It should be emphasized that this essay has by no means been written as an instruction manual for the production and application of SILANAT®. This task was carried out in a separate format and is available in its entirety. Rather, the aim of this presentation is to create the basis for understanding on which the actual detailed work is then to be carried out. Finally, a warning applies to this: Misappropriating this innovation for war or terrorist purposes would be fatal, since its process technology unfortunately also enables the construction of new types of bombs + rockets, the explosive power of which is approximately equal to that of a nuclear weapon. The only difference is that such a weapon can be produced much cheaper, easier and faster – and is far less controllable by the international authorities. Conclusion: This novelty can save the world as well as destroy it. All the more important is the secrecy and controllability of this world innovation!
What is Si3N4?
The 3 silicon atoms (green) each have 4 free valences, represented by (black) bond arms. Each of the 4 pentavalent nitrogen atoms (reddish) has 3 bond arms to the silicon atom and 1 free electron pair (small red colons). In realty, however, Si3N4 consists of 4 ∙ 3 nitrogen-silicon bonds and 3 ∙ 4 silicon-nitrogen bonds, i.e. a total of 24 valence electrons plus 8 (4 ∙ 2) tetrahedrally arranged electrons on the outside. Si3N4 thus fulfills the decisive criteria of a noble gas such as neon, argon, krypton, xenon… And since each molecular unit retains its 4 outwardly directed electron pairs even in the solid state, one speaks of a "fossilized noble gas", which means that Si3N4 is considered to be completely non-toxic. Furthermore, it should be noted that the fact that there are 3 silicon atoms for every 4 nitrogen atoms in this molecule (Si3N4 thus consists of a total of 7 atoms) suggests that it is a type of implosion explosive due to this controllable prime number arrangement. Based on this finding, silanes can be burned in the form of a liquid inorganic fuel with pent-up hot air, so that the ≈ 20 % oxygen in the air can only burn to silicon oxide, while the ≈ 80% nitrogen in the air burns the excess silicon atoms to Si3N4.
What is SILANAT®?
The introduction of SILANAT® as a new drive and fuel system means, first of all, that the raw material required for it is much cheaper than in the production of conventional fuels thanks to a new chemical process. At the same time, the environment and the climate are substantially relieved in this process. The basic raw materials are sand and nitrogen. They are first used to interproduce an oil-tar mixture, which is then split into carbon and hydrogen, while the sands are converted into gaseous silicon fluoride. The latter, in turn, is converted into crystalline silicon with the help of aluminum granules (also thermally). The silicon obtained in this way is extremely inexpensive and of highest quality, even by today's standards. The “interproduced” oil-tar mixture is itself a solid hydrocarbon that releases hydrogen at high heat. This in turn regulates pyrolysis. The resulting excess gas is converted into three-phase electricity or fed into natural gas grids, which in the case of SILANAT® production also opens up new climate-friendly source of energy in general. Last but not least, silicon, a chemical element similar to carbon, doesn’t produce gaseous dioxide, but burns with the nitrogen in the air to form silicon nitrogen (Si3N4). This type of combustion produces no hot gases other than clear water vapor. So, the efficiency of SILANAT® is over 90 %. This is partly due to the fact that the atmosphere is not heated during the combustion process.
By comparison, the efficiency of burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil, etc. is between 10 – 30 %. This low efficiency is due, on the one hand, to the fact that carbon-containing compounds react with the oxygen in the air and the resulting hot CO2 also heats up the nitrogen, which makes up the largest part of the earth's atmosphere, and, on the other hand, the energy calculation formula used here contains incorrect formula variables. I will deal with the last point separately in a moment. In any case, combustion with fossil fuels always requires a chimney or exhaust system that unnecessarily heats up the earth's atmosphere. To escape this trap, there is now “SILANAT®”, which namely contains no carbon at all, especially since it reacts exclusively with nitrogen in the air… Additional advantages:
Larger heating systems for high-rise or other buildings
Replacement of nuclear power stations to generate electricity
Use in Aeronautics and space
Maritime and rail use
The development of new engines for automotive
Scientific background explanation
[ … ] In order to introduce ourselves "gently" (in terms of understanding) to the new combustion method based on silicon and nitrogen (SILANAT®), I'm afraid I'm going to have to elaborate a bit more. For this purpose, critical errors in general natural science must be revealed, since only by correcting these scientific misconceptions can the production and use of this completely new fuel be understood. Since we are dealing here with the production and industrial application of an essentially highly explosive fuel that absolutely must be "domesticated", Einstein's equation "E = m ∙ c EXP2" is to be used first, which is then to be checked against Planck's quantum of action "E = h ∙ f". Finally, also in the latter equation the (wrong) speed of light "f" has been set as the multiplier with the Planck constant "h", the amount of energy of which is thus far below the actual energy. So far, so good! The fact that the Planck-Einstein equation "h ∙ v = m ∙ c EXP2" resulting from both formulas nevertheless somehow works in practice does not change the fact that the critical quantity in it, namely the speed of light, is incorrectly specified and thus "cobbled in" on all sides. This is like playing with nuclear fire (as I will show below), which has been "overlooked", all too often with horrific consequences.
In plain language, therefore, 2 equations are linked here which both contain identical errors and seem to work only because of this "error coincidence". Nevertheless, the result is wrong, and quite significantly! Because by setting the speed of light 207,542 m/s lower than in reality (the mathematical proof can be found below) and by squaring it with Einstein's equation, it can be calculated how high the energy difference is, provided that the energy conversion is 100 % (which of course is not the case). Finally, that difference of the factor "c EXP2" = 124,482,126,318,240 (m/s)EXP2. For a mass of 30 kg, for example, the energy difference amounts to 3,734,463,789,547,000 joules, which corresponds to an energy quantity of almost 900 kilotons (kt) of TNT. As a comparison: the Hiroshima bomb released 20 kt of TNT. Of course, this calculation is based on the (purely theoretical) assumption that the energy difference of just under 900 kt TNT would come about if all 30 kg of matter were converted 100 % into energy. Since this is by no means the case in practice, this value may nevertheless be understood as an indication of how critical the effect lever or the extent of this source of error, which is minor at first glance, turns out to be. But in order to show this defectiveness in the energy theory, I must first prove it as such also mathematically, which is done by way of the following (cursory) presentation.
First of all, however, one has to keep in mind that all mechanics and energy theory, on which our civilization supply is based without exception, is based on the aforementioned equation/s, the critical quantity of which (the light expansion constant)EXP2 is incorrectly calculated and used. The extent of this source of error has long since become visible, not only in every energy supply problem across the globe. As a simple example: A chimney fire suddenly starts to smoke as soon as the lever for the fresh air supply is adjusted, even by only a tiny amount. In a broader sense this simply equates to the much-too-high exhaust gases from combustion engines. In other words: if the correct or real energy formula/s are used, there should be virtually no "smoke" at all. Just as a "natural" fire neither soots nor smokes, if and as soon as its conditions are optimized! We have all experienced the luminosity of a clear flame of fire at some point. In simpler terms: The light expansion constant, which has been set too low by 207,542 m/s, not least also causes the climate/environment-polluting and health-damaging exhaust gases from all the so incorrectly used fuel engines. The fact that conventional fuels can still be used does not change the fact that the "lever effect" used here as a basis is flawed, which is why our world has long been suffering from respiratory diseases, which equates to a global environmental disaster (cf. example: smoking fireplace in the living room).
I will briefly go into the, as it were, health and environmental pollution/threat, (partly) caused by way of the supply of nuclear energy below. What I would like to emphasize all the more, however, is the unique, perhaps even the only chance we have to solve and remedy the "energy problem" threatening civilization, insofar as the possibility exists from the outset, by means of the new SILANAT® fuel, thanks to the correct energy formula quantity c = 3 ∙ 10 EXP10 m/s, to fill a 100 % CO2-free combustion engine with silicon nitrogen-based fuel and to be able to use it everywhere and in every respect. Of course, this does not work if the energy formula is applied incorrectly, as it were (= with a too low light expansion constant), since SILANAT®, unlike conventional fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.), can only be produced and used if all the calculation variables required for this are set and used 100 % accurately. Because in contrast to petroleum-based fuels, which allow a high tolerance for inaccuracies during combustion (to the obvious detriment of humans and the environment), the correct application of the energy formula is absolutely essential in the production and use of the silicon-nitrogen-based fuel SILINAT®, as otherwise it will either just stink, smoke, soil, or detonate like a bomb. This is due to the physical as well as chemical properties inherent in this unique compound. (for more about this, please refer to the attached SILANAT® manufacturing specification). We remember the above-mentioned approx. 900 kt of TNT as an exemplary indicative difference value between the actual and incorrect light expansion constants. The point is this: In spite of or precisely because of the indispensable necessity of not being able to rely on any fault tolerance, as in the case of diesel, gasoline, etc., the SILANAT® energy efficiency ratio is all the more efficient and the environmentally harmful emission of exhaust gases is lower. Cars, ships, planes, machines, factories, etc. accordingly have much higher performance with much lower fuel consumption and, at the same time, less impact on the environment.
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:
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."
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:
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.
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" = 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
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.
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. 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.
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:
So far, light is measured "finitely", which according to the above justification may not be so.
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.
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.
After all, space and time are unlimited anyway and thus difficult for us to comprehend, making our imagination for the 4-dimensional difficult to get used to. And since transverse electromagnetic waves are transported infinitely exactly by the prime number structure coding everything in nature (if one detail were not correct or were no longer correct, this would soon mean chaos for everything else), the transport mechanisms of the electromagnetic impact processes in the 3-dimensional space are compellingly based on the arrangement / ordering of the reciprocal prime numbers, from which the proof results that the gas-filled space in which we live and perceive and claim the 3-dimensionality is at the same time a reciprocal number range. Thus, the 3D space is coded by reciprocal prime numbers, which makes it – geometrically – the inversion of that 4-dimensional space, which in turn is subject to an eternal = infinite control order by the universal prime number code. To simplify it again: we are not talking about an "additional" 4D-space, but about the infinite total space, in which countless 3D spaces are embedded based on what is for us an unimaginably complex – prime-number-structurally – mathematical order. A kind of "endless placenta" from which all life forms/species grow.
Order is never relative
CONCLUSION: if everything 3-dimensional were not also synchronized in the context of an (eternal) 4-dimensional overall control, very soon the (finite) 3D-spaces would also fall prey to the chaos, irrespective of whether one is so well designed for itself. In other words: 4-Dimensionality is the very big "backup," because of which everything being is perfectly interwoven in a multiplex and at the same time a universally connected, indeed, mutually interdependent and complementary endless structure. Its basic pillars are called space ∙ time ∙ numbers! Wherever attempts are made to ignore or undermine this primordial basic order, – local + temporary – damage occurs. "Mother earth" has shown us this punitively at all times! This does not detract at all from the infinite basic order behind all this. After all, it is infinite and certainly cannot be changed by "finite arrogance + stupidity". In the Old Testament, God's name means "Adonai" = "The Eternal Being", whereas "Devil" (Diabolos) means "Troublemaker". How fitting! Now that we have understood, explained, and mathematically derived the basic laws of nature, we are in a position to understand the laws behind the producibility and applicability of the new fuel made of silicon and nitrogen:
SILANAT® doesn’t allow inaccuracies
The critical sources of error in energy theory should now have been pointed out. The mathematical proof was at least sufficiently provided. This was done on the basis of my exposition concerning universal number connections of all substance that forms us, carries us and surrounds us. This is the only way to identify the reason why all nuclear reactors operate at such high risk and require constant recalculations of nuclear physics. Otherwise, they could blow up. If the correct quantities were used here too, nuclear power plants would be able to run like clockwork "forever" and would not pose any risk whatsoever. The situation is similar to the nuclear waste disposal problem. Not to mention the global energy supply problems resulting from the same source of error! (cf. the attached calculations). If we ever want to get a grip on the energy problem, using the correct formula quantities is a mandatory prerequisite. This is all the more true because it is the actual or only reason why no one has yet succeeded in producing an industrially usable fuel from a nitrogen-silicon compound. So far, it has simply been a matter of the uncontrollable energy that would be generated. We remember the enormous lever in terms of energy difference due to incorrect use of the speed of light (299,792,458 instead of 3 ∙ 10 EXP10 m/s).
A note upfront: Most fuels of our modern industrial age are based on the combustion of oxygen. The most common "waste gas" is ultimately burnt carbon (CO2). Whether the latter is actually considered a major climate killer or should rather be weighted as an atmospherically scarce resource, since carbon is sometimes the most important building material for our already dying (starving) vegetation, I leave open, as such an assessment is not the purpose of this short essay. Oxygen itself is the most abundant element on earth, although it makes up only ≈ 20 % of the earth's atmosphere (CO2 ≈ 0.04 %). Nitrogen, on the other hand, occurs predominantly in gaseous form and makes up nearly 80 % of our atmosphere. Finally we come to silicon, the second most abundant element on earth. The following can therefore be anticipated with regard to SILANAT®: Since we are dealing with a new combustible fuel, its gaseous resource is crucial. And since silicon, along with oxygen, makes up the largest proportion of the earth's crust (≈ 25 %), it could hardly be better suited as a basic raw material and new type of climate-friendly fuel, together with nitrogen (≈ 80 % of the earth's atmosphere) as an aid to combustion.
Above all, however, silicon -in contrast to carbon- has the special property of forming a highly stable nitride compound, which in the case of the silicon(tetra)nitride compound (Si3N4) is, inter alia, possible by the action of molecular nitrogen on silicon powder. The temperature required for this, subject to the otherwise correctly applied parameters, is approx. 90°C. Normally, up to 3,000°C is required for such a compound under the influence of N, which can then, however, also lead to bomb-like explosions. Already in the course of this low-temperature production lies a far-reaching USP for our new fuel. For the production of Si3N4, desert sand (SiO2) can be used as the raw material source from which to obtain pure silicon in the first and simplest step. (Compare the respective attached patent specifications).
Higher silanes from this pure silicon are now prepared (such as under repeated modified Mueller-Rochow synthesis with silyl chlorides), whereby those silyl chlorides could either be silicone chemical waste or could be obtained from mono- and/or disilane. The higher silanes thus added are subsequently burned -releasing energy- with air to form water and silicon nitride (Si3N4). The silicon nitride is converted into ammonia (NH3) with the formation of silicates, in order to be split into nitrogen + water in the further course of combustion, thus closing the nitrogen cycle. Silicon (Si) is located just below carbon (C) in the periodic table of chemical elements and is consequently very similar to the latter. However, the hydrogen compounds of silicon have some differences to hydrocarbons. Thus, it should be primarily considered that di-/tri-/tetrasilane are self-igniting in air. This makes it all the more important to use higher silanes, such as penta-/decasilane, the producibility of which was proven as early as 1968 at a Cologne university. The critical factor is that higher silanes become increasingly stable with increasing chain length, so that heptasilane, for example, is no longer self-igniting from room temperature, making higher silanes much safer to handle, "less toxic" and, above all, – good as – diesel identical. In short, the basic prerequisites for producing/using higher silanes as a new basic raw material are scientifically-technically given, although incomplete (which I now know how to remedy –relatively easily). Individual process steps for this are known in principle and can be found in textbooks or, here and there, in patent specifications. It is therefore all the more surprising that this fuel, which has actually been available for over ½ a century and is more climate-friendly, has not yet been used. However, this is due to the problem I described at the beginning of this article, namely that conventional science is wrong in many sensitive areas, so this fuel innovation cannot be applied industrially unless the above-mentioned Planck-Einstein equation is used as a basis.
All damage is due to errors
What this innovation lacks in scientific input is the correct correlation + combination of the natural constants h ∙ v = m ∙ c EXP2 listed in the equation above. If I put in, e.g., the –actual– speed of light as the co-deciding quantity (3 ∙ 10 EXP10 m/s instead of the erroneously assumed 299,792,458 m/s), then already this correction has an exponential effect on the effect that the forces which are all interdependent for our new fuel and all here complementary influencing factors in closing exactly that gap, the inaccuracy of which nobody has so far been able to determine. "Oh well", is the excuse, "nature just isn't a measuring cup." But exactly that, and to a tee, is what it is! I wanted to show this with insight into the individual sources of error of applied science. Above all, any form of quantum mechanics must be radically banished from this new fuel process of ours! A small tip: As erroneous as they may be, the previous achievements are rewritten in the correct passages by simply exchanging the respective correct values for the still inaccurate and therefore incorrect ones. Then it is round and coherent. Then it works! For as everything in nature can only exist on the basis of an all-embracing, error-free, highly precise order and complementarity and must not be off by even a hair's breadth in any detail, complete perfection is also required here in particular, since otherwise – with all the nitrogen and silicon abundance on earth – a faulty combination could lead us to bomb-like detonations. But please do not be afraid, because if all factors are used correctly, the production/application is again as safe as the air we breathe every day. I elucidated this using the nitrogen cycle described above, where it was a matter of combustion-induced splitting into water + nitrogen. Yes, even more, the thus "ejected" nitrogen is supplied by precipitation to the soil, where it is so urgently needed as fertilizer, without harming the environment + climate. Quite the opposite!
As a final remark on the producibility and applicability of SILANAT®, the following comparison from nature is given. A phenomenon that everyone is familiar with: The air is sticky and the sky eerie. Dark squadrons of clouds gather above us – silence! First raindrops. Thunder. The battle begins. … Glistening, billion-volt lightning discharges transform the atmosphere into an awe-inspiring spectacle of hell. This happens several times a year. Thank God. Because without these kinds of thunderstorms, life on earth would not be possible. The reason: the plants need a constant supply of nitric nitrogen fertilizer for the formation of their (19 +1) amino acids.
They get the nitrogen they need for this from the air, because otherwise there will be no nitrates in the soil. Hence the need for lightning: The nitrogen bound up in the atmosphere opens its triple bond when there are enough static electrons and reacts (with the aid of the energy in the lightning) with oxygen to form nitrogen oxides. The thunderstorm washes out the resulting nitric acid and thus transports the nitrogen compounds into the soil. The plants are thus regularly supplied with nitrogen and are therefore able to produce amino acids in the first place. However, this natural miracle is only possible because the unique triple bond of the nitrogen molecule remains stable against all other chemical influences. It must be said that there are only 3 elements in total that can form single, double and triple bonds: Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen. With regard to silicon, the latter can only react with nitrogen only singly, since silicon itself cannot form a triple bond. Consequently: Silicon burns with nitrogen! Thank God there is no silicon in the atmosphere, because otherwise the world would "blow up" during a thunderstorm. The unimaginable lightning discharges are thus the result of an otherwise impossible opening of that unique, stable triple bond of nitrogen in the air. The forces behind this event are so enormous that it is still not possible to measure them in reality or even to use them. This release of energy already gives an idea of the tremendous power that is concentrated in nitrogen. With regard to the energy expected from the combustion of nitrogen with silicon, we thus hopefully now recognize the need to apply the energy formula(s) using the real = correct light expansion constant. Let us finally sum things up as follows:
Silicon hydrogens in the form of silane oil react with air in the combustion chamber of a SILANAT®-powered engine, initially generating increased temperatures. The nitrogen in the air flowing in (content in the air is approx. 80 %) then reacts with silicon in the silicon hydride, which results in the formation of silicon (tetra) nitride (Si3N4). The rest is then split into water + ammonia, the former being transported into the soil by the latter, similar to thunderstorms, where the plants are constantly waiting for nitrates to form their (19 + 1) amino acids. A first and unique win-win situation for energy generation and environmental support at the same time! Finally, as far as the silicon nitride is concerned, this is a “petrified noble gas” the hardness of which is approximately equal to that of a diamond. The industrial benefits of this waste are obvious. In conclusion: SILANAT® has three USPs:
Optimal energy value creation;
Environmental relief and environmental aid;
A by-product for industry as a diamond substitute.
However, in order to determine the correct mixing, pressure, temperature, rotation, and centrifugal force ratio in exact coincidence with the maximum energy efficiency based on expected and required energy, and thus to be able to burn the actually highly explosive SiN compound on "optimum flame", the usual Einstein energy formula must be applied and its result then counter-checked with the aid of the Planck-Einstein equation. The fact that the real light expansion constant (3 ∙ 10 EXP10 instead of 299,792,458 m/s) must now be used as a basis finally seems to make sense! [ … ]
LP, 21. 8 '21
This modern measurement model illustrates very well the measurement inaccuracy of the so-called "speed of light".