Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: Science claims that it has researched the black holes, what does the Philosopher say about that?
Wolfmeyer: Well, I wouldn’t even have to go down to the basement to laugh because it’s complete nonsense.
Any scientist can make a theory, but it won’t be proven. I can provide more plausible examples of what a black hole is, because I don’t think in a linear world. The reason for wrong assumptions is always insufficient knowledge. Science just has too much of it and tripped itself up by rigid assumptions.
Suppose two Stone Age scientists sat down and investigated, why placing an egg in a pot of hot water, placed on a lava rock, would cause that egg to become hard-boiled. Based on the level of knowledge at that time, one scientist would have claimed that it was the lava stone, the other would have claimed it was the water. So both would have been wrong, because the egg also has a part in it, as do both of the conditions mentioned.
We can refute any science because the part of science that wants to study the subject always wants to underline and prove its theory.
Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: How can we know which science offers evidence?
Wolfmeyer: Not at all. Any science is valid in cognition only in the moment and limited only to the mental intelligence of the scientist. Before some people claimed that the earth was round, the church pretended to have all the knowledge. The knew how the earth was formed and described a god who laid down bowls and broke one of them and the earth, sun, moon and stars were formed.
Christian Gründlinger-Prockl: There is also the Big Bang theory?
Wolfmeyer: Yes, as I mentioned, it’s always just a theory. Even if you think you can prove something at this point, it won’t be worth a dime in a few years.
Let’s assume the following:
You are in a car that is driving at a constant 50 km/h. All occupants will only notice that they are driving if they concentrate on a fixed point outside the vehicle. Now there is the fact that the fixed point is moving at 20 km/h, but we cannot determine this because when we look out we cannot see a point that is traveling at 0 km/h. If the car were to brake abruptly to 0 km/h, we would be overtaken by the fixed point that we had mistaken for a fixed point and only then would we realize that it wasn’t a fixed point.
Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: What does that mean in relation to the earth or the universe?
Wolfmeyer: That’s the big question now, isn’t it, HaHa.
So let’s imagine a donut. The donut is, in our imagination, a collection of billions of universes/galaxies and our universe/galaxy is one of the sugar sprinkles on it. Our universe/galaxy moves clockwise at 20 km/h of the circle of the donut, but additionally at 1 km/h through the donut, but with a reverse direction, and the universe/galaxy rotates counterclockwise at 3 km/h self.
We would only be able to prove this thesis if we had the possibility, and to be able to stand in the middle of the room, at a fixed point with 0 km/h and look at the donut from billions of kilometers. Not a single scientist will ever be able to doubt my theory, since we will never be able to reach that position in space.
Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: Is it speculated again and again that we might come across extraterrestrial life?
Wolfmeyer: OK, there are hundreds of variants here, I could list a few:
1.) We have never encountered extraterrestrial life.
2.) We have encountered extraterrestrial life several times.
3.) Our population is the Australia of an extraterrestrial planet that dumped its criminals here millions of years ago.
4.) At that time, the earth was visited by extraterrestrial life, which was left behind in our solar system due to the short time the other earth had stayed and were worshiped as pharaohs in Egypt.
I could go on for hours with more examples that are irrefutable.
Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: But this other earth would still have to be in our universe, right?
Wolfmeyer: You’re thinking statically again. The sun and earth, as well as the planets around us, may have once been at the edge of our universe/galaxy and shot like the exchange of an atom into another universe/galaxy. It would thus never again be possible for us to come into contact with the same extraterrestrials.
Perhaps the earth has already been in hundreds of universes/galaxies before we got into this one, which would also disprove the Big Bang Theory.
Christian Gründlinger-Prockl: And then what are the black holes?
Wolfmeyer: Because the universes/galaxies are not moving in the same direction, these could be small whirlpools that meet when two or more universes/galaxies outside meet and create a whirlpool that then would end in another universe/galaxy group. Although I would not say with certainty that these holes are not also responsible for an evolution that results from the exchange of energies. It could also be the case that these holes invert our earth by adding or taking away electrons/protons from us as we pass through them and we have already been sucked into these holes once and then come out somewhere else.
Christian Gründlinger-Pröckl: So as long as we can’t travel to the said fixed point, is every thesis true or false?
Wolfmeyer: Exactly, just like any science about the climate is a complete idiocy of busybodies! Not a single one of these scientists has understood nearly one per thousand of the climate.
That’s why I don’t follow any theses of any self-proclaimed space or climate gurus.
Explanation of linear science using the example of medicine
I just hope that I was able to show one or the other an insight into theses and reality.
Joey Thomas Wolfmeyer
An example for geniuses:
Confusing an exponential curve with a linear curve is the small scale at which we consider them. If we look at the bottom of an exponentially increasing curve, then this seems linear to us. So it may be that in physics, due to a lack of possibilities, we assume that our units are linear, while in reality they increase exponentially. We would probably only recognize this with a measurement of 100 million minus or 100 million plus degrees Celsius, kilometers, kilograms. Thus, the ability of large metrics limits us to assuming this mass to be true
To explain: On earth we need for 1 kilometer – X minutes
In space, every 10 million kilometers, the time required could increase exponentially!
It could be responsible for the fact that the universe rotates and we have such a gravitation at a certain point in the universe that we don’t know yet. If our wider environment outside of the universe consisted of other universes that were rotating all over again, it would not be possible for us to get out of our universe, because we would always fly back to our earth. One can best explain this trajectory with a spirograph, which draws paths that arrive back at the starting point after several passes.
So if NASA were to fly away from Earth, it would take millions and millions of years before it would arrive back on Earth believing it had discovered a new Earth.