A COMPLETE UNIVERSE & TIME ON RATIONAL THINKING

The cosmological theory on " a Complete Time and Relativity of Energy " has been formulated with usual vocabulary and it began rational is expounded according to an empiric ascertainment, which a lot of philosophers have made it from ancient years and also is not accidental. Modern researchers were forced to make this philosophical ascertain­ment in last century in order to they describe the Universe with the theory of Big Explosion. Experience shows us that exist resemblances and common elements in things of in-depth space and time. This means, that through observation in most near things we can educe information about the most distant things from us and about not visible things. (In an other relative work I explained easily this our cognitive possibility and this work accompanies and supplements the cosmo­logical theory).

When we place the question about the beginning of the Universe and substance of things, we can not avoid certain general notions. We use words such as the Universe, space and distance, time, matter, beginning, finish, movement, action etc. Certain terms emanate from newer discoveries or were differentiated in course of time. Some words such as are gravity, energy, radiation, field, particle, matter in more detail about its structure and many other key-words.

These are words, that from first thinking do not appear with the all relations, that notions have one with other. They did not result theoretically / rationally and did not formulated fast all together after a growth in some theory or in head of only one thinker. The notion of these words formulated by accidental way and priority. They were used with their most obvious traits and acquired more meanings in course of time. Same as the bigger part of the vocabulary of our language.

it is a rule in sciences begin with a convenient datum a foolishness, that some things are not related from each other. This happen, because most of discoveries were accidental, as experts themselves admit it. It is human partiality, we predispose that things has not relations, after we distinguished and were taught extracting. A usual case is lost precious time until someday scientists the opposite  ascertain with their enthusiasm, after an accidental (again) discovery or observation of newer phenomena. Also it is a same and usual case, experts describe and explain some relations in field of their speciality and in same moment they use some words, that alone them lead in other fields of knowledge and presuppose knowledge outside from their speciality. Separate example of such a case, we find in modern physics. A lot of scientific discoveries that accidental happened could have resulted by reasonable consequence and if we had begun from some different observations.

Innumerable related words express the same thing from an other optical corner, with different relations and behavior. Mum for the child, grand mother to the grandchild, girl to her own parents, woman to the man, person to the animal kingdom, mother by a different word. When we have watched how one and same thing acts change with different ways, to be transformed and pass from various phases and different behave under other conditions, then the different words they do not tangle us. Rather, different words reveal to us possible divergences and their potential interconnections. When, however, we have named differently and accidentally a multitude of things, without previously we have observed (carefully) all their ways where are connected, developed and change, then the words reflect delusions. Similar as thousands mirrors that reflect what we want to approach. Perhaps, the meaning of these words is enough in order to we determine something recognisable and their name helps in the record keeping. However, their meaning unfoundedly is selected, it is an extract and causes wrong impressions, non-existent oppositions, foolish queries and twisted opinions.

This variety of vocabulary and the thin differences of meanings can inspire the man of letters, poets, writers and philosophers and offer an exit for their expressi­veness. However, variety of vocabulary cause confusion and mani­pulation for reliable compose of our thoughts and for the consistent formulation. Imagine some grammatical and syntactic rules, how much irregular used for theo­retical research, when they allow to express as one concrete thing, something that really exists only as energy or as complicated phenomenon of many things (an example is the soul and life). According to grammatical and syntactic rules inanimate things separated in male and female gender (example of many languages) and irrelevant or extreme dissimilar things have a similar name.

One from the more especial examples about inconsistency with lightly use of notions in Science is the use of term “force” with implied infinite speed of its transmission. In this particular case, we see not only unfounded acceptance for infinite speed. We still see, that experience can deceit us, when a concept of a term emanates from unexplained phenomena and when phenomena are not easy to measured. Physics fell in adventures from the lightly acceptance of infinite speed in applying of physical force. Scientists discovered this mistake after delay and with surprise, that was blindly acceptable over centuries. Formulas and calculations relative to exertion of force are not reliable for the correct description  of all phenomena, if speed or acceleration is infinite and still they are corrected. 

In the cosmological theory (in first phase) of a “Finished Time - Complete Universe” happens this following simple and astonishing ascertainment. When we look carefully in few general words (totality, parts, change, relation, cause, result, time, distance etc) and we try to understand in more detail what these words mean, then we reveal some important and suspect coincidences. These different and ostensibly irrelevant usual words can be described more analytically and be replaced by some other expressions and formulation, with necessary relations and not randomly.

Somebody would say, that with this thinking we cannot find some relation be­tween of things, which we did not know it already.[1] When, however, we begin analysis of notions of few expressions and concepts and again we connect them in basis of the wider definition of the Universe (as a total of things from all times), then we reveal some relations and traits, which had not passed from our mind. We conclude known theories and explanations through other path of search, we resolve unsolvable problems and coincide with empiric obser­vations. After a long-lasting treatment and unfold of formulations, some coincidences, clues and rational consequences lead to conclusion, that rather it is improbable all these concepts are accidentally connected. Usually, when coinci­dences are excessively many and in difficult cases, and all pieces suit, then we suspect some reason. The explanation for the coincidence and not accidental fitting is close to what we name “truth”.

 Humans can think and formulate opinions about things that exceed their experience, for most distant, biggest and smallest, about invisible things even the Universe. It's not accidental. The philosophers were not so much deluded and headstrong, as much as they appears from their inconsistencies, errors and from their difference views. On the contrary, it is usual in scientific thinking to happen some ascertainments for a smaller number of things than as much as it is allowed or some relations between things are discovered, for which we had predisposed that things are not connected. Sequence, priority and time where a lot of scientific discoveries happened were not unavoidable and only from a sudden intuition of few pioneers.

The discovery of resemblances and common elements in the entirety of things does not astonish the philosophers. The theoretical thought about the existence of structural elements is not an accidental thought. On the contrary, for a lot of researchers, theorists and thinkers, it was something expected, from ancient years. We find many attempts for rational description of Universe from the most ancient years. Of course, some of these led to astonishing concepts and appro­ached in modern discoveries.

When we speak about the total of things and attempt to give total explanations, we will be not reported in separate and multifunctional things, where are found near us and nowhere elsewhere. That is to say, it not helps us and it will not be the shortest way if we think about some plants, specifications of some cars, geophysical map of earth, about the city where we live. The history of human knowledge has revealed certain phenomena and elements, which are widespread and more frequent means in nature. These are found in larger number of things and in longer time intervals, for example as the structure of chemical substances are.

The cosmological theory of Simultaneous and Complete Universe is still one such rational attempt by an original thinking, which exploited some latter discoveries of Physics. Seeing that description for the totality of things and general expla­nations are reported in their common elements and phenomena, we should use abstract notions and common expressions, as are time, effect, change and whichever other are essential in order to we think in report and condensed for many related things. It is predictable, the general notions that describe common elements and phenomena are met notions in specific area of Physics or even other sciences. Nothing strange does not exist in this coinci­dence and this indi­scriminate and overall view is not absurd or antiscientific.

A summary knowledge on the structure of matter, also some acquaintance in Physics is a requisite in order somebody to watches and understand the cosmo­logical theory of the Simultaneous and Complete Universe. Apart from the familiarization with philosophy, we needs this briefing in order to we can think more exempted from some biases, that have taken form from habit of our daily experience. Therefore, whoever wants learns and watches the theory on a Simul­taneous and Complete Universe (an alternative title of the theory) needs knows elementary theory from Physics. It need yet, somehow to imagine the structure of matter and the different things, as if they were compo­sitions by similar constitutive and dynamic elements (and not only grossly, on the surface and piecemeal).[2]

Konstant G. Nikol

[1] I have explained this possibility of revealing relations of things through the analysis of few notions, in an other brief survey. See here:...

[2] Sensory organs do not show us immediately all details and manners of connection between things. Often things show us combinations and traits that are not their necessary elements and features concerning to some other things. What we observe in the information of the senses is also a mental function.