Some first observations of the common experience require an explanation

 Modern researchers explain the rare effects observed in a laboratory and achieve hard measurements and calculations, but they do not explain all these that are usual and we observe directly in nature and which are more revealing.

1) We define something as a cause, while this thing has been created with other causes and is linked to other things that affect it. How do we distin­guish the original cause and the final result, since there is no beginning and ending in rational thought? Is there a sufficient cause? It is a first and global question that disclose a deficiency in sense organs and into the things them­selves.

2) Many separate worlds - whatever their name is – if they serve some­how each other then they constitute a wider set of worlds. Do we start with this reasonable definition of the Universe or not? Has the whole world (of material bodies) been created or not? If the Universe has a principle of exis­tence, then how and when did it begin? Did it start randomly or necessarily? How many possible scripts can we think?

3) Matter everywhere seems to have the same structure. This is one of the first observations in the physical world. Can we leave it inexplicable so easi­ly? Does this observation not give us any information about the cosmos?

4) At the beginning of a cosmological essay some questions were formu­lated which every reasonable person thinks when they simply and very briefly heard that division of matter leads to particles moving at high speeds. How do tiny quantities, which move unceasingly, achieve a more complex and stable form? Motion is not missing from the structure of matter. How can solid things be created from a multitude of material interactions and mi­cro-quantities of matter and fixed ways of connecting materials and thus more complex things with a stable structure be maintained? How are the forces (with which the material elements acquire and maintain their move­ment) balanced? How do forces adjust in tiny dimensions? These would be misplaced and misleading questions if we had not previously thought about the relation between the existence of matter and invisible energy of the "empty" space, and therefore with effects as oscillation, ripple and coordina­tion and other wave phenomena.

5) Balanced structural elements with the known physical and chemical properties are maintained by movements at tiny lengths. These microscopic movements are not only disintegration, launching and scattering. What does it cause matter to be sustained with recurrent movements and have a local­ized and balanced presence? How are the properties of structural elements created? How are particles adjusted to have the right positions and propor­tions and the forces to be applied creatively?

6) In order to be able to interpret the constant existence of the structural elements and their constant capabilities, we must necessarily introduce laws and stable relations or some regulatory authority. The forces must be applied with some measure and be adjusted. Where will we set the seat of the laws and where is the regulator? Are they found in each of the particles sepa­rately?

7) Particles can act on top of each other with laws and stable relations, so that they eventually synchronize with each other and form a stable structure and from this perspective, their structure is the foundation of the wholeness of nature. The tiny structural elements of things include likewise particles (as separate quantities) with a dynamic relation between them. This is a remark that we do not forget and we will need to give a satisfactory explanation of the interdependence of the necessary particles in the structure of matter. Could the particles be so efficiently and quickly combined if the structure of matter originated from the external meeting of many tiny particles?

8) How do the homonymous charged particles of the core (protons) approach so much? Someone with a research spirit can not be content with the empty thinking that an invisible force is mediating. If we talk about such a force, then again the question arises as to how this force is transmitted and is regulated having mathematical precision.

9) Are the smallest parts of things (such as the electron) particles (as discrete and concentrated quantities) or are moments of a wave process? Could microscopic and invisible particles be transmitted as sparks, so quickly and with mathematical precision, without the application of a common force? For example, we change the magnetic field at a fast pace with a certain technique and we can use it to record information (such as on magnetic strips and hard drives). If tiny quantities are detected as particles, does their localization reveal that they are cut off by forces and waves? Do particles have their properties as separate and separately from one another? Are particles with their unstoppable motion self-contained or their movement and interaction are necessary as components to have the qualities that stand out?

10) What is the difference of energy hf when hf expresses the quantity of e/m energy E, compared to the quantity hf that can express mass M = hf / c² of a particle? What differentiates hf as energy and radiation from hf as an equivalent mass and from the kinetic energy 1/2 M c²? Which is the role of speed c² (in natural processes)?

11) We need to find the cause and the conditions on which these minimal particles are present with these properties and not just some of the many possible particles of theoretical calculations. What does it differentiate the energy hf from the energy hf of mass and due to what is the presence of the fixed particles with the specified frequencies and masses? (This "qualitative" transformation, from a time-varying energy (hf = hc/λ) to a spatially constant mass (immobilized, h/cλ) and in particular in particles with known mass­es for the structure of matter is the question about creation of the nature, as formulated in the most apt way).

12) If we start by first observing that everything changes, it should stir some suspicions and make us wonder what is achieved with so much "fluidity" and instability; what is achieved or how phenomena are achieved with stability, periodicity, continuity and fixed properties. This finding of the change, which we see from the smallest up to the largest thing in geometric dimensions and everywhere in the Universe should be suspicious. All the bodies of the world seem to move somewhat. Why is the change in nature so necessary and unavoidable? But, also, there is balance in the cosmos and so it has its reality. Eventually, how are the balance states and the laws, with which things are kept for specific periods of time and creatively and synchronized with each other, achieved? With separate particles, nature would not be so amendable and fast in its processes without timing and balance being lost.

13) How is matter so cleverly distributed to serve existence and evolution in the pre-existing composite material cosmos. (The preceding questions are more appropriately formulated when we get rid of the word of matter with the notion of grain and consider the structural elements of nature to be instantaneous fluctuations in a common amount of energy). Their answers cannot be given without understanding of how the free space participates as a dynamic energy in the renewal of matter, with wave phenomena (in which a number of mathematical relations appear). Are the specifications of each atom in matter random and coincidentally the same specifications everywhere within the vast distances of space? Or is it that the separated atoms of matter are connected and made continuously by a common quantity and by the invisible presence of a common energy? The structural elements are independent of each other or are they still inevitably linked in order to be such as they are? Whoever made this thought and understood the impasse of the independent structural elements, widened the meaning of the substance or needed a substance as a glue for the structural elements.

14) Would the structure of matter be affected and would the chemical properties be changed with the detachment or addition of a particle, if the particle did not bind somehow as wave to an amount of energy? This change in the structural elements could be predicted if they were indivisible particles and an external combination of them? Why is it that matter is not divided endlessly in quantity without its quality being transformed and without some motionless particles remaining? Unstoppable movement, maintaining balance and at high speeds for a variable number of things can be fully explained only by wave motion.

15) It seems, however, that things must exist not as compact and unmodified things, but from the beginning of their creation they are with energy oscillations, interactions and rapid changes. Do they have a substance or not? Are their structural elements, (which we summarize in term of matter), an initial substance or many starting substances? Does the substance coincide with structural elements that are constantly changing? If so, how is this achieved throughout the free space and with a remarkable stability over time? The same structural elements appear over a large area of free space and with the same characteristics. It is also a phenomenon that needs explanation.

In the 20th century, a view of matter was enhanced as "modes of movement in a common quantity" because of a multitude of observations. Physics provides important observations, concepts, and analogies of movement that help us think of structural elements as if they were modes of existence. In this science relations have been worded between phenomena such as time, speed, rhythm or period, length and angle, quantity of energy, and so on. But "ways of being" in what? Do they have a substance? Earlier philosophers attempted amazingly to answer these first questions, with inspiration and imagination. At the other end, with the clear thought of a scientist who describes things and their movement as we all perceive it, these questions have no meaning for his own work. We have come to a theoretical separation of nature with the concepts of free space and matter. This is, because free space "represents" all of nature while matter a few quick moments in the overall presence of nature. What else can be found everywhere in the Universe that regulates the structure of matter, is always connected with it and cooperates in order to have its structure everywhere the same and with the same laws? What else can we find, which is not fantastic and constantly associated with every reality except for the so-called "free" space? Is the empty space (for motion of bodies) there? Yes. It offers the distance for the movement of astronomical bodies. Is it entirely empty? Not exactly. Is it an empty and imaginary pouch or is it something decisive for the structure and principle of matter in a dynamic way? If the free space is thus close connected with bodies, then where else may we detect this connection of it with the structure of matter if not in microscopic dimensions?

16) Is there a theory that rationally and with reference to observable phenomena explains the application of forces at a distance with the same laws throughout the Universe and over time? No theory which describes the creation of things by primitive materials or microscopic particles can give a serious, logical and empirical interpretation of the presence of the same forces and limits everywhere in the Universe.

17) Contrarieties and contradictions in the natural world have been noticed many times in the history of philosophy. Philosophical theories hold that contrarieties lay the foundations for the nature and that something important is related to them. Contrarieties in the nature and in matter are a principle especially in the newer philosophy of so-called "dialectical materialism". You also argue that contradictions or contrarieties are missing from reality and that they are produced by the human mind that is unable to understand how the world works. This view has already been wrote in Vedic philosophy and has been renewed in the idealistic philosophy of Em. Kant. The existence of contrarieties in the natural world is an essential feature of it, and it seems that contrarieties are inherent in everything. The contradictions and contrarieties must also be predicted in a cosmological theory and have a rational explanation. The contrarieties in nature come from and are explained by periodic phenomena and wave processes, as we have interpreted them by the dynamic space and fluctuations of structural elements. Because minimum and maximum values, effects of amplification or weakening, and phenomena of equilibrium by rapid rotation or alternation and fluctuation are created in these natural phenomena. The minimum and maximum limits on physical changes are the mathematical principle of all natural contrarieties!

18) Finally, when is the energy conserved since it changes ceaselessly and it is converted into other forms and so every time we mention a different quantity? What quantity is stable, since no system seems totally isolated in space and time? What is the basic and general principle, which does not allow energy to be lost in the endless convert and labyrinth of its change? We would add still: And all energy not to be converted into a single form and ultimately bring an unbroken stability (such as is the so-called "Thermal Death of the Universe")? Can you give an explanation for the conservation of energy despite its transformations?

19) Why can mathematics be applied successfully to things, express ratios and calculate formulas, changes, sizes, and quantities? Can you give an explanation for the success of numbers when they correspond to the sizes and quantities of nature? Does it help research to call "axiom" or "principle" any law that we leave it without an explanation?

20) How are the laws maintained, since around us there is an inexhaustible variety of things in motion among themselves, with varying forms and forces, and they are still preserved after a natural disaster? Are natural laws applied without natural processes? What is the natural process that keeps the laws? Where is their headquarters?

21) How can something be about 300,000,000 meters away in 1 second time, when we strive by all means to move a few kilometers? Is it the magic movement of light or the physical variance of a propagation carrier (which is already spread out before as a space)? Light can still carry information with infinite detail to all points, either directly or through reflection and with minimal losses! Could it ever make all of them one thing, which moves through space in the familiar way of shifting? These rapid and nano-deviations in the fluctuation of light (with mathematical ratios and laws) are even more surprising than its high speed.

22) Do we perceive the motion as easily when it is rotary, alternating and rhythmical at the fastest speed of nature and in the shortest distances? Would the structural elements have this possibility to combine so fast, creatively and to have a constant structure if they were not modulated by the fastest speeds of motion? Would they have so high speeds and a synchronization perspective without been dissolved, if their particles were not effects of some wave motion? Wave phenomena lay the foundations to nature and we have also learned about speeds and rhythms in its processes that are beyond human imagination.

23) Can electromagnetic waves be a result of acceleration caused by a force, or a result of an instantaneous deceleration? Is there a change of speed in their movement within the same medium?

24) By what natural phenomena or by what general principle is it immediately concluded that speed has a maximum limit? Is this a finding deriving exclusively from experience? Is an upper limit required only to speed? Would things be spaced apart and would be affected in different time intervals if speed did not have a limit? By simple logic, from the outset, the maximum limit in speed had to be a reasonable axiom.

25) One of the simplest questions, which even a child can think of, is connected with a lot of physical phenomena and with technology and is this: Is there an end to the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, yes or no? Logically the questions arise: Where is the limit at the maximum frequency or the minimum period?

26) When a larger number of waves pass at the unit of time, then more energy is transferred to this unit of time and vice versa. The following questions are intelligent: How can large number of waves pass at the time unit (fmax)? Can the number of repetitive waves increase (f∞) in time unit without limit? How much is the minimum Tmin time that the waves can follow each other, and therefore, how much is the maximum amount of Emax energy that can be transmitted thus in the time unit with the highest frequency fmax? How much can wavelength decrease and at the same time the amount of energy, which is transferred, increase? Simply by introducing a limit to the rhythm at which fluctuations are repeated prompts immediate revision of the description of matter.

27) It would not be unnecessary to wonder why the transfer of energy in the tiny world happens in very small quantities (the quanta) and not continually, as it was discovered by Planck and Einstein in the early 20th century. What does it serve or how is it enforced to be such and what does the constant of an angular momentum mean (h = 6.62606 x10^-34 J sec)?

28) If the mass of a moving body increases to infinity when its speed approaches the speed of light, then how the e / m radiation has its maximum speed while the photons have almost no mass? Do photons have infinite mass? This is a contradiction arising from the erroneous application of the known equation (Einstein's).

29) The movement of light is like the movement of bodies with its unique difference in its high speed? Still, we can not let or downgrade the observation, that light moves in many directions simultaneously, while the bodies do not.

30) Galaxies and clusters of galaxies could have extreme differences in their shape and structure. Have you wondered why this is not the case? Their shape adapts to the shape of the ball and the disc and they do not appear in irregular shapes, from the many possible shapes of geometry. In the field of science, such questions are usually pointless and have no priority. They accept some phenomena as data and the worst as coincidental that do not hide anything great.

31) The astronomical bodies move in orbits and curved paths, not in jagged or crooked lines. It is not obvious at all. It needs an explanation with natural phenomena. But, in addition to their movement in orbits around the other astronomical bodies, they themselves have a rotary motion around an imaginary axis. This is one of the most important observations for explanation in a cosmological theory.

32) The gravitational field does not depend on the differences of atoms and on the chemical properties of matter. It has the same intensity regardless of the molecular and atomic composition of the bodies and all bodies are affected by gravity with the same measure. What is the explanation for this indifference and the neutrality of gravitational force? This is not an accidental effect, due to the way, according to which the matter begins from a common quantity. We always detect a connection in the same way between bodies and free space. The free space does not "recognize" the chemical properties that show the world more complex and different (externally between bodies and things in relation to the others).

33) Despite the unbelievable number of astronomical bodies and their unstoppable movement, these form larger subsets and structures in equilibrium together, just as the natural world is preserved and is not self-destroying or dissolving. We can immediately talk about the timing and cooperation of the astronomical bodies, while their distances do not favor this cooperation (which takes a lot of time and mutual action at the right time and for so many celestial bodies). Is their synchronized motion imposed remotely?

34) Why is matter in space not totally concentrated at only one center but distributed throughout the space? Why does the core have an increased mass in the structure of matter and in the galactic subsets unlike the periphery?

35) So why is the space so big and has dimensions for the celestial bodies? Does displacement have an infinite length? What geometry does it have? Does a geometry for something, which is immaterial and incorporeal, have meaning?

36) If matter were independent of the characteristics of free space, had properties defined only externally by its interaction with neighboring matter, its presence were not directly related to the properties of the free space and the free space did not correspond to an amount of energy due to the presence of the completed Universe, then we would make deadlocked questions like these: Since the free space has so long lengths, why is there no more matter and astronomical bodies? Why does gravitational force not concentrate all matter around a center only? Attractive force is not only the product of the masses, regardless of their distance. How is this explained? If the force of attraction gathers matter within the free space and causes the bodies to move, then why is there a distance between astronomical bodies, as even in microscopic material elements? What prevents the approach as an annihilation of distance? These were questions for the naive and uneducated... (By the above questions we have asked in other words in brief: Why is the force of attraction not unlimited?).

37) What is the meaning of elasticity and geometric deformation in an intangible phenomenon such as the free space, which has no visible body properties and the inertia of known matter? Is this a real property or is it a simulation useful in theory, such as the dynamic lines of a magnetic field?

38) By the first questions about the relation of gravity with the structure of matter and electromagnetism, it is: How small may a body be or how little mass can it have such that the gravitational field still exists? Do the atoms of matter have a gravitational field and how necessary is this phenomenon for the structure of matter? (...) The most important, however, for research and for the new cosmological theory, is not the magnitude of the force of attraction, and what it can provoke externally, but with what processes this field is created and how these processes are associated with some other phenomena, which also accompany matter everywhere.

39) Application of forces on the material bodies causes small changes and connection until dissolution. Can a force be applied to a material body in unlimited size and without its structure being destabilized? One could easily conclude that the forces amongst the bodies of the universe are applied so that they are preserved and constitute our visible world. The conclusion comes from the mere finding of their existence.

40) Eventually, by what natural laws and by what physical processes are the ratios imposed that have been locked in the three physical constants c, G and h? Could these have fixed values if physical processes were not regulated in fixed proportions or if there were no limit values for size changes?

41) Where is the so-called Plank mass [Mpl =√(h c /G) = 5.45624 ∙10^-8 kg] which theoretically results from the three physical constants c, h and G? Is it a quantity of mass that really exists in nature and in what form?

42) Why is the Mpl unification mass the inverse of the light speed c but reduced by 16.358 and not exactly the inverse of this marginal speed? Can we remain unsuspected as if it were a random encounter?

43) If the minimum wavelength λmin for the transfer of electromagnetic waves coincides exactly or approaches the elemental quantity h ≈ 6.62606 ∙10^-34, then the range of electromagnetic waves approaches the maximum frequency fmax=10⁴² Hz. That is surprisingly different from the limit, which we usually read in the books of physics and in the specialized books for technicians. Have such waves or fluctuations ever been detected and if they exist in nature, do they belong to the e / m spectrum?

The minimum wavelength λmin for the maximum amount of energy (of the three physical constants Mpl · c²) approaches the quantity h≈10^-34. This approach does not mean that the units of measurement almost merge and certain phenomena are difficult to distinguish?

44) The Hubble's constant tells us about a V-speed that increases at every distance of 1 Mpc. How much is the speed for a distance of 1 m? How much is it for a distance of about the electron radius re = 0.2817936 ∙10^-14 m? A simple conversion to units is required. (...) How much is the speed for a distance of 1m if we set as a constant the velocity resulting according to the scenario about an accelerated body in gravitational field from the gravitational force (if it has mass 1kg at distance 1m from another body 1kg)? Is it a phenomenon of "space expansion" or a phenomenon related to fluctuations of the free space or some unknown relation regarding the propagation of the e / m waves through such a dynamic space? Does the increase in the speed, which we calculate by the increase of the observed distance of galaxies, reach the marginal speed of light c?

45) How much will the Universe expand? Does it expand equally in every direction? Will its expansion ever stop? How will it end up or what happens then (at its older age) according to the Big Bang theory? Only by the rational thought of a complete universe stabilized within a maximum time can scientific answers be given about the beginning and the end of the universe. Rationally, if the universe does not have a beginning and an end because it evolves, then the query about a first beginning and a final end in time cannot be answered. Moreover, the regulatory role of the whole with respect to its parts is then canceled and its parts remain without having a uniform and synchronized arrangement and without a fixed law. There are other theoretical implications for unlimited length in the free space and for the lack of limit in other physical sizes, such as for the quantity of matter and its density. But most of all, there is a problem for the principle of conservation of energy.

46) Is the cosmic background radiation (CMBR) and cosmic redshift an evidence for sudden and total creation?

47) Would it be not more logical, smarter, and consistent for an astrophysicist to reverse the minimum time Tmin - in which it is imagined that the whole cosmos together with time-space was infinitely condensed - and to think of a maximum frequency of 1/Tmin = fmax and so to suppose logically a creation of nature with wave phenomena by the space?

"BIG" QUESTIONS - SHORT ANSWERS - GREAT SURPRISES!

The Theory of a Simultaneous and Complete Universe allows answers to be giv­en even to queries that a child could ask or the queries labeled as stupid. These are questions that seem audacious, not necessary and no one could answer. There are clear, logical and short answers and this shows that the questions were not misplaced. These are solutions surprisingly short, with the usual vocabulary, where there is not a whole book for every query that is written in a language that would be understood only by those who have been educated at the highest level. This still shows how human intelligence is captive in order to respond to the demands of everyday life with difficulties of survival and the dreams of earthly life.

We write down some questions in the end that have been valuated as more difficult or indifferent to the physicists. The researchers of modern cosmology have wondered, how advanced a scientific interpretation of the Universe can be like the one they dream of (Τheory of Everything), when it does not offer the least knowledge to explain the presence of life. Did they wonder why life and soul start from the tiny dimensions rather than the combination of coarse material bodies? (In order to learn how many re­searchers approached it and how much they did, it takes a lot of reading time of a large number of books and treatises).

The following questions: What is the close relation of life with matter? What changes in matter with life and is there life without matter? Does the wholeness of matter have a beginning of creation? Is there a God and what is His relation with life and with the material world? These important ques­tions cannot be answered and explained separated as irrelevant to one anoth­er. We estimate that other questions about a God's behavior and about im­material worlds cannot be convincingly answered if we do not have con­vincing answers to the first questions.

But why do natural conditions lead to the appearance of biological phe­nomena and life, and not to the creation of dead things in more complex ways? A biological entity, which reacts to external stimuli with its elemental intelligence, exists before the stimuli or is it created with them? If intelli­gence is accomplished by external stimuli then how does intelligence exist before external stimuli, since the latter require something with intelligence, even limited with the notion of sense?

Some have been wondering why there is the material world with its un­stoppable movement and not nothing. Is the presence of life on a planet a random phenomenon and is it necessary for nature to exist?

Did the Universe need to be so large (in lengths and in time), with count­less stars and galaxies, that outnumber the grains of sand of a beach? What is the reason for the Universe to be so vast or infinite? The detail in the com­position of things is also difficult to observe and increases the complexity. It is like a divine plan has taken care for obstructing human research!

Why do all things (small and large) have a beginning and an end? Speak­ing in particular about humans and about the other living bodies, we call the beginning of existence "birth" and the cease of existence "death". Have you your own explanation? How much has the usefulness of this explanation been appreciated for cosmological research?

Can a Universe without matter exist? Conversely, could matter be scat­tered without being regulated and organized as a whole? The coexistence of structural elements and Universe as a whole that is beforehand structured requires an explanation.

Is the existence of a God proven through the research of nature and with the observations of the common experience? A case: If the appearance of life from its earliest stages and with most "abstract" biological form reveals the "soul" of the completed Universe limited within space and time (as ex­ternal). Then, in such a case, what else could be such a "universal soul", which exists without an environment, without an external world and without external behavior, which is always the same and common for all the individu­al things? We do not have to call it "God".

We would also like to know: Does life continue somehow after death or without matter? What mental ability gives more choices to humans and with this possibility human life differs from the life of every other animal? Have we been somewhere before we are born, and if so, how have we forgotten? If we are born again in a natural and social environment that is different from that in which we were born and if we are born from different parents, then will we be the same persons? Was it necessary for life to start in such a world of material bodies of such dimensions and vast distances? Is this question about life after death linked somehow with natural laws and could we investigate it? Can some answer or some more likely answers by a cos­mological theory be given?

The site includes many hundreds of web pages, with content developed thoughts, which are difficult to limit to a smaller number of rows or pages, if we want to understand and convince with logic. A web page can contain more than one printed A4 page. Reading these pages from a large screen and even for difficult issues and with new points of view, is already tiring for many readers. Even more discouraging is when the order of web pages is lost and the coherence of thoughts is disrupted...