Foundation for Exceptional Abilities and Talents

Art. 3

Risks by scientists’ vanity

I am very well aware of the fact that it is to the required extent far more difficult to publish, let alone to implement, what is on top of everything an irrefutable novelty, which is as necessary as it is good for society, than to actually research and develop it. And I also know that it does not matter whether what has been researched and discovered would still be as well recognized or even recognized as salvation or even necessary, because the truth is, the more valuable it is, the more what has been achieved-believed so far is unmasked as wrong and is therefore also not desired. This tragedy here lies mainly in the fact that today anyone can claim anything in the name of science without having to provide evidence for it. This is especially true of publications that politely avoid calling into question the lack of open, ignored questions so as not to scratch the “old world view”, regardless of whether our world perishes because of it. This experience has made me all the more accountable to be able to prove all of my statements. ... For the worthy attention of the hand-picked few:   

 

In this context, read the following letter!

         

Art. 4

Basic mathematical requirements

I begin with the following approach to basic science dogmas, the corrective of which I would call "fractal geometry". This refers to the natural constants on which all science is based, as best expressed by Euler's formula e EXP i ∙ π = – 1. It should be added that e EXP 0.69314... = 2. But the exponent is calculated from 1 - 1/2 + 1/3 - 1/4 + 1/5 - 1/6 + 1/7 - 1/8 + 1/9... = 0.69314... = ln 2. The number 2 in this formula is infinity. Using this infinitely attainable 2 as a result of Euler's formula, both the infinity of space ∙ time ∙ numbers becomes visible, as well as the duality connected with all 3 units. In addition, it must be said that the number "0" occurs in nature just as scarcely as infinity can ever be reached. Because everything that is infinite on a large scale, is inevitably also so on a small scale. Thus it applies that: the "1" is the hub and pivot of all existence. One synonymous unit! All units <1 are infinite to zero, and all units >1 are infinite to infinity analogous to zero. This proves the first and most important principle: There is never zero or nothing in nature because "nothing" lies in the infinite and consequently can never be reached because it is simply also non-existent. Period. Thus, this core question is: On what basis does eternal order prevail in the infinite, since infinity nevertheless also requires infinite control. However, since control must always be subject to a strict set of rules, this also necessarily implies a clear and stringent scope of control. But if and as soon as there is talk of a scope of control, this will consequently also have to fail finally (since only in this way can it be controlled). So how is it possible that the infinite is subject to an eternal order? The possibly most intelligent person of the fifteenth century, Cardinal Nikolaus Cusanus (from "Cues" on the German Moselle River), who was also a jurist, diplomat, philosopher and mathematician, was the first to state that God, given his omnipotence, nevertheless does not let his will happen arbitrarily, but as the "Almighty" subordinates himself all the more to his own universal, eternal order. A likable idea!

 

But again, briefly, back to Euler's formula, whose three quantities besides 1 are the number π, i and e; πprobably does not need to be explained in more detail; i, however, stands for irrational, i.e., for a real but not a rational number. An example: As the square root of 1 = + 1, so the square root of – 1 = i. From these quantities, the duality of time, space, and numbers results, which are to be understood individually and altogether just as well limited/finite as also infinite/eternal. And only when one understands this, does the Planck-Einstein formula make sense: h ∙ v = m ∙ c EXP2, from which the aforementioned duality of all things is ultimately derived. This is something you already learn in school: Everything which cannot be proved by cross-checking (keyword "checksum") is not "quod erat... " but "quod esset demonstrandum". (not what was to be proved, but what is to be proved). [Planck's constant "h" x velocity (m/s) "v" = mass "m" x velocity of light squared "c EXP2"]. Everybody uses the Planck-Einstein formula nowadays, although almost nobody really understands what the speed of light has to do with the quantum of action. And how, since to date no-one even knows how to calculate the speed of light correctly? However, since both natural constants fit wonderfully into one equation, no-one thinks any further about it and thus misses the chance to indispensably comprehend the background of this formula which answers everything. So before I move on to the producibility and applicability of the new fuel (nitrogen and silicon), revealing the secret of the above formula in as brief an overview as possible, is inevitable. Here is just a taster: the solution to the riddle basically lies in the comparison of every calculation, every calculated value, and every natural quantity and constant, in that each and everything separately as well as each against everything is reciprocally – mathematically – "checked against." 

 

Art. 5

Mathematical circular reasoning

I begin with the well-known periodic table, which contains exactly 81 (3 EXP4) stable (non-radioactive) elements. To shorten it, I immediately invert the number 81:

​

1 : 81 = 0.0123456790123456790… = 0.012345679 period.

 

This period lacks the number 8. Reason: our decimal system does not contain any digit larger than 9, which is why 10 in its decimal notation, which is familiar to us, applies here as an enlargement of the preceding 9, whereby the preceding 8 is again enlarged by 1 to 9. Consequently, 8 must be missing in the above decimal fraction since this avoids the reciprocal of 81 being visibly linked to all consecutive numbers. As proof, consider the following alternative notation:

 

1 : 81 = 0.0123456789(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)…

    Thus it applies that: 1 : 81 = (1:9)∙(1:9) = 0.11111… ∙ 0.11111… = 0.0(1) ∙ (1+1) ∙ (1+1+1)… 

Therefore: 0.11111… ∙ 0.11111… = 0.0123456789(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)…

 

After the – missing – 8 proved to be an illusion, it can be stated hereafter that the reciprocal value of the order of all numbers 00123456789... results in the number 81. The decimal point after the first zero has been deliberately omitted since it only indicates the decimal fraction to be read from left to right. Thus, the following conclusion emerges: 

 

Art. 6

Proof by reciprocity

All 81 (stable) elements are reciprocally related based on their atomic numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., with atomic number 0 assigned to the neutron. And the fact that we calculate in the decimal system is again due to the fact that all 81 (stable) elements are basically fanned out into 10 isotopes. The following interim note on this is provided: Our periodic table, as we still know it from high school, identifies 83 (stable) elements, but it is not mentioned that the element technetium (Tc) with atomic number 43, as well as the element promethium (Pm) with atomic number 61 are incorrectly assigned to the stable elements, because they are completely unstable or can only be artificially produced in a nuclear reactor, in order to then again immediately decay into other elements. Consequently, there are also no isotopes for "43" and "61". Furthermore, hydrogen (H) cannot rank above the alkali metals, as is generally the case in the periodic table, simply because it has an electron in the valence shell and thus reacts monovalent positive. Hydrogen is rather the opposite of a metal, i.e., a non-metal, which means that it would more likely be assigned to halogens. Well! Because here's the thing: H2 also occurs with valence  –1 and thus combines with metals to form metal hydrides. Consequently, the periodic table is clearly suitable for all elements, with the lone exception of hydrogen, which of all the elements, is considered the original building block of all matter, just as all numbers are also derived from 1. 

 

Finally, there is the element potassium with the atomic number 19 (remember this number from now on), which is chemically quite inconspicuous as an alkali metal, but from a nuclear-chemical perspective is unique in its composition, because in spite of its odd atomic number it is neither a pure nor a double isotope, but a multiple isotope with the isotope number 3. Thus, the even-numbered element 4 beryllium as a pure isotope is top of the group of the in total 20 pure isotopes, of which all the other 19, however, are odd-numbered. Helium with atomic number 2 is also an even element, but it is the smallest element and is top of the group of all the other 19 odd double isotopes. So when I state here that the 81 stable elements are basically fanned out into 10 isotopic varieties, the reason for this is that of the 83 (stable) elements presented to us in the periodic table, 2 are out of place (43 and 61), which leaves 81, of which again H is to be excluded for the above reasons. There remain 80 stable elements, all divisible by 4 (= 20): into even and odd elements, where again basically the odd elements are pure and/or double isotopes. I'll get to the point:

 

All even-numbered elements (except K, atomic number 19) are multiple isotopes, and all odd-numbered elements (except beryllium and helium) are pure and/or double isotopes. Thus, the basic division of all elements is 4 ∙ 20, i.e. 4 ∙ (19 + 1). The respective "+ 1" refers to the potassium, beryllium, and helium mentioned above, after which 3 ∙ 19 turn out to be divisible and the remaining 1 ∙ 19 prime atomic numbers. Let me summarize: 4 ∙ (19 + 1). I.e.: to those 3 exceptional elements K, Be, He (3 times + 1) – besides hydrogen – the most outstanding element carbon (C) is called the fourth exception [four times (+1 ) = 4 ∙ (19 + 1)]. Because C, which ironically has the atomic number "6" (cf. Pascal's triangle), and which is the basis of all organic matter (all earthly life), as the fourth exception is omitted from the principle (namely, that all even-numbered elements are usually never pure or double, but multiple isotopes), as C has "only" 2 stable isotopes (C EXP12 + C EXP13). The 13 artificially producible instable C isotopes are irrelevant here. Elements 1 to 20 are the main group elements. From element 21 onwards, electrons begin to be incorporated in deeper shells. This is done in parallel with the respective atomic nuclei. Thus, starting with element 21, there are always more neutrons than protons in the nucleus, which also answers the question of why, of all elements, element 43 and 61 are missing among the stable elements in the periodic table: The 81st – last stable! – element bismuth (Bi) with atomic number 83 contains exactly 43 additional neutrons, meanwhile from element 21 to 83 (without 43 and 61) exactly 61 elements are extended with systematically increased neutron numbers. 

 

Art. 7

Nature never errs

The missing atomic numbers 43 and 61 for stable elements can thus be found in practice with the help of the neutron increase in the atomic nuclei of the stable elements: 43 is the largest neutron increase number for stable elements. Beyond that, 61 stable elements exclusively have neutron increase numbers greater than 1. But there is another approach to prove that nature never errs and by no means merely "forgot" the (stable) elements 43 + 61, but rather their obvious absence is an even more important component to complete the self-contained periodic table: The number of the relevant prime twins (5;7),(11;13),(17;19),(29;31),(41;43),(59;61),(71;73) is exactly "7". And in the number range 1 to 83 (ordinal numbers of all stable elements), there are the following further prime numbers, which are "only children", thus having no twin partner and are either 6n-1 or 6n+1: 23; 37; 47; 53; 67; 79; 83. Their number also adds up to "7." And the checksum of those "gap numbers" 43 (4+3) and 61 (6+1) in both cases is also "7" = reciprocal of the first "Phoenix number"!

 

In conclusion: if precisely these two "gap numbers" did not exist, the prime number structure, which conditions - and codes - all natural laws, would have a sensitive leak, and the order that was only completed in this way would break at this gap. The following note shows that the only correct way to calculate the aforementioned checksum is "decimally": Looking at the prime twins (41;43) ; (59;61), 10 ∙ 10 = 100 appears to be their  further common feature: Addition of the smaller partners of these "gap numbers" 41 + 59 = 100. Also, there are only 2 Prime only children, which are bracketed by the twins (41;43) ; (59;61): they are the two prime numbers 47;53, the addition of which gives: 47 + 53 = 100. But now, to complete my basic formula 3 EXP4 = 81 described at the beginning, the complementarity of the reciprocal number order of "81" in respect of the stable elements is proven as follows: If I divide 1 by 81, I get the chronological number sequence in period reciprocally. Or, by dividing 1 : 81, increasing 1 to 100 – as is common in mathematics – I get 100 : 81 = 1 + remainder 19

 

If I again divide "remainder 19" by "81", I get 19 : 81 = 0.2345679012345679... The 19 as the prime number is responsible for the sequence of numbers arising in this way again, this time without the 1 at the start (after the decimal point). Similarly 1 : 81 = 0.012345679... The fact that in the division of 19 divided by 81, the 1 immediately after the decimal point is missing at first, but keeps reappearing in the period afterwards regularly – as with 1 : 81 – is simply due to the respective decimal valency and is irrelevant. The fact that there are exactly 20 amino acids analogous to 20 pure isotopes completes the connection. This is all the more true since the numerical reference 19 + 1 analogous to the above-described isotopes [4 ∙ (19 + 1)] applies, as it were, to the consistency of the amino acids out of mathematical necessity (which I do not wish to unpack in detail here). These proteinogenic formic acids, 20 in total, are found in both non-nucleic bacteria and mammals. The erroneous belief, often claimed in technical literature, that there are far more amino acids, such as in penicillin, the content of which is based on fungus versus protein, or also the so-called dextrorotatory amino acids of certain anaerobes, which are all too readily mentioned in technical literature, must be disregarded here since these live on hydrogen sulfide and thus can never be classified as proteinogenic amino acids. In short, of the total of 20 amino acids, there are 19 levorotatory (dextrorotatory do not occur in nature, although they can be produced artificially in the laboratory - ugh!) amino acids, while there is, remarkably, only one amino acid that has no optical center at all and is constructed both dextrorotatory and levorotatory. Hence, again, the evidenced correspondence between isotopes and amino acids: 19 + 1  

 

Art. 8

Equal order in all areas

So, if I base 3 EXP4 = 81 on all calculations in nature, and thus also on every natural science, I quickly find that this basic formula applies to biology as well as to chemistry, physics, medicine, geometry, astronomy, and so on. Here is 1 example: We all know the number π in connection with the circle and radius. Let's make it short: geometrically, the ratio of a square to the area of the enclosed circle corresponds to the quotient of 4 and π. I.e. 4: π = 1.2732... Consequently, the ratio of a fourth part of the square to the fourth part of the circle enclosed in it has exactly the same value:   1.2732... If, on the other hand, I calculate the ratio of a 1-cornered cap to the quarter circle below, this results in the same value minus 1, namely 0.2732... [(1 - π/4): π/4 = 4/ π - 1 = (4 - π): π = 0.2732 . This sequence of digits corresponds exactly to the sidereal (lunar) month. 1 "Earth year", on the other hand, is ≈ 365.25 days. 3 years of 365 days, + 1 year of 366 days. This 3+1 counting however is still completed by the fact that every 400 years must be balanced with 1 additional day, after which there must again be no leap year every 100 years. The reciprocal value in each case confirms the mathematically necessary relationship: 1 : 27.32 = 0.03660... and 1 : 366 = 0.002732... I.e. that a lunar and an earth rotation also reciprocally imply each other. This is additionally confirmed by putting the masses of the moon and earth (measurable by the forces which cause the tides) into relation: According to the aforementioned 3 EXP4 universal law of nature = 1 : 81 . Finally, concerning the "number 19" contained, as it were, in this basic formula, the following is noted: A solar eclipse occurs every 18 years + 11.33 days (total 6,585.78 days). A so-called "eclipse year" (time interval of successive passages of the same lunar node by the sun) is exactly 346.62 days. Again, if I put the two in proportion (6,585.78 : 346.62), I get exactly = 19 (cf. above.). Based on these number connections described here, which offer the basis of all order in the nature in the first place, I now come to speak on a crucial point which must disprove the past calculation of the speed of light as inaccurate and therefore wrong, with which – only quite incidentally noticed – quantum mechanics in its entirety is immediately reduced to absurdity: Since light does not propagate finitely but infinitely, this must also be calculated. The number propagation constant has the value 3 ∙ 10 EXPn. This coincides –mathematically– with the aforementioned 3 EXP4 – the universal law of nature. And since also neither the time units we usually use to calculate (second, minute, hour, day, etc.) nor the spacial units of measurement (mm, cm, m, etc.) are human inventions or by no means the product of human arbitrariness, the following calculation with regard to the speed of light may also be based on those units of measurement. 

 

Art. 9

Theses without proof are void

Because contrary to the generally represented opinion that this and that bright spark at such and such time defined the now common metric, decimal, hexagonal units of measurement depending on their own deliberations, the heroic achievement of those science pioneers instead consists in the fact that they observed and analyzed the laws of nature with the utmost precision in order to then draw correct conclusions from them and to always provide absolute proof for counter checking the results obtained. That is how – after some errors – they finally came to the correct units of measurement (until Einstein) whose yardstick always and exclusively was and are the laws of nature themselves. First of all, however, a short note concerning natural units of measurement: 1 day has exactly 24 h. This corresponds to factorial 4! (1 ∙ 2 ∙ 3 ∙ 4 = 24). Without a natural synchronous mechanism, there could be no coincidence of the moon to earth and of earth to the sun. I'll leave out the details here for now. Likewise, the unit of measurement "meter" has come about based on successful earth measurement: the forty-millionth part of the earth's circumference or the exact ten-millionth part of the distance from the north pole to the equator. The measuring errors which crept in during the earth measurement (1792 - 1799) by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre and Pierre-François-André Méchain have been corrected long ago and do not really matter, because the planetary synchronicity (orbit of sun, earth, moon, etc.) can only be determined by the exactness of their measured quantities (meter and second). The fact that the complementarity of these natural constants is almost ignored or at least misinterpreted in today's calculations, explains to some extent the global energy supply problem with catastrophic effects on climate and environment. And since both the natural units of measurement used by us and the all-around occurring – and all order-conditioning – 3 EXP4synchronous mechanism complement each other and make it a condition that they are complementary , the aforementioned value of the number propagation constant of 3 ∙ 10 EXPn can also only be subject to this regularity. 

 

Art. 10

Misconception “Speed of light”

This especially with regard to the already mentioned speed of light, which must be exactly 3 ∙ 10 EXP10 m/s for this reason alone, since the number expansion constant (3 ∙ 10 EXPn) and the aforementioned light expansion constant are ultimately one and the same due to the prime-number-coded impact process mechanics of the – all underlying – electromagnetic waves described above. Light, which we cannot see ourselves, but without which we are also not able to see, to live, to exist, is here only a kind of "visualization" of the "wave motion structure" mentioned before. Cf. coincidence meter ↔ second with atomic model ↔ solar system … time (of year) ↔ (outer) space … and so on to infinity. So how did the wrong speed of light measurement come about? The reason why the speed of light is still given incorrectly / not exactly is due to the simple fact that it is still assumed that light radiates from A to B and is measured within this distance on the basis of the "number of light waves". Two crucial fallacies are underlying this theory: 

 

1. So far, light is measured "finitely", which according to the above justification may not be so. 

2. Light intensity decreases with the distance squared. The conventional light-wave measurement thus inevitably becomes inaccurate, which is why light scattering /dilution "cements" the thus lost countability – quantum mechanically. 

 

For this reason, "speed of light measurement" necessarily becomes inaccurate, although the term "speed" itself suggests that light is a kind of locomotion mechanism. But light is a constant form of energy! And energy is the cause of something moved, but not the moved thing itself. 

 

Art. 11

3 EXP4 = 3 in 4 dimensionality

This is where we finally come to the space factor. Because as far as the "4-dimensional" space is concerned in this context ,this is simply explained and proved: 3-dimensionally calculated: „ x ∙ y ∙ z ". 4-dimensionally on the other hand: " x EXP2 ∙ y EXP2 ". In the former case, 3 sides are multiplied together. In the latter, 2 surfaces/planes. So, while the 3-dimensionality is always limited to a limited body with its own center, the 4-dimensionality includes the body in infinite form.