Ivan Gorelik

Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations.

Our human Civilization is the constituent part of the Earth's biosphere. We will speak here about the ways of biospheres reproduction in cosmos. It is clear that the reproduction of human civilizations is the constituent and final part of more general process, - the reproduction of biospheres.

But is that possible?

Let's try to answer the following questions, at first, and after, we'll try to make some conclusions, according to scientific definitions and observations.

Is our biosphere a living organism? Or, is it superorganism?

Is human a living organism or a living superorganism?

Biosphere[1].

The concept that the biosphere is itself a living organism, either actually or metaphorically, is known as the Gaia hypothesis.

James Lovelock, an atmospheric scientist from the United Kingdom, proposed the Gaia hypothesis to explain how biotic and abiotic factors interact in the biosphere. This hypothesis considers Earth itself a kind of living organism. Its atmosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere are cooperating systems that yield a biosphere full of life.

Gaia hypothesis [2].

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

One of the criteria of the empirical definition of life is its ability to replicate and pass on their genetic information to succeeding generations. Consequently, an argument against the idea that Gaia is a "living" organism is the fact that the planet is unable to reproduce.

Organism [3].

In biology, an organism is a living thing (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular or be composed of many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

A superorganism is an organism consisting of many organisms. This is usually meant to be a social unit of eusocial animals, where division of labor is highly specialized and where individuals are not able to survive by themselves for extended periods of time. Ants are the most well known example of such a superorganism. Thermoregulation, a feature usually exhibited by individual organisms, does not occur in individuals or small groups of honeybees... When these bees pack together in clusters of between 5000 and 40000, the colony can thermoregulate. James Lovelock, with his "Gaia Theory" has paralleled the work of Vladimir Vernadsky, who suggested the whole of the biosphere in some respects can be considered as a superorganism…

It is also argued that humans are actually a superorganism that includes microorganisms such as bacteria. It is estimated that the human intestinal microbiota is composed of 1013 to 1014 microorganisms whose collective genome contains at least 100 times as many genes as our own. Thus, humans are superorganisms whose metabolism represents an amalgamation of microbial and human attributes.

The first conclusion: Humans are superorganisms. Planetary biospheres can also be named the superorganisms, if we will find some proves to the last missing property, required by the definition of the living organism, - the ability of reproduction.

Panspermia [4].

Panspermia is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.

Panspermia can be said to be either interstellar or interplanetary. Mechanisms for panspermia include radiation pressure (Arrhenius) and lithopanspermia (microorganisms in rocks) (Kelvin). Directed panspermia from space to seed Earth (Orgel and Crick, 1973) or sent from Earth to seed other solar systems (Mautner 1979, 1997) has also been proposed.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe were important proponents of the hypothesis who further contended that lifeforms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and may be responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty necessary for macroevolution. This extension has also been adopted by proponents of Cosmic ancestry.

In the strongest version of panspermia, life never originated, but always existed — this axiom would require amending the big bang theory.

The mechanisms proposed for interstellar panspermia are hypothetical and currently unproven.

The second conclusion: Official science persistently denies the Steady State models of Universe and the Panspermia hypothesis, despite the fact that there are a lot of observations and physical evidences of these theories. This leads me to the thought that the official science is some organ of our living Biosphere, which has genetic innate property, aimed at implementing of the suicidal reproduction of biospheres.

The third conclusion: Scientists, who are interested in the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, can be named "the curiosity cells" of our Biosphere. Scientists, who are crying everywhere about the possible global risks, can be named “the good reason cells” of our Biosphere. If the first large group of physics will win, then our Biosphere will die, as a thoughtless female-animal. If the second very small group will win, then Biospher will survive and look like a reasonable, thinking female, able to anticipate the danger.

The forth conclusion: The mechanism for interstellar panspermia is absolutely clear; it is the explosion of the planet, where the biosphere had grown to the reproducing age. The method of biosphere's reproduction is similar to that of exploding cucumber. The more powerful explosion, - the more reliable reproduction.

Possible detonators of global explosion:

1. Collision of particles with the energy about 1 TeV or higher per particle.

2. Creating of Bose-Einstein Condensate in the laboratories, experimenting with the matter under extremely low temperatures.

3. Underground tests of nuclear weapons, which can lead to thermonuclear detonation of geological stratum of such nuclear fuel, as KH.

4. Creating the transuranium elements.

How it must look in order to better preserve the seeds of life.

With some part of fantasy.

Magnetic hole absorbs the inner part of our planet. Planet self-contracts. Oceans cover the mainland by water. Magnetic hole is growing exponentially and, finally, a huge explosion occurs, which sends the shell of the Earth's into outer space. All of us, with grass, cats, fish, tadpoles fly, covered by ocean water, with the speed of ten times more, than the speed Voyagers. Due to the reduction of pressure the water boils, transforming into foam, and soon it freezes. Thus the comets are formed. The temperatures are about "minus" 150-250 degrees Centigrade. Flies and tadpoles in comets are in a state of hibernation.

Finally, some comet enters some Earth-like platen’s atmosphere. The comet splits, and its icy parts drop into warm lakes. There the comet’s parts are melting. Flies wake up and fly away, some fishes and tadpoles, too, wake up, and swim away.

The human will appear on this planet on the next stage, when n’th comet will arrive to this planet, when comet’s shell will melt under the rays of that star, when human's DNA molecules will subside to that planet.

The cosmic space has a huge amount of organic substance.

Each year, only in our Galaxy, containing approximately 150 billion stars, from one to ten civilizations die. Mourning marches, that are, nova and supernova explosions, play several times frequently. Part of the nova stars exert repeated explosions. The cause is clear - magnetic hole, reaching a mass roughly equal to 1/20 of solar masses, transform into a black hole. Their radii at this mass are equal, and the transition is accompanied by explosion. Therefore, the Sun will be eaten in twenty receptions, accompanied by explosions that would occur with intervals of several tens of years. Supernovae are exploding at once, because they have thin shells, and magnetic holes fail in supernovae’s rarefied central parts.

From the letter (slightly corrected).

In his commentary to the article How do we know the LHC really is safe?, published in NewSientist the 21 January 2009, James Tankers wrote: "To mitigate possible risk, I would like CERN to agree to follow Dr. Habil Rainer Plaga's compromise recommendation to increase energy levels only slowly and examine results before significantly increasing energy levels further."

James, say me, please, is it possible to prevent sperm ejaculation by "increasing energy levels only slowly" at the time of sexual intercourse?

Our civilization is a huge alive superorganism. Organisms must reproduce themselves. CERN is the possible reproductive organ of our Civilization. The launch of LHC is the sexual act, leading to the explosion of Earth, and to the launch of Civilization’s seeds into cosmos.

We must postpone the act of Civilization reproduction act as far as possible. The sexual act of our Civilization, which is the launch of collider, must be forbidden. The “slowly LHC-sex” will not safe us from reproductive suicide.

Some thoughts and questions.

Is our Biosphere a brainless organism, or it is able to reasonably think?

What is the Biosphere's brain: governments, religious organizations, scientific organizations, independent researchers? Can very rarefied "cells of good reason" prevent or postpone the reproductive suicide of Biosphere? Who are you, dear reader: "a cell of good reason", "a curiosity cell", or "thoughtless muscular cell"?

External referred links: Pages from Wikipedia:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

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.

The failed report "What will LHC give us, the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?"

The Letter to the President of Russia.

The Letters to the Prosecutors Office of the Russian Federation.

Read the frequently updated page "Save Yourself - the Business Offer" for more news, links and developments of this topic.

No, this is wrong. Speedometers generally do NOT measure proper velocity.

 

Your example is flawed. You can't treat the man as being in a single frame of reference for this example. The legs are moving with respect to the man's head, and you would have to take length contraction effects into account, which you haven't done.

Let my huge man has tractors track's instead the legs. He made on the road the marks ||||. Distance between marks is equal to "c" and does not depend of tractor's velocity.

Imagine relativistic tractor's track.

||||||||||||||||||||| - traces on the resting frame K, made by resting bottom part of the moving tractor's track. I don't care the velocity of the upper part of the track. (It's rapidity is two times more than the rapidity of the tractor itself. Rapidity is the third type of velocities, - it is the additive velocity. It's limit is also infinity.)

|\

| \

|_"o"

Rotating bar with the inclined weight, denoted by "o". It points out into the scale v_tau. The more rotations per second - the more inclination of "o". The quantity of rotations is measured in the tractor's system, i.e., it is counted per proper second of tractor.

I repeat: any speedometer, connected with the moving object, measures the proper velocity of the object. The limit of the proper velocity is infinity.

Describe your speedometer. I can't see how any speedometer, even using ideal assumptions, would measure proper velocity as you describe it.

Any speedometer, connected with moving vehicle or with moving object, measures the proper velocity.

Any speedometer compares the length of passed way and the period of time, spent on this way. Any speedometer uses its proper time. Proper time period is always shorter than corresponding coordinate time period. Proper velocity is always bigger than corresponding coordinate velocity.

Imagine a huge man, with the length of one step, equal to one c (299792458 m). If he made 10 steps per one second, measured by his internal brain clock, he will have the proper velocity, equal to 10 c (10*299792458m/s). In order to compute his coordinate velocity, the man must have inherent internal speedometer and another device, - calculator: v_t = v_tau/gamma; gamma=sqrt(1+( v_tau/c)^2); v_tau=10c; v_t=0.995c.

...This point can never reach c in that frame...

Proper velocity can be more than c.

Coordinate velocity can NOT be more than c.

...so the speedometer cannot register a speed of c or greater...

Speedometer, installed in the IDEAL car, measures PROPER velocity, consequently, its maximal possible showed value is infinity. (But this does not mean, that the car moves faster than light, - the proper velocity of light is infinity.)

In order to measure COORDINATE velocity one must use at list two devices, and connect them with the road, but not with the car.

If you still do not understand, make a “relativistic tractor” picture, with the distance between track’s ribs equal to c, for example, and with the “Einstein’s light clocks”, made between brain cell’s of tractor’s driver. Proper velocity is measurable and even more: it is able to feel it by human senses. You can fly by dozens of trees per one day, you can fly by dozens of stars per one day, you can fly by dozens of galaxies per one day. But “one day” is the “proper one day.” Do not mix the notions: “proper velocity” and “coordinate velocity”.

...

Klaynos has already noted the failing of your recent example.

That means that you both made the same error.

Be careful.

Proper velocity is measurable quantity.

“To measure” means “to compare” with etalon.

We can compare proper velocity, but in order to compare coordinate velocity we must use at least two separated devices, or to use nonlinear computation in transition from measurable proper velocity to computable coordinate velocity.

Example.

Let we have a road with trees, growing at the same distance from each other.

Yesterday I went along the raw of trees and passed by one tree per second.

Let it be etalon of proper velocity, named, for example, “tree”.

Today I went along the raw of trees and passed by ten trees per second.

It is clear that my today’s proper velocity is ten trees.

It is clear that my today’s proper velocity is ten times bigger than yesterday’s proper velocity.

Question: Can we say that my today’s coordinate velocity is ten times bigger than yesterday’s coordinate velocity.

My answer: No! But it is almost true, if the velocities are much smaller than speed of light.

If the distance between trees, for example, is one light second (299792458 m) then:

My yesterday’s proper velocity is: v1_tau = 1c = 299792458 m/s.

My yesterday’s coordinate velocity is: v1_t = v1_tau / (1+ (v1_tau/c)^2)^(1/2) = 0.7071c.

My today’s proper velocity is: v2_tau = 10c = 2997924580 m/s.

My today’s coordinate velocity is: v2_t = v2_tau / (1+ (v2_tau/c)^2)^(1/2) = 0.9950c.

The ratio of my today’s and yesterday’s coordinate velocities is: 1.407.

As you can see, this result is quite different from 10 times, as it would be at small velocities. But the ratio of proper velocities is the same, independent of the value of etalon. That means that proper velocity is comparable with etalon. That means that proper velocity is measurable value. That means that speedometer measures the proper velocity, which limit is infinity.

The point of contact is a point. That is the only part that does not contract; the rest of the wheel does, with respect to the road. The speedometer is not located on the wheel rim, at the point of contact with the road.

You are very opinionated!

Proper velocity is more than real, - one can fill it.

I would like to show this as follows.

Let’s improve the speedometer in your insistence.

One counter of speedometer counts the kilometer poles, flying past a moving car. The other counter counts the tick-tock of Einstein's light clock, located inside the vehicle. The calculator divides the first result into another result, and gives us the value of proper velocity, but not the coordinate velocity.

Such speedometer is our eyes and brain. If we could move with relativistic velocities, we could feel the speed by the frequency of the flicking of flying-by kilometer poles. Frequency of flicking corresponds to our proper velocity, but not to the coordinate velocity.

Let me remind you: the limit of proper velocity is infinity; proper velocity is measurable and one could fill it, if he could move with relativistic velocities.

To make a speedometer, indicating the coordinate velocity, it is necessary to put synchronized clock under every kilometer pole.

Speedometer reads the values at the kilometer poles and readings of clocks under the kilometer poles. Then computes: V = (L2-L1) / (T2-T1). It will be the coordinate velocity and its limit is 299792458 m/s.

Home task: Astronaut flies beside the row of stars and fills flicking:

A. 10 flashes per second;

B. 100 flashes per second.

Is the frequency of flashes proportional to coordinate velocity, or to proper velocity?

(Distance between stars is the same and equal L).

You can't have it both ways. If the wheel contracts, then you can't just say that the length is constant. Show it.

I repeat: the part of wheel, contacting with the road, does not contract, as a result, wheel measures notcontracted length of road.

Speedometer measures proper velocity of a car.

Proper velocity is measurable physical value.

The rate of motion can be described by four types of velocities:

Coordinate velocity, proper velocity, rapidity or hyperbolic velocity, quantable velocity or trigonometric velocity.

The second type of velocity was discovered by several authors (including me, independently) and its properties you can find already in Wikipedia.

The forth type (quantable) was opened by me in 2007.

These four types of velocities remind the trigonometric functions sin, cos, tg, ctg.

To be more precise here are some connections:

v_t/c = sin(v_q/c);

v_tau/c = tg(v_q/c);

gamma = 1/cos(v_q/c);

v_t/c = th(v_psi/c);

v_tau/c = sh(v_psi/c);

gamma = ch(v_psi/c).

Here:

v_t – coordinate velocity;

v_tau – proper velocity;

v_q – quantable velocity;

v_psi – rapidity;

gamma =1/sqrt(1 – (v_t/c)²) = sqrt(1 + (v_tau/c)²)

By the way, there are eight types of uniform rectilinear acceleration.

Home task:

1. What acceleration must be constant in order the spaceman would feel himself comfortable, i.e., fill constantly g-acceleration?

2. What acceleration must be constant in order an electron would make one full rotation along the whole Universe in the period of time, equal to electrons classical period?

The point in contact with the road will not contract.

Yes

...You cannot say that about the rest of the wheel, since it does have a speed with respect to the road...

Yes. The car is ideal. Wheel is ideal. Wheel does not change the form because of the centrifugal forces. But SR is correct and the rest of wheel does, contract. But that does not change the result. The wheel copies the road. "The well measures" the length of road in the lengths of wheel, or in meters, if the length of a wheel is equal to one meter. This result does not depend of the value of velocity. The distance measured between points A and B will be always the same, - velocity independent.

The same independence is applicable to the quantity of rotations of the rotor of speedometer, made of the way from A to B.

But the time rate inside the car is dependent of velocity.

Speedometer divides the quantity of rotations of its rotor by the quantity of “tick-tock” of the light clock inside the car.

Speedometer measures the proper velocity of a car and its limit value is infinity.

It's really simple!

I am in shock.

This is much easier problem, comparatively with “Magnetic Hole”, moved to “Pseudoscience and Speculations”… http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=507167#post507167

And no one can say correct answer on this simple problem.

Magnetic hole is much harder to understand and consequently it will be made!

Any evidence that this reaction actually occurs? Given that this description violates conservation of lepton number..

One of “great persons” cited on the page "The safety of the LHC", academician Rubakov is also the coauthor of the hypothesis “magnetic monopole catalysis of proton decay”.

In his article one can find the formula: p + M -- > e⁺ + M.

I would change his idea thus: “magnetic dipole catalysis of nucleon collapse on dipole”; and would rewrite his reaction in the form:

p + NS -- > e⁺ + NS.

p + NS -- > e⁺ + NS.

2p + NS -- > 2e⁺ + NS.

10p + 10n + NS -- > 10e⁺ + 10ν~ + NS.

100p + 100n + NS -- > 100e⁺ + 100ν~ + NS.

10000p + 10000n + NS -- > 10000e⁺ + 10000ν~ + NS.

p -proton; M - magnetic monopole; NS - magnetic dipole (hole); e⁺ - positron; ν~ -antineutrino.

…Why would you assume this: We supposed that the electric current was created by the movement of the elementary charge along the circular orbit of radius R with the speed of light.?..

I think that it was quite correct assumption; - I went from the flux of real current curl in the vacuum circle, embraced by circumference, to movement of imaginative charges along that circumference. Circulation of “1” around circumference is equal to flux of rot(“2”) through the surface... That was needed to make computation.

…And further, that adding two fields would not follow superposition of the field, but rather that this fictitious current would double?

 

The energy of dineutron’s magnetic field will increase by 4 times because of a the square over I^2

 

There is no justification for this at all.

No, try yourself to follow the formulas, try other methods...

The results, based on my another approaches, give the almost same value of the minimal possible magnetic hole.

Besides, other authors say that the mass of Higgs boson is about 0.3 TeV (or about 300 a.u.m.).

This is not another proof, but led me to think…

Besides, the island of stability of transuranium elements is also thought to be about of 300 a.u.m.

I would rename “the island o stability” into “the precipice for brainless humankind”…

Let's ask physicists from CERN to help us to solve this problem...

I think they also will make the same error.

That is why, I’ll write here an example problem.

Let’s simplify the problem.

Let the length of car wheel is equal to 1c.

Let the speed of light is equal to 1c.

Let car moves with the coordinate velocity equal to 0.8c.

What will be the reading of the speedometer?

Solution:

The point of car’s wheel, contacting with the road, does not move relatively the road. Consequently, this region of the wheel does not contract.

Consequently, the wheel will make 8 full rotations per 10 time units, relatively the road watches.

The wire of speedometer will also make 8 full rotations per this time.

But the time interval of these rotation inside the car is not 10 time units, but smaller by 1/sqrt(1-0.64)=5/3, or 6 “car time units”.

The readings of the speedometer: (8/6)c. That is more then speed of light, 1c, and more then coordinate velocity, 0,8c.

Question: Does our car moves faster then light?

Answer: No. The coordinate velocity of light is 299792458 m/s, or 1c.

The proper velocity of light is infinity.

To make comparative conclusions, we must compare the same types of velocities.

Light is faster in both cases.

Let's ask physicists from CERN to help us to solve this problem...

...you are mixing frames, so what's the point?

No. That not me, who mix the frames. The speedometer does it.

Speedometer is the physical device.

It measures proper velocity.

In order to measure coordinate velocity one need to invent another device, containing at least two clocks.

It can be named coordinate-velocity-meter with finite limit.

But speedometer is the proper-velocity-meter with infinite limit.

By the way different types of velocities explain one and the same motion but math is different.

They are sin, cos, tg, ctg of relativity…

4. In front of you there is the map of Universe. Can you cover the distance between Milky Way and Andromeda in the period of one second, measured by your rocket clock?

1. Distance/Time (instantaneous speed) relative to the earth.

 

2. No.

 

3. Yes.

1. Proper Velocity = Distance / Proper Time. (Proper time = the time in the moving car. Proper Time interval is shorter then the time interval measured by system of synchronized watches, resting along the road.)

2. Yes, because the limit of proper velocity is infinity.

Compare: the limit of coordinate velocity is 299792458 m/s.

More details about coordinate velocity, proper velocity, rapidity (or hyperbolic velocity), quantable velocity (or trigonometric velocity) you can find in my web-page, or from Wikipedia.

Paradox: most physicists-relativists do not know, what physical value is measured by their car’s speedometer.

Simple relativity questions.

1. What does speedometer of ideal car measure?

2. Can it show, for example, 10c, where c=299792458m/s?

3. Is SR correct?

My answers:

1. ...

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

... you add field energy together when you "imbed" neutrons?..

Neutron, captured by magnetic hole, rejects antineutrino.

Proton, captured by magnetic hole, rejects positron.

In any of this case the spin of magnetic hole becomes whole unity bigger.

The process of neutron’s “imbedding” was conventional and was used in order to compute the minimal possible mass of magnetic hole. Other methods give approximately the same result: about 300 a.u.m., or in the energy units – 0.3 TeV.

At Tevatron Collider the energy is bigger, but there we have proton-antiproton annihilation.

At collisions of cosmic proton with atmospheric proton we observe bigger energies, but the resulting holes have TeV-energies relatively atmosphere, as a result, they evaporate, immediately after the next collisions, making the observable particle showers.

You can't make the rest mass disappear in the way you suggest.

It do not disappear, - it goes into the construction of hole’s funnel.

The process of transformation of mc^2 into pB will be proved on collider. We will not be able to stop the collapse.

Try to explain to yourself: where does the mass of the matter, captured by black hole, go? How much time is needed, in order to capture a particle? Infinity? Contradiction?

But we really, do, observe explosions of stars in the sky.

That is not the nuclear explosion, because at the time of nuclear explosion only a small fraction of percent of mc^2 of reacting matter transforms into another form of matter.

My approximate computation shows that magnetic collapse leads to 2/3 of mc^2 transformation. This coincides with the astronomical observations.

So, what is this magnetic hole theory? Can you briefly explain it?

There was my link http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html

You can find there brief explanation of magnetic hole.

You can read also such my pages:

Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html

Arguments proving that ... http://darkenergy.narod.ru/argen.html and so on.

Some possible experiments to test this theory would be nice as well.

You will fear it soon, after the launch of LHC.

Some other experiments (observations) you can learn from astronomy. Jets, axial symmetry, huge magnetic fields, magnetars…

Bigbangers try to prove the Big Bang hypothesis on the LHC collider, but thus they will not prove it, but can make a big bang of Earth. CERN physicists do not know what magnetic hole is.

PS:

Black holes are objects, whose gravity field energy, outside of Schwarzschild radius, is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, the energy of mass m, concentrated on the Schwarzschild sphere.

Magnetic holes are objects, whose magnetic field energy, outside of critical magnetic radius is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, of mass m, concentrated inside the critical magnetic radius.

Magnetic holes were invented by alternative-physicists, as a result, this theory will not be accepted by orthodox-physicists, as a result, microscopic magnetic holes will be created soon (may be in November 2009)… Fasten your belts…

PS 2:

In my Steady State Model of Universe there are several values: 73.3 km/s/Mpc, 13.3 bln.years/rot. The last number means: the time spend by light in order to go around the whole closed Universe. In Big Bang model this time means the age of Universe. In our model, it is the time of one 4d-rotation of the eternal Universe. In our model the Universe has not the center in space and has no center in time.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/

I have developed the idea of magnetic hole. It can be created at the Large Hadron Collider, and as a result, it can destroy the Earth.

I had written the letter to CERN and received the following answer:

--------------------------------

Dear Sender,

our service can not evaluate your theory. Any theory should be supported by calculations and should be submitted to the usual peer-reviewing process (see for example: http://www.iop.org/EJ/ejs_extra/-coll=rev. )

Moreover, for a theory to prove true, one needs to produce an experimental proof. This is the basic rule that distinguish science and science fiction/speculation.

Best wishes,

****************************************

CERN Ask an Expert Service...

---------------------------

The part of upper text was painted in solid by me.

I wrote the letters to President and to the Prosecutor’s Office of my country and received the responses that my letters were resend to the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think that my letters were thrown out into rubbish there.

Academic science does hate independent researches. That is why the idea of magnetic hole will never be accepted by official science, LHC will be switched on, probably in November 2009. As a result, the magnetic hole will be created. Don't think that it is the same as the gravity black hole! The magnetic hole is much more real and by 10^40 times stronger then black hole.

-------------------

From the other hand I think that CERN physicists are also afraid to switch on the collider, and they will try to make another trick in order to damage the collider again. But that is another crime. That is destruction of your common European property. They will again ask for your money in order to repair that machine of global dearth.

Dear citizens, rules in science are against us. Can we change them?

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html

Black holes are objects, whose gravity field energy, outside of Schwarzschild radius, is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, - the energy of mass m, concentrated on the Schwarzschild sphere.

Magnetic holes are objects, whose magnetic field energy, outside of critical magnetic radius is equal to the rest energy, mc^2, the energy of mass m, concentrated inside the critical magnetic radius.

Magnetic holes were invented by alternative-physicists, as a result, this theory will not be accepted by orthodox-physicists, as a result, microscopic magnetic holes will be created soon (may be in November 2009)… Fasten your belts…

What is electric hole? ...Classical radius... Do not grow - do not dangerous...

Nuclear hole... no... semi-hole... They grow only till the equality between repulsive and attractive forces.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtren.html In English.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/magtrru.html In Russian.