Steady State Models of the Universe
and their Authors
Albert Einstein (03.14.1879 - 04.18.1955). In 1917 Einstein
had introduced the static model of the Universe, which was eternal in time
and finite in space, but it had no borders. In his equations Einstein wrote
the additional cosmological lambda-coefficient as the additional constant
under integration. In 1922 Friedman had received the solution for non-static
world. In a several years Hubble had published the first results about discovered
red shifts in the spectrums of distant galaxies, and it was possible to
explain these red shifts as the consequence of the expanding of the Universe.
In 1931 Einstein refused the lambda coefficient and entered to the camp
of the supporters of the expanding Universe, which has the Beginning. Thus,
Albert Einstein is one of authors of the Steady State Universe, and he could
be added to the camp of supporters of this model, but only with the limited
period of his life.
Erich Regener. He had predicted (1933) the intergalactic
space temperature (2.8K) much earlier and much more precise than Gamow.
Walther Nernst. His model (1937) is static and homogeneous
in large scale. He suggested the equation to explain the light absorption
by cosmic dust or something similar, due to decrease of the luminous quantum
of energy, resulting in the reddening of the photon: -d(hn)
= H(hn) dt. At the page
History
of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson we can read the
following: "...In fact, as early as 1921, I predicted implicitly the existence
of red shift, based on my new conception..." Consequently, Walther Nernst
predicted the red shift before the paper of Friedman had appeared, and he
had discussed the cosmic background radiation much earlier than Gamow did
that.
Fred Hoyle. (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) He collaborated
with Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold and
in 1948 they published two papers about the steady-state cosmology. Fred
Hoyle introduced a negative-pressure C-field into Albert Einstein's equations.
Steady-state model were eternal but needed the constant creation of the
new born matter.
Fred Hoyle straggled against the model of expanding Universe having the
beginning. Laughed and shouted: "Big Bang!" Thus the Big Bang theory acquired
its name. And in 1972 after a regrettable dispute and after Hoyle's premature
retirement from Cambridge in 1972 he found himself in isolation from the
broad academic community. His later scientific writings, which continued
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, dealt with such topics as Stonehenge, panspermia,
Darwinism, paleontology, and viruses from space. But he never lost his interest
in cosmology: His book A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static
Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, coauthored with
G. Burbidge and Narlikar, appeared in
2000.
Louis de Broglie.
Max Born.
P.A.M. Dirac (1902-1984). Big numbers.
Hannes Alfven ( 1908 - 1995). Eric J. Lerner wrote at
the page http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p13.htm:
"...Alfven was the founder of the modern field of plasma physics, the study
of electrically conducting gases. Alfven's ideas and research in studying
the behaviour of plasma are routinely used in the many applications of plasma
physics, as is shown by the many concepts that bear his name- Alfven wave,
Alfven speed, Alfven limit and so on. But Alfven's most significant contribution
to science is his daring reformulation of cosmology, his critique of the
Big Bang, and his posing of an alternative, the plasma universe-an evolving
universe without beginning or end. Alfven was recognized for his contributions
to the foundation of plasma physics by being awarded the Nobel Prize in
Physics in 1970. But his broadest contributions to cosmology and to the
human view of our universe are not yet fully appreciated, since they still
conflict with the dominant orthodoxy of the Big Bang and the mathematical-mythological
approach to cosmology. In time, however, Alfven will be viewed as the Galileo
of the late twentieth century…"
Finlay-Freundlich. He had noticed (1954) different types
of stars, belonging to the same nebula give somewhat different red shifts.
He proposed the hypothesis that light passing through deep layers of intense
radiation field, loses energy - perhaps due to photon-photon interaction
- and that the energy loss is proportional both to the density of radiation
field and to the length of path of the light through the radiation field.
Nikolay Kozyrev. (08.20.1908 - 02.27.1983) He developed
the model of Ever Young Universe. He had explained the energy sources, as
the process of time absorption: the time is active; the space is passive.
He had discovered the gas eruption on the Moon; predicted the volcanic activity
of big planet's satellites.
Jayant Narlikar. He had solved (1977) the field equations
for particle masses as a function of time, i.e. m=m(t). Jayant
Narlikar had collaborated with Fred Hoyle and with Halton Arp.
Halton Arp. He discusses about the Le Sage gravity.
Halton Arp had found several close objects with very different redshifts.
He uses the idea of Jayant Narlikar about the cause of red shift. At the
page
http://haltonarp.com/Articles/PDF/is_physics_changing.pdf he wrote:
"…Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects
which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are required. But now
what is the consequence of having low mass fundamental particles? It is
simply that low mass electrons transitioning between atomic orbits will
emit and absorb lower energy photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared
to atoms with heavier particles"... On his web-site
http://haltonarp.com/ we can find: "Quasars
are born with high redshift and evolve into galaxies of lower redshift"
"In the late 1950's when the prestigious Armenian astronomer, Viktor
Ambarzumian was president of the International Astronomical Union
he said that just looking at pictures convinced him that new galaxies were
ejected out of old."
Andre Koch Torres Assis. He develops the model of steady
state Universe without expansion. His Universe is infinite in space and
eternal in time. He advocates the hypothesis of "tired light" about the
red shift of light emitted by distant galaxies. A.K.T Assis explains the
gravity force as the Weber-like force. The absorption of gravity leads to
the exponential decay in the gravitational potential. The details one can
find here: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/
The excellent history of predictions of cosmic background radiation is published
by A.K.T Assis and M.C.D Neves “History
of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson.” Look also: “The
redshift revisited.”
Eric J. Lerner. In the article
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/lernerpaper4.pdf
he writes:
… The implications of this work are fundamental to our understanding of
the universe and its history. If the universe is not expanding and the FRW
model is invalid, there was no big bang and the general cosmological model
will have to be replaced with another approach. There are alternative cosmological
models that can explain major features of the universe such as large scale
structure, the light element abundances and the cosmic background radiation
without a big bang or an expanding universe. For example, plasma cosmology,
which assumes an evolving universe without an origin in time has provided
such explanations and accurate predictions of new phenomena…
C. Johan Masreliez. The excellent book about the Scale-Expanding
Cosmos http://www.estfound.org/thebook.pdf.
His Universe is equivalent at any time epoch. The virtuous math with tensors
one can find here: http://www.estfound.org/presenting.htm
Nikolay Zhuck. He has developed the new model of the
stationary (non-expanding) Universe with 3D space and 3D time on the basis
of fundamental physics laws generalization. He has proved their adequacy
for the real nature description and applied tasks solution. His papers are
freely accessible on http://spacetime.narod.ru
(International Physical Journal "Spacetime & Substance"),
http://quazars.narod.ru (Zhuck N.
A., Moroz V.V and A.M. Varaksin. "Quasars and the large-scale structure
of the Universe") and http://infobank.h10.ru/
(articles in Russian).
What is of common in these models?
The main goal to create these cosmology models, probably, was the desire
of the authors to put into correspondence the theory with the observations
and logic, and to wipe the religious tendencies out of cosmology. The authors
of these models deeply understand the Big Bang (BB) theory and it's contradictions.
The BB hypothesis had become a dogma, supported by religious social circles.
BB theory is stated in the textbooks as if it is absolutely true and was
repeatedly tested. Astronomy teachers and professors must teach this dogma
to their students even if they doubt in this hypothesis. They must lie about
the first seconds and minutes of the Universe, about quark-gluon plasma
and other ravings of a madman.
An Open Letter to the Scientific
Community was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. Thirty-three
researchers, well known in the world, signed it. Hundreds of reasonable
scientists had joined themselves to the appeal. The Steady State models
have one main common feature, - there was no divine beginning of the Universe.
The act of creation is canceled. But in the different models this goal is
achieved differently.
In the model of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold the Universe expands, but in order
to make the Universe unchangeable in large scales, the authors concluded,
that the new matter constantly is created, thus that average density of
the Universe remains constant. It was a premature deed to throw this theory
away. Who knows, may be tomorrow, we will find that the tightly closed bottle
of water contain one atom more, then in contained yesterday. It is evidently,
that this model violates the law of matter conservation, but the BB hypothesis
does also violate it. Consequently, these both hypotheses must remain hypotheses.
The time will show, which of them is the better.
Some models, mentioned above, I would name dynamical and some of them
- kinematical. Let's look at first at the dynamical models.
Einstein's static model with cosmological term. Is it erroneous? I think,
that the cosmological term corresponds to the cosmic background radiation.
The light particles bring the straight pressure upon the ponderable mater
of the Universe, and they bring the normal pressure upon the curved space
metric of the Universe. The cause of this is hidden in the fact that light
particles are forced to turn their direction constantly because of local
and global curvature of the closed Universe. If Einstein would catch this
idea in time, he would be able to predict both the cosmological red shift
and the cosmic background radiation.
It seems that the models of Nikolay Zhuck and A.K.T Assis are dynamical
and alike in some features. Nikolay Zhuck speaks about the finite radius
of gravity interactions, comparing them with the Ukava-like forces. A.K.T
Assis speaks about gravity forces as the Weber-like forces. In both models
we can see the exponential "decay of the forces". I try to understand this
decay as follows. Let's mention the Dirac's big numbers, the Mach's Principle.
And let's imagine the latticed space-time. Let defect links of the space-time
lattice jump from line to line and draw the quasi-closed circumferences.
Proton will be drawn completely at the period equal to it's Compton-time
exactly. The quantity of lines defect link had jumped at this time-period
is equal to the square root of the Dirac's big number. These lines, after
they have took part in the proton drawing, move further, and now they are
shorter a little. The line's penetrating ability is huge, but nevertheless
- finite. This ability is comparable to that of neutrino. Or may be the
space-time lines are just some sort of virtual neutrinos. Because of the
finite penetrating ability the quantity of lines of the fixed proton will
be constantly decreasing. Lines that had interacted with another particle
will be the signatures of this new particle, but not of the initial fixed
proton. Consequently, the gravity force will be decreasing proportionally
to the square of distance and it will obey to the exponential law of decay
of proton's proper lines. Thus, the models of Nikolay Zhuck and A.K.T Assis
contain the Mach's principle, because all lines, which had drawn the proton,
had come from far cosmos. Every galaxy took part in the creation of the
proton's mass. These models satisfy the Dirac's hypothesis about big numbers,
since some part of lines, coming from some galaxy to fixed proton, had changed
their initial direction of movement, because of interactions with intermediate
particles. The interactions with the intermediate particles lead to partial
screening. Both authors discuss this phenomenon. But it is impossible to
exit without sacrifices.
Thus in the book "Cosmology" (Kharkov, 2000, in Russian) written by Nikolay
Zhuck we can see that the velocity of light becomes dependent of the passed
distance. But in the 2003 publications we can notice the new space-time
transformations. The time becomes three-dimensional. What happened? Let's
try to find the answer in another model. In his steady state model Johan
Masreliez went to another sacrifice, - the progression of time is dependent
of time. It seems, that the Zhuck's conclusion about the distance dependence
of the light velocity and the Masreliez' conclusion about the progression
of time have the common roots, but as we can see, the authors went by different
philosophical ways.
Johan Masreliez also tries to expand the symmetry between the space and
time. In his model he investigates not just the space expansion on the background
of uniformly passing time, but the space and time are both expanding. As
a result the Universe becomes equivalent itself at any time epoch. In the
model of Masreliez the new phenomenon appears, - the cosmic drag. In the
Zhuck's model this phenomenon was named gravitational viscosity (stickiness).
Velocity of rectilinear motion decreases with the time in both models. But
investigating the circular motion the authors come to different conclusions.
According to the Masreliez's model, planets, moving by the spiral-like trajectories
approach to the Sun. He found some evidences for this idea and tries to
develop it further. In the model of Nikolay Zhuck we can see two forces,
which were equaled, and as a result he received the stability condition
of two objects, rotating around the common center of masses::
r = (GM/(Hc))1/2,
Where: M - mass of the central object, H - Hubble constant,
c - speed of light. It is remarkable to note that I had received
independently the analogues formula at the beginning of 1990-s. I also considered
two forces, which were named "Laplace force" and "Hubble force". My Hubble
force corresponds to their cosmic drag or gravitational viscosity. But in
my formula at the place of M there is m, which is the
mass of smaller object from the pair. Then I tried to find the Hubble constant
from this formula. But all pairs of objects (Sun-Mercury, Sun-Venus, Sun-Earth...)
give quite different value for Hubble constant. Why? I could not understand.
Ten years passed before I solved the riddle.
Here is the solution of that problem. In 1999 I had received the Hubble
constant, by using another method. The received value was quite precise:
73.3 km/(s·Mpc). In 2001 I had mentioned the old formula for stable radii,
and put the Hubble constant into the formula. The results had surprised
me extremely. Calculated values of planetary radii differed from the observable
ones by integer numbers. Here are the received ratios: Mercury: 3.038 ~
3; Earth: 5.0014 ~ 5; Mars: 1.0760 ~ 1, Saturn: 5,0914 ~ 5, Uranus: 0,99308
~ 1. Venus, Jupiter, Neptune did not give integers, and it seems I know
the cause.
In order to receive the results, similar to the above results, one must
to start the roulette about one billion times with different reasonable
values of Hubble constant. This leads to the following conclusions:
1. The value of Hubble constant equal to 73.3 km/(s·Mpc) is correct.
2. The Steady State model of Universe receives the second type of energy
sources. It is clearly that the eternal Universe must have the energy cycle.
And here we have one stage of it.
3. The Solar System has quantum properties. The quantum number of Earth
is "5".
Moreover, the value 73.3 km/(s·Mpc) can be considered as prediction,
because it was received in 1999. At that time the value of Hubble belonged
to quite wide region: (35-90) km/(s·Mpc). The
Final Results from the
Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant equal
to 72+/-8 km/(s·Mpc) was published in 2000. And in the February 2003 the
result of WMAP project was published: H=73+/-3 km/(s·Mpc).
In the above Steady State theories I did not found yet the process, describing
how the energy, radiated into far cosmos, returns to the massive objects
and their systems. Somebody presumes that the nuclear fuel is born inside
the galaxy's nuclei. But this is only the presumption. Jayant Narlikar and
Halton Arp assert that masses of elementary particles are changing with
time. Is it possible? Their ideas have something in common with my idea
about the particles winding space-cotton on a particle-reel. But I think
that particle jumps from level to level and thusly its mass has a constant
value. This transition reminds me the idea of Johan Masreliez about the
quantum transitions, transforming the Universe into the new state, which
is equivalent in large space and time scales to the former state. Masreliez
speaks that those transitions occur with time interval equal to the Planck
time. I think that those transitions occur with the time interval equal
to the square root of the product of the Hubble time and Compton time of
a proton. Moreover, for the objects of different scales this time interval
can be different and can be deduced from the principle of cause and effect.
I think that the quantum number of planet says us, how many times the planet
jumps from the spiral, described by Johan Masreliez. It is possible to conclude
that the Earth's orbit contain five gravithermal De Broglie waves. By knowing
this number, we can compute, how many energy the system of two bodies receives
from the cold cosmic vacuum, to sustain against the tidal friction. The
Moon kneads (mashes) the Earth's core. It drives the huge amount of ocean
water into the eternal movement. These movement of water and deformations
of the Earth's body lead to the warming of the Earth and to the lifting
of the Moon orbit. But the whole energy of a system is almost constant.
It is logically to conclude that the whole energy of a system is slowly
growing, because the mass of the Earth-Moon system is growing as a result
of a their constant bombardment by meteorites and so on. Thus, the cold
vacuum compensate not only the growth of the system, but also it compensates
the losses of energy, spent on the tidal friction, successive warming, and
final radiation of heat into the cosmos. Cold vacuum tries to accelerate
the pair systems, but it's attempts lead only to the stability of the systems
and to heat transition from cold vacuum to warm planets, their satellites
and to extremely hot Sun. Cold vacuum performs these deals owing to "Laplace
force". To understand the "Laplace force" let's remember that the light
emitted by Sun passes to us eight minutes. If on the Sun we could see a
big alarm-face, with readings: 11.52, then the readings of our watches would
be 12.00. The line connecting us with the visible image of the Sun does
not passes through the center of Earth-Sun masses. The line turned a little
ahead. As a result we have accelerating force. Laplace tried to solve this
problem and come to conclusion of almost infinite velocity of gravity. Some
contemporary researchers also think that the velocity of gravity is much
more then the velocity of light. The extremely strange result one can find
in the Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation, written by A.P.
Lightman, W.H. Press, R.A. Teukolsky (Prinston, New Jersey, 1975). At the
problem 12.4 the authors come to absurd conclusion about the different positions
of the Sun: visible and gravity images of the Sun does not coincide.
Thus:
Laplace does not know about the "Hubble force" and
sacrifices the equality of gravity and light velocities.
The authors of the Problem Book have no scientific
freedom and must seek the solution profitable for the BB dogma, and
without any theory explanation they conclude that visible and gravity
images of the Sun does not coincide.
Johan Masreliez investigates the "Hubble force" (cosmic
drag) but does not see the "Laplace force" yet.
Nikolay Zhuck sees both forces, but made no conclusions.
But the conclusion is the revolutionary one for the cosmology: we have
the eternal sources of energy in the eternal Universe. Simultaneously we
have the explanation of the Solar System Stability.
Another eternal source of energy is the consequence of SR theory. Look
my page Solar Energy.
Certainly, there exist another theories, describing the energy transition
from cold vacuum to hot stars and planets. A.K.T. Assis in the article
History
of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson discusses the work
of the Nobel Prize winner Walther Nernst, the author of the third law of
thermodynamics. "In 1937 he developed this model and proposed a tired light
explanation of the cosmological redshift, namely, the absorption of radiation
by the luminiferous ether, decreasing the energy and frequency of galactic
light".
Pay attention on the term "ether". At that time the gravity was explained
as a process of the ether absorption by massive objects. Einstein spoke
about the ether as a space. And Nernst spoke about the absorption of radiation
by the ether. Here is the energy cycle in the Universe.
In my work I don't use the term "ether", because so many people imagine
it as a jam of small solid balls. My ether is the complex space-time lattice
subordinate to the main conclusions of SR, GR, QM.
In my model of the Universe the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable
to gravity processes. The gravity is just the transition of energy from
cold vacuum to the hot star's matter.
To index of Space Genetics
Ivan Gorelik.
My Curriculum Vitae.
|
Extremely urgent note, 2009.
Attention! Magnetic trap
of Devil!
There is a very big probability
that magnetic trap will kill us all, if we will not stop powerful colliders.
Magnetic trap is an object, unifying hypothetical objects, connected
primarily by magnetic forces: neutron drop / liquid; neutron hole; magnetic
hole ...
It is probable that the microscopic magnetic trap can be created at the
collider. Magnetic trap will grow capturing the normal substance. As a result,
magnetic trap can destroy the Earth.
Magnetic hole is a magnetic analog of the black hole. The black hole
is bounded by gravitational forces, and the magnetic hole is bounded by
magnetic forces, which are many-many times stronger than gravity forces.
Magnetic hole is a magnetic dipole, in the form of a circle, where there
is the critical magnetic field. The lines of magnetic induction are directed
perpendicular to the plane of the circle. Nucleons are microscopic magnets,
and they can be easily captured by the critical field of the hole. As a
result the hole is growing.
The approximate computation shows that the minimal possible magnetic
hole, which can capture a nucleon, has a mass slightly more than one thousand
masses of nucleons. The Tevatron collider is now working near this region
(1 TeV). The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be able to create the particles
with the rest mass, which are seven times more that the minimal possible
mass of magnetic hole.
According to publications, LHC will create microscopic black holes. Most
theorists suggest that these black holes will disappear, because of the
Hawking evaporation. However, we know that there are several theories of
gravity. Some theories did not even admit the existence of black holes.
In addition, there are several theories of black holes. Therefore, confidence
in the classical theory of black holes and in a process of evaporation of
black holes is very poor.
For several years, some scientists argue and demand to ban the construction
of powerful colliders. Among the known dangerous objects that may lead to
global catastrophe are the following: microscopic black holes, strangelets,
magnetic monopoles, vacuum bubbles. I learned about these disputes and
concerns only in early September 2008. And then I immediately noticed that
the objects, bounded by magnetic forces, were almost not analyzed.
In early September, I assumed that the probability of a global catastrophe
is less than 0.000001. However, after three months of analysis of the objects,
bounded by magnetic forces, and after the analysis of space observations,
my assessment of the global disaster has surpassed dozens of percents.
Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the
LHC. And, if these particles will not been found, the theorists would be
very surprised; - this would prove that the Standard Model is wrong. Higgs
boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We know that the most
of particles have their corresponding antiparticles. So, if there is a particle
of God, then there is a particle of Devil. Two colliding particles can give
two more massive particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example,
an electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the
God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil. Particles
and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties. Indeed, the Higgs
boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But the magnetic hole captures
the substance and transforms its rest mass-energy into another form of matter,
- the magnetic field of the Devil's trap. Say me now, are we have the right
to touch the particle of God?
Microscopic magnetic holes created at the collider, will move to the
center of the Earth, absorbing the matter in their path. Eventually they
will merge together into a single and much stronger magnetic hole. The thin
shell of the Earth, together with us, will be ejected into cosmic space,
but the rest of the Earth will turn into an electric current loop of several
meters radius. For comparison, the radius of a black hole of the same mass
is 9 millimeters. Half of Earth’s mass will be transformed into magnetic
field of neutron hole, and another half will be transformed into radiation
and kinetic energy of the released shell.
Magnetic hole will not decay if it was born in such cold place, as the
collider, where the temperature is close to 0 K. If the magnetic hole is
born in a collision of space particle with atmospheric particle, it has
a speed, which is close to the speed of light. As a result, such magnetic
hole will evaporate almost immediately as a result of energetic collisions
with atmospheric particles. Such evaporating magnetic hole will form a cosmic-ray
particle shower. Such showers are observable.
Huge magnetic holes are also observable is cosmos.
In the remnants of supernova SN 1987A we can see a system of rings, which
remind us the magnetic hole. It is possible that this magnetic hole is decaying
now.
It seems as if these rings embrace a hyperboloid. And now look at the
electron, moving along two hyperboles in coordinates x, ict, in my
electron model program.
Each electron crosses the entire Universe in a period of time, which is
equal to the classical period of the electron. This paradoxical conclusion
is the consequence of the Special Relativity Theory. The ring structure
of SN 1987A and our electron model have common visible properties. The Earth
and the Sun can be turned into the same ring structure.
Magnetic collapse is much more rapid than the gravity collapse. At the
process of magnetic collapse the nucleon turns such, that its magnetic dipole
moment becomes parallel to the magnetic dipole moment of a trap. Gravity
collapse needs displacing of a matter inside the Schwarzschild radius. The
time interval of neutrino registration at neutrino observatories had proved
the reality of magnetic collapse of dying stars.
Particle's collision energies and bombs:
Several eV - chemical bomb;
Several MeV - nuclear bomb;
Several TeV - hyper bomb.
Chemical bomb is accompanied by the change of chemical
structure of matter.
Nuclear bomb is accompanied by the change of nuclear structure of matter.
Hyper bomb is accompanied by the transformation of solid matter into a field.
Scientific crime.
Only crazy people can try to create the particles with the rest mass,
more than 1000 nucleon masses. It is very possible that in the region from
1000 to 7000 aum, hundreds types of particles and resonances can be created.
It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of them will grow,
capturing the ordinary matter.
Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in the
strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron stars
can have any masses. My approximate computation also shows that the minimal
possible neutron star can have a mass, about one thousand of nucleon masses.
Such embryo of neutron star can by made in collider.
Not long ago the new strange unexpected particle was discovered at the
Tevatron collider. It decays at several muons, up to eight units. Somebody
had already named it the Halloween particle. I named it the muon hole. What
will be made the next? The magnetic trap of Devil? It will not decay, but
it will transform us into its magnetic field.
Majority of contemporary physicists imagine quark-gluon plasma as a suck
with peas. That is a very dangerous imagination. Particles are not points
with labels, where their quantum properties were written. Particles are
not the material essences, independent of space-time; they are just space-time
elements, strings.
Dear reader, the situation is extremely serious. The physics now is in
the deep crisis. Theorists, in order to save their religious Big Bang theory,
invented “the dark energy" as a new either. They want now to test their
wretched theories at the powerful Large Hadron Collider.
Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry about
the safety of LHC, had already made a crime now. The LHC was launched despite
the fact that there were court trials. The Earth could be exploded the 21
of September 2008, but the accident, which had happened two days earlier,
had saved us. Scientists-criminals must be punished. But they continue to
lie about the safety of the LHC, and are preparing the global terrorist
crime now.
Dear reader! Big Bang adherents can lead the
Earth to the utter destruction. Particle collisions with the energy more
then 1 TeV must be prohibited by the international law. The science must
be cleared from the Big Bang delusion. Big-bangers want to touch the particle
of God, but thus, they lead us into the magnetic trap of Devil. People,
will you silently endure the massacre?
Some documents and links.
In November 2008, I arrived to Moscow in order to file a lawsuit against
the Russian Academy of Sciences and against the most active propagandists/promoters
of the LHC launch. Unfortunately, for lack of funds, I still (February 2009)
can not to do it.
In late November at the "meeting of four" there was decided to
hear my report "What will LHC give us, the particle
of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?" at a workshop in one of the leading
institutions of Moscow. But later, I received a "retreat" from this institution
In December, I sent the Letter to the President
of Russia. In January, I received an answer in which it was stated that
my letter was forwarded to the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In December, I sent the Letters to the Prosecutors
Office of the Russian Federation. Soon after, I received the answer
stating that my letter "was sent for review in the prescribed manner".
In the end of January I returned to Feodosia (Ukraine) and continued
to inform about the risks of the global catastrophe. You can read some letters,
which were send to the Google groups, - just click my Google-profile.
Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations.
Who are you, dear reader: "a cell of good reason", "a curiosity cell", or
"thoughtless muscular cell"?
Magnetic trap of
Devil. Recent calculations show that it is not excluded that microscopic
magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere
inside the Earth.
Arguments, proving that "The LHC will lead to
global catastrophe"; "Magnetic holes exist"; "We will not be able to prevent
the LHC launch and the following global catastrophe". Religious and mystic
arguments.
Read the frequently updated page
Save Yourself - The Business Offer
for more news, links and developments of this topic.
The end of Extremely urgent note,
2009.
|