows probabilities for the location and speed of a particle, which are also superimposed to form superpositions, the collapse of which only occurs upon observation. Schrödinger's famous cat was and still is the subject of debate as to whether and that it is really only dead when someone looks into the box – incredibly nonsensical mind games by such clever people. Today, due to decoherence, it is accepted that an event can also exist through interactions of a different kind, just as if the hammer only becomes a hammer when it strikes the anvil.

Using the wave function and superposition, the author starts a second attempt to explain the double-slit experiment, only to conclude: We have the right to a rational explanation, but so far none has been found. The validity of quantum theories is repeatedly invoked because mathematics is logically consistent, but the problem is that nobody can explain the facts correctly in non-mathematical language.

Bohr himself was puting it this way: There is no quantum world. There is only a quantum physical description. It is a mistake to believe that the object of physics is to discover what nature is like. Physics is about what we can say about nature. Somehow this hurts a layman: physics is what physicists talk about nature – and not the endeavour to explain how and why nature is like this. So what Jim AI-Khalili says will be true: Some of the most important scientists of our time have even openly admitted that nobody really understands quantum mechanics. And they have probably not only studied popular science literature (like the one quoted here).

Regardless of this, particle accelerators continue to be built in order to recognise the most sub-elementary particles and thus the ultimate basis of all matter by bombarding particles with waves/particles. Hundreds or soon thousands of quarks have been discovered, but all of these cannot be the building blocks of matter, but are scrap left over after destruction.

Zero-Point

A special edition of German popular sience magazine Spektrum der Wissenschaft entitled From the quantum to the cosmos has published various articles by renowned scientists on this problem. In these, the history of the development of quantum theories up to their most recent results is addressed.

I would like to point out just one of these discovering, the Bose-Einstein condensate shown on the title page. The corresponding article was written by Graham P. Collins, editor at Scientific American.

According to current doctrine, the structure of matter eludes precise observation due to the uncertainty principle. In the above particle accelerators, matter is bombarded by fast-flying particles, which of course means that no picture of the resting state of matter can be obtained. Conversely, atoms would have to be immobilised as much as possible in order to obtain a sharp image of their structure.

This is exactly what is achieved in so-called atom traps by restricting their movement as much as possible using laser beams and magnetic fields, practically cooling them down to a minimum temperature. The atoms turn into a gaseous condensate – and its quantum vortices can actually be photographed, as the picture shows this aggregate state of a plasma.

The article gives the following hint: In August 2000, Wayne Hu and his colleagues from Princeton University speculated that the dark invisible matter, which apparently makes up around ninety percent of the mass of the universe, could exist in the form of a Bose-Einstein condensate of extremely low-mass particles. If this bold hypothesis is correct, the coldest gases would also be the most common.

Of course, the temperature in space is very low because there are few particles there that could knock on a thermometer. There would be gas condensates everywhere, to which extremely low mass is now assigned, because otherwise the calculation would not work out again due to too much invisible or dark matter.

In these zero-point experiments, condensates can be stirred using lasers and various vortex patterns can be produced, which can also be directly visualised. It is quite clear that no hard parts can be recognised in them, and these should crystallise out during condensation or at minimal temperatures. Collins states unequivocally that the classical idea of atoms as particles that collide like tiny marbles fails completely when interpreting these experiments.

Against this background, it remains incomprehensible why the hunt is still on for any particles or masses if all experiments ultimately leave nothing but motion. However, these experiments in no way show the motion structure of atoms. These images primarily reflect the movement pattern of the atom traps, i.e. their strong magnetic fields in combination with the laser irradiation.

Ether and Motion

These condensates cannot be equated with the medium of these phenomena. That is why the more common term zero-point energy cannot be used instead of ether. Ether is a real substance which is in motion within itself. Temperature (whether zero-point or at the surface of the Sun) is a measure of the movement of secondary phenomena (i.e. at the level of previous marbles). And energy is only an abstract concept anyway.

The term zero-point energy is once again a combination of abstract terms, a meaningless and empty phrase. This term only expresses the astonishment of physicists that there is still a lot of movement at the zero point of material movements. This clearly shows that matter is a secondary phenomenon that can only occur on the basis of a primary medium.

Whoever wants to present a new model must refer to one or rather two pillars of current physics: Einstein and quantum theories. This book refers to Einstein's late statements: Space without ether is unthinkable, ether must not be thought of in terms of particles and normal movements are not given in it, moreover to current confirmations by quantum physics, which even in extreme situations could not detect any evidence of any hard particles of matter, but only perpetual movements in manifold patterns.

Physics is at a dead end as long as it is still stuck in particle thinking or in a wave-particle dualism. Moreover, it is subject to misconceptions about motion, especially that of waves. I am sorry that I am probably alienating some readers with this criticism, but the incomprehensibility and paradoxes of relativity and quantum theories cry out for a more comprehensible model. Here, alternatives are presented in simple language with clearly defined terms. However, spatial imagination is required in order to grasp the complex motion sequences in the three spatial dimensions. I am trying to illustrate the considerations and processes by simple images.

Real or Abstract

Once again, I would like to emphasise the difference between the real world and fictitious reference worlds. Figure 03.04 again shows the plasma from previous zero-point experiments. You can obviously see something wobbling within itself, with no recognisable internal boundaries. The oscillating structure is generated and limited by magnetic fields and laser light, by means of which this photo can also be obtained directly. The laser beams encounter different movements at different points and are reflected in different ways, from which this coloured image is generated.

If this prison would be liberated, the movements would appear differently. However, this something will continue to exist in reality, just as it was surmised above such plasma is present everywhere in the universe. I call this particle-less something a continuum called ether – but the term etherplasma would be equally appropriate.

As free ether with universal shape of movements I call this substance outside of local movement pattern, while these space-bounded occurrences (like at picture resp. like electrons or also galaxies) are called Bounded ether and move e.g. in shape of Potential-Vortex-Clouds.

This plasma consists of a substance and a piece of this substance is located directly next to another, similar piece. The only difference between the various positions are the current movements, which merge seamlessly into one another. Ether is gapless, so one cannot speak of ether-particles. Also previous piece of that substance (or a portion of it) is real not separable. Therefore I use geometric term ether-point, if one point within ether should be observed in its motion. This substance naturally has an extension (piece by piece or directly point by point), not only encompassing this plasma bubble here, but the whole universe without subdivision.

03.04

Movement can not happen by shifting parts at boundary surfaces towards each other, but only by one point turning around another and all neighbouring points behaving analogue. As this picture is illustrating, only swinging and twisting can take place, from place to place with changing intensity or on differently curved paths. In the centre of a movement pattern, the movements are generally relatively wide-ranging and reduce towards the outside to swinging on narrower paths.

In this picture, a clock is drawn once again and in comparison with its movement, the frequency of the oscillation can be determined. A scale is also drawn in and it can be clearly seen that, analogous to time, expansion or space can only be measured by comparing it with a metre rule. This abstract world of space and time (highlighted here in light yellow) are arbitrary, fictitious standards of comparison invented by humans, while only the world of ether-plasma and its movements actually exists.

It might seem annoying and witless to some readers if I repeatedly emphasise this distinction between real and abstract. However, if we want to recognise the essence underlying all phenomena, we must not discuss it with imprecise collective terms (as is the primary custom in practically all disciplines), but must precisely describe the properties of the real basis of all phenomena, because only in this way can the recognisable laws of nature be logically explained.