Unified Science about me, you, and all of us E-Book

Peter Jakubowski

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 241

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

Update our knowledge effortlessly Traditional Physics vs Unified Physics Traditional Science vs Unified Science Recognising our cosmic home Our Cosmic Hierarchy Universal Cosmic Time Scale Our cosmic future Our cosmic climate Shaping our future better Demographic Spectrum Extended familial life World administration Immediate measures

Leseprobe

Content

Foreword

Our most important tasks in the 21st century

Part 1 Me

1 Who am I?

2 Where am I from?

3 What is my goal?

Part 2 You

4 Who are you?

5 Where are you from?

6 What is your goal?

Part 3 We All

7 Who are We?

8 Where do We come from?

9 What is our goal?

Epilogue

Natural World Community

Appendices

A.

Update our knowledge effortlessly

A1. Traditional Physics

A2. Unified Physics

A3. Traditional Science

A4. Unified Science

B.

Recognising our cosmic home

B1. Our Cosmic Hierarchy

B2. Universal Cosmic Time Scale

B3. Our cosmic future

B4. Our cosmic climate

C.

Shaping our future better

C1. Demographic Spectrum

C2. Extended familial life

C3. World administration

C4. Immediate measures

Foreword

Our most important tasks in the 21st century

We must do everything possible to enable our further evolution, and the further evolution of as many other species, genera, and families of living beings as possible. That is what I see as the meaning of our lives. And I very much hope that I am not alone in this world.

Humanity has always been, and will remain to the bitter end, a plaything of Nature. Whether we finally want to realise it or not, we cannot escape our fate. Our fate is inextricably linked to the only Earth that shelters us. We can continue to exploit its resources for a few more decades as we have done so far. Or we can try to improve ourselves and, in harmony with Nature, make the next millennia here on Earth bearable, perhaps even beautiful. Not for the individual, but for all of us.

That is what I see as the main problem of human beings. As the only species on Earth, we have learned to enjoy malicious joy (German: Schadenfreude). Many of us say to ourselves: I can bear a lot of "bad" when I see that others are worse off than I am. With this maxim, deeply anchored in our inner being, we support the existence of the enormous differences between individuals. Especially, the differences between the amounts of resources available to each one of us. While millions of people starve to death year after year, we admire the few who can be shot into space to be able to look down on the rest of humanity from above from an orbit around the Earth. How the famines of the millions and the trips into space of the few are connected, we do not want to know. Even if most of us have no real chance of following the multi-billionaires into space at some point, the main thing is that we are not among the starving ones either.

Thanks to this weakness of our character, we "breed" not only the super-rich, but also dictators. Anyone who denounced an opponent of the regime was given a new flat by Stalin. But Stalin was not the first and not the last who knew how to exploit this weakness of ours. That the method has always worked is proved by the existence of the dictators of past civilisations. The method still works today. How many innocent people died as a result, nobody knows today. Or do you really want to know?

Another thought. German language is quite precise. Taking one's own life is correctly called (in German) Selbstmord (suicide), that is, a murder of oneself. But taking someone else's life, against their will, is also murder, and always and everywhere. I know of no exception. As long as the other person can express his will.

Carrying out a death sentence must therefore also be seen as an exercise of murder. Only in such a case is murder justified by the "will" of society, which has obliged its own legal authority to sentence particularly serious crimes against society (that is, also against its members) to death. Today, however, fortunately only a few societies still share this "murderous" opinion from the past.

But what about cases where the other person is unable to express his or her will? A coma patient, for example. No matter how hard we try to find a legal, ethical, moral excuse in this case, switching off the medical-technical devices that sustain the life of a patient in a coma state is also murder. As relatives of the coma patient, we will be very reluctant to allow such a designation. But basically, it's almost always the question of cost. Can we (as a society, as relatives, as life partners) still afford to continue treating the patient, or not? At some point, the costs are always too high. Then we are ready to decide in favour of murder. Fortunately, such fates are relatively rare, so hardly anyone has to worry about their importance.

Is "not thinking" also permissible in the millions of other cases of others "condemned" to death? This time it is about the children who are born into such poor conditions that they are threatened with starvation from birth, and actually have to die millions of times because we all others do not feel obliged for them. Is it not the case that the rest of us, through our "non-thinking", through our inaction, through our acquiescence to convenient consumerism, are denying these very children life-sustaining measures?

But what about the parents of these starving children? Very often they are just the "happy" survivors of the previous generation of starving children. Without food, without education, without any perspective. There are even around the world, democratic societies we all know well, where the impoverished parents try to limit the number of their children. Very often the only option left to them is murder. The murder of newborns, especially if they are girls. Or murder by abortion.

Here we come to the point that will probably even shock many of the readers of this book, because so far we discuss this problem with each other far too little, and if at all, then very superficially. I also agree with most of the women in this world that the decision to abort a child that cannot (or must not) be born for really important reasons belongs only to the expectant mother (preferably with the consent of the expectant father). Society, however modern it wants to call itself, must not interfere in this. But here, and here my opinion differs greatly from the usual opinion, one must see every abortion exactly as what it actually is. Namely, a murder. A murder of a human being who cannot yet freely express his will to live. The clear naming of this fact is therefore necessary so that every expectant mother (or ideally, every pair of expectant parents) realises how important, indeed extremely extraordinary, their decision is. Namely, vital. In that moment, they decide about life and death. No more and no less.

Here, in passing, a comment on the disgusting tendency to distort the natural facts. The reasons for the distortion are only secondary here. The life of a human being always begins with the implantation of the maternal egg fertilised by the expectant father in the uterus of the expectant mother. Calling a growing human being a lump of cells (or an embryo or a foetus) a few weeks later should, in my opinion, be punished as a crime against human dignity.

And there is another important idea to which we want to pay special attention in this book. It is about the structure of our world community. No matter what our own world view is at the moment, we all agree that several thousand years ago there were far fewer people living on Earth. It is also almost certain that they lived together in certain groups. Otherwise they would not have been able to survive permanently. In order to bring one's own offspring into the world successfully and also capable of survival, one needs a group of people of a certain minimum size. Sociological studies suggest that an optimal size of a human group requires about 140-150 members.

The first humans were hunters and gatherers. That is, they secured their food base by hunting the available wild animals and gathering fruit and other edible wild plants. If a group found too little to eat, they almost always had the option of moving to another area of the Earth and setting up camp there. It seems possible that from time to time there might be a fight between neighbouring groups to claim better territory for themselves. But basically, each group of early humans had the choice to avoid such a fight and move on. A pre-programmed violence between the different groups of early humans can therefore be rather excluded. The wild animals still demonstrate this behaviour today; if we don't close them off too narrow.

However, in the more recent history of the last millennia, one observes a sharp increase in violent clashes between almost all human groups. Why has there been such a rise in the propensity for violence? One very strong assumption links this propensity for violence to the spread of sedentarisation in this period of history. When people became sedentary, their individual groups had to be able to defend their territories against potential enemies. One could postulate a thesis here that it was the sedentary people who invented borders, wars and war leaders. Some of the war leaders soon discovered that it was easier to take vital resources by robbing them from their neighbours than to laboriously produce them themselves. This hypothesis seems very plausible, even typically human. In my eyes, however, it would be far exaggerated. People's propensity to violence is not innate. Rather, it has been reinforced by certain circumstances of our coexistence. In fact, we have observed a clear decrease in people's willingness to use violence around the world in recent centuries. So one has to go a little deeper into this question. What motivated early humans to make the transition to settlement? Why did they feel compelled at some point to settle in a fixed place? This was connected with the final abandonment of the hunter-gatherer way of life that had worked well for thousands of years. They were forced to define a "property". The first consequences were one's own fields, which one had to cultivate, one's own plants, which one had to harvest, and one's own animals, which one had to domesticate and slaughter. To increase the yield, one had to have more offspring in order to have more labour. Why all this? Why did they decide to take such a step, which certainly restricts the freedom of each individual? This is precisely the "sticking point" in the evolution of the structure of our world community that we want to deal with in particular detail in this book. I will put forward the thesis that the structure of our world community has historically evolved in this way, and not otherwise, because in the individual steps of our past over the last seven thousand years we have almost always regarded our fellow human beings more like a potential threat than our friends. In the process, our bad traits (such as the aforementioned Schadenfreude) have developed more than the good ones (for example, compassion for those in need). That is why the so-called "modern" human societies have shielded themselves more and more from each other, until they have started to wage wars for their own borders (and resources), which practically means killing the others. Most of us still see no way out of this spiral of "defence". To this end, we have even sacrificed our basic natural principles, such as the family bond or our spiritual bond (religion). Young people are sent "to the military" to defend our borders. The structure of our whole world community is pre-programmed around this animalistic idea of "defending one's turf". Do we still need to think in such animalistic terms in the 21st century? Are there perhaps indications from Nature as to how we could restructure our societies, indeed the entire world community, in such a way that this animalistic thinking would hardly play a role any more? Yes, these indications do exist. And we will deal with them in detail in this book. My professional experience as a physicist and universal philosopher suggests to me possibly the most important clue to this. The Universe is quantised, that is, organised in specific energetic portions (or quanta, units of energy). Since we humans are an "evolutionary product" of this organisation, our desired, natural structure of our community should also be organised in such natural units. What this means and how we can realise it in practice is what we want to discuss in this book.

Why are we opening this book with the most difficult problems of the world community? To make it clear that our present world community of such diverse, more or less locally delimited societies is very, very sick. And we are also making the environment - ours and that of all other living beings - very sick. Protecting that environment from the evil effects of our stupidity is really the most urgent task of all present and future generations. Preparing ourselves for the consequences of climate change will only be a secondary task in this context.

Over the last millennia, we have learned to dominate other people. We do it so skillfully today that a single human being, be it political (dictator) or economic (monopolist), can decisively influence a billion (or more) other people. In our arrogance, we have even believed that we can also control Nature. First the climate crisis and now the Corona crisis have shown us that we are practically powerless against Nature. In this context, I am also less and less surprised that even an expert claim repeated a million times can be wrong. I am thinking here of the claim that climate change, which has become clearly evident during the lifetime of my generation, should be caused by us humans. Nature does not care about such "established" claims, and it is increasingly coming down on the side of natural cooling in recent years.

The denial of facts, the distortion of natural conditions, the basing on general human weaknesses, is only the consequence of our comfort. We allow it. We are okay with it as long as we can keep a certain comfort in life. At least for us, for our own generation. What comes after us, we leave to the young. And that is sick. Very sick. My own generation, the first after the war, is already terminally ill. We can only watch as we die out. But the second post-war generation, the generation of my children, is still suffering from the same disease of comfort. Whether they can still be saved, I don't know. But I still have great hope that the generation of our grandchildren, the 20-30 year olds today, will recognise the need for action and become active. It is mainly for them that I am writing this book, probably my last book in the "New Enlightenment" series, in which I would like to pass on the quintessence of my overall knowledge to the coming generations.

The times of convenient repetition of the same old "mantras" of traditional physics are definitely over. In the near future, we will have to fundamentally revise almost all the old "myths" about the origin, structure, evolution and even the meaning of the Universe. What makes us already today capable and entitled to carry out such a radical revision of our thinking about the Universe? It is the Unified Physics that I have been developing over the last 40-50 years. This Unified Physics is indisputably the scientific basis of our present and future knowledge about ourselves, about our Earth, and about our cosmic home within the framework of the Cosmic Hierarchy of the Solar System. Traditional physics has dealt exclusively with so-called "inanimate matter". Only my unification of all the fundamentals of physics has enabled us also to describe life and evolution (both of life and of the Solar System) with an incomparably high degree of accuracy. This book also reports on this. To give you an idea of the extent of the change, I will give only five examples of the new thinking here (the details of these assertions will be presented later in the appendices to the book).

Firstly, in contradiction to what all today's experts (teachers, professors, experts, doctors) still tell you, in our body there are no atoms and no small molecules either. According to the Unified Physics, all physical properties of every body (living or not) are interrelated. The simplest physical parameter we know from our everyday life is temperature. The universal temperature is about -30°C. The corresponding universal extension of the energetic portions (the universal quanta) is about 5 nanometres; about the thickness of a common cell membrane. (1 nanometre is one millionth of a millimetre. ) The small molecules are 10 to 100 times smaller than that. A temperature of thousands degrees Celsius corresponds to them. The atoms are 100 times smaller than the universal quanta, even smaller than the smallest molecules. Their corresponding temperature is even tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of degrees Celsius. So it is certain that in the room temperature or body temperature of a living organism there cannot be individual atoms or small molecules as components of the organism. (You can read about how the living and inanimate Universe is constructed from the matter-spirit quanta in the relevant appendices to this book.)

Secondly, in the whole Universe there are no photons with a (traditionally assumed) zero mass. Every quantum of energy, even the smallest, must have a certain mass; as well as a certain speed of light, frequency, and other characteristic properties, all of which always correspond to the state of the medium (environment) in which the energy propagates. The quanta of energy transport their energy themselves, just as the soap bubbles carry their soap liquid with them.

Thirdly, Einstein's speed of light in a vacuum is not a natural constant. The speed of light actually only takes on its vacuum value in a vacuum. In all other media (physicists speak of states in this case), the speed of light takes on a different value. There are no constants of Nature at all. We invented them all and put them "in the shoes" of Nature. All these values were only defined by the mass of the cosmic cloud from which our Solar System was formed 7.1(!) billion years ago. If this mass had originally been different, we would have had different physical "constants" today.

Fourthly, our Sun was not born as a single star. It had a companion from the beginning, the remnants of which can still be seen in our Solar System today and influence the evolution of life on Earth. I call this companion star of the primordial Sun the Andrea-Star. One might romantically say that the Andrea-Star sacrificed its life to enable the evolution of life on Earth. In fact, in the greatest cosmic catastrophe (of stage 9) our Solar System had ever experienced, the Andrea-Star was dismembered. It formed today's Solar System from its remains, together with the correspondingly diminished Sun.

And fifthly, we think today with our brains, but we can only feel with our super-brains, which are still localised in our bellies today because our heads have become much too small for them after the last cosmic catastrophe (of stage 5). However, we are already growing again and this gives us hope that future generations of us humans will someday again house super-brain quanta in our heads, as we did thousands of years ago.

It is a sad tradition of science that new findings that contradict previous knowledge or cannot be explained with traditional methods usually meet with resistance at first, which can even lead to the denial of these findings. In history, there are several examples of such findings that were or still are kept "under lock and key" by traditional science.

For example, after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, Pompeii lay buried and forgotten under a thick layer of volcanic ash for over 1500 years. When the city was rediscovered in the 18th century, a delicate situation quickly arose. Several well-preserved frescoes were found on the exposed walls in almost every room, depicting erotic scenes. This, of course, did not fit at all with the prudish worldview of the 18th century. So what was done with the inappropriate depictions? They were hidden away in a secret place, inaccessible to the public, as a secret collection. Only since the 1970s have some of them been on display in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples.

This short story teaches us that we must take very good care of our knowledge and always question it ourselves, because public knowledge can be manipulated very easily. Let's look at another example. When archaeology became very popular in the 19th century, a lot of evidence was found that gigantic ancestors of today's humans lived all over the Earth. The gigantic structures, such as Göbekli Tepe in south-eastern Turkey, Ggantia on Gozo in Malta, the pyramids of Giza, or Stonehenge in England, are only a few silent witnesses of their gigantic builders. Several skeletons, tools and other artefacts of gigantic proportions were also found. However, these finds did not fit in with the world view of the time, according to which "modern" man was classified as the crowning glory of creation and was supposed to be in a constantly progressing evolution towards ever higher and more highly developed forms. A global regression of all mankind was unthinkable. The gigantic buildings are still preserved today, but the traces of their builders are not (are they?).

The third and last example to be given here relates to a knowledge manipulation of the present time. It concerns the images we all still have in our minds when the hurricanes of recent years devastated the Caribbean islands, the coasts of the southern and eastern states of the USA, and those of the East Asian states. This includes the numerous floods of the last two decades. It was immediately and widely reported that the particularly strong winds and downpours of these storms were due to global warming. But it is enough to remember that the colder the upper layers of the atmosphere above the ocean, the faster the evaporation of water, and the more power (stronger winds and greater amounts of rain) the resulting storm also gains. Stronger storms are thus direct evidence that the Earth's upper atmosphere has already cooled, quite the opposite of the manipulated opinion of climate alarmists. Incidentally, these strong movements of the masses of the upper layers of the atmosphere have been observed not only by satellites but also from the ground (see, for example, the website of the Schneefernerhaus environmental research station).

The examples of the frescoes from Pompeii, the buildings of the giants, but also the manipulated climate opinions show how easy it is to manipulate our knowledge of our own history, but also our knowledge in general, for whatever reason. Most of the time, however, the manipulation is not so obvious and thus not so easy to see through. That is why we must always pay attention to the exact definitions of the terms used. Let us start with the definition of the "exact" sciences. Many traditionalists regard mathematics as the only exact science. This narrow view, however, is of little help in our task of describing the whole of Nature scientifically. Mathematics alone cannot describe natural events, phenomena or processes. Only physics can do that. Physics was, is, and should forever remain (in the unified form of a Universal Philosophy) a scientific description of Nature.

In the climate debate, I see that the decision has already been made today. We just have to wait, one, at most two decades. Then the last "climate pseudo-expert" will have been chased out of his "ivory tower". We will also have to learn to live with the Corona virus and its mutants. But the other problems of humanity that we have addressed here above will not be solved by themselves over time. We must address them specifically and search together for a universally satisfactory solution. This book is intended to point us in one possible direction of this search.

So let us summarise. The most important and urgent task of the 21st century is the restructuring of the world community. To do this, I will show you why you are the first generation of a new global civilisation. Further, I will show you how a new, unified science can make some reliable statements about the natural evolution not only of our own evolution, but also of the global climate. Preparing the world community for further natural climate change will be the second task of this century. We will also see that our third most important task is to save the environment from us humans, the environment without which humanity cannot survive.

I wish you much energy for thought while reading this book,

Author.

Düsseldorf, 5th October 2022.

Foreword; What is important to remember:

Our scientific description of the world we live in is based on the tool of science used. In the case of our intended description of all of Nature, this tool is called physics. Physics is therefore, in this sense, the basis of all natural sciences. Traditional Physics has been developed over the centuries. It was built on hundreds of physical quantities (such as mass, time, force, energy, etc.). My Unified Physics, however, has shown that all these apparently independent physical quantities are in reality closely connected with each other. They can all be mathematically unambiguously reduced to a single physical quantity, a Universal One. Since this reduction cannot be refuted mathematically, the entire Unified Physics is also an irrefutable substitute for Traditional Physics. It replaces this old physics completely.

The most important application of the new physics is the definition of our Cosmic Hierarchy with its Cosmic Time Scale, which now allows all time periods of the evolution of the Solar System, and thus also the evolution of life on Earth, to be classified without gaps. This time scale provides evidence that about 10 to 6 thousand years ago, a high-energy, immensely event took place on Earth, from which humanity has not yet fully recovered. This "quantum leap" of level 5 of our Cosmic Hierarchy is also one of the main themes of this book.

Part 1

Me

1. Who am I?

I'm 75. And I'm the most successful physicist of all time. Hard to believe? Impossible? Read on, please.

Do you play the lottery? The game with ticking 6 numbers out of 49? You have the chance to give several million wrong answers. And only one, which remains correct after the solution is known. But be careful, don't calculate how many years you would have to live to get the six numbers right. That would be totally wrong. You would have to write (and pay!) those several million different answers in a single week to "win" a million euros for the right six. That would be pointless. And yet, almost every week there is a grand prize winner. How does he manage that? Only through pure luck. And through the large number of players. Only the one person out of all the participants is lucky enough to get on the right "track", to guess the right six. Millions of others come away (more or less) empty-handed. Have you ever met such a "lucky guy"? Probably not. And you wouldn't recognise him on the street either. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of them in our community.

The same gamble happens in other areas of our lives. For example, in choosing a life partner, or the best place to live, or the best profession. In these cases, fortunately, there are helpers, advisors, who can give us important help on how to arrive at the right "solution". However, in this case of luck, which completely controlled my life, there were no helpers. That's why I compare my luck to that of a lottery winner.