Книга - How does the Universe work?

Warning: mb_convert_encoding(): Unable to detect character encoding in /var/www/u2150601/data/www/ae-books.online/wp-content/themes/twentyfifteen/content.php on line 442
How does the Universe work?
Sergey Rostovtsev


The book presents an alternative view of the structure of our universe: An alternative view of gravity, solar and "relic" radiation. The book is refuted by the "Theory of the Big Bang", "dark" matter and other things, created for an ad hoc, today's physics is trying to cover up its lack of understanding of the ongoing processes.





Sergey Rostovtsev

How does the Universe work?





How does the Universe work?





Prophecy or prediction instead of a preface


When, in 1976, I created my model of the Universe, my teacher, Yakov Isaakovich Ostrovsky asked:

��Can you make any prediction based on your model?

��Yes, I can. Distant galaxies will scatter not with deceleration, as those who believe in the Big Bang think, but with acceleration. It is a pity that this won't be discovered until two hundred years later.

I made a mistake in determining the date. Less than thirty years later, there was no doubt about it.

But even today I can make a prediction based on my model of the Universe:

��Distances to the Sun, to the orbits of the Moon, planets of the solar system, as well as distances to all visible stars increase with acceleration. The value of this acceleration depends on the distance to these objects, and it is proportional to acceleration of distant galaxies. Due to the small distances to these objects, and, accordingly, the small values of this acceleration, it has not yet been detected. Of course, we are talking about average distances.

I don't know when it will be discovered, but this time, my prognosis � prediction � prophecy, will be published.




Introduction


I hope you kids already know that the Earth is not a tray or dish standing on three whales, turtles, or just standing, like dinner, in front of the grandpa god's beard.

I'm not sure if you understand this, but you know this for sure.

I hope you know that the firmament that the stars are nailed to is not an actual firmament, and the stars � are the same (basically), as our star the sun.

I hope you know this. But many do not know how many and what lives were given for this knowledge.

Giordano Bruno is a specific person who was burned, but at least he has a name. And how many nameless geniuses were burned, walled up or crucified for this knowledge and other no less interesting things that today seem to us the only possible ones.

For this alone, all religions should be forbidden, and all religious figures who resist this ban should be treated as Giordano Bruno was treated.

But in this world everything is decided by money, and money belongs to the churches and the oligarch that unite these churches, and in one way or another they still prevent the getting and spreading knowledge about the world.

Fools are easier to control.

And if you think that most of today's mandatory education schools educate you, you are mistaken. They are trying to raise obedient sheep out of you. They tell you what you can learn even without these schools, but they tell you in a way that discourages you from wishing to learn it and from, most importantly � actually learning. And if you don't believe me, then try to answer the question:

Why don't they let you get enough sleep before they start teaching you? Maybe when you are sleepy, you are more capable of learning? Why do classes start at eight o'clock instead of ten?

You need to take knowledge everywhere: both in school and outside the school. You should only count on yourself.

And this is the first thing about the Universe that you should firmly grasp.




The sun


We will begin our consideration of the issue by looking at the Sun and its energy. Why? The Sun is the closest particular star to us, and the entire Universe is a collection of structures consisting of stars and stellar systems. But we will see that all the differences with the official science in what I am going to tell you begin precisely with the Sun.

The energy that the Earth receives comes from two sources. From inside the Earth and from the Sun. We will talk about the energy that comes from inside the Earth later, but for now a few words about the Sun and about the stars in general.

When scientific officials learned what a thermonuclear reaction is, they immediately seized on it, like an unreasonable child at a toy, and began to say that the sun is shining because thermonuclear reactions occur in it.

Thermonuclear reactions on stars might be happening, but perhaps not as intensely as it is commonly believed, otherwise the stars would have already either exploded or burned out.

Because a thermonuclear reaction is a chain reaction.

The main thing that the fans of that the main energy of the sun is thermonuclear opinion rely on, fusion of four protons into a helium nucleus is a neutrino. As two neutrons decay, two negative antineutrinos should be released. These neutrinos are caught. But just a neutron in a free state decays in 880.1 � 1.1 seconds. The consequences are the same. Negative antineutrino.

It is claimed, that the Sun emits 1.2 � 1034 joules annually. But does this mean that its mass should decrease? M = E/C2 And its composition must change. The amount of helium should increase, and the amount of hydrogen should decrease accordingly. However, it is rather difficult to calculate the exact composition, and even according to the models that are used today, these are very approximate numbers. These observations began not so long ago. In a hundred years, we may be able to ask them to explain whether the composition of the Sun has changed in accordance with the existing theory or not. But we could already notice the decrease in mass today. The fact that certain Ptolemy calculated the orbits of planetary motion. He took part in his research in Alexandria of Egypt in the period 127-151 ah.

The model of the solar system was still not correct, but it would still allow us to correctly calculate the orbits of planets today. And this was so long ago that due to the annual (although small) decrease in solar mass, the orbits of the planets, especially remote ones, would change in a couple of thousand years. They would become large ellipses. This change could prove that the main energy released by the Sun is thermonuclear reactions. But I haven't seen any such articles.

The main source of the released energy, in my opinion, is completely different, and I would even say virtual.

But first, let's turn to a well-known fact.

Electrically charged objects moving relative to us with acceleration emit electromagnetic waves (light � energy).

The sun is electrically charged, and the Earth and everything else, including the entire Universe, revolves around the Sun, if we take the sun as the center of the reference system. And rotation is a movement with acceleration. Speaking in the old-fashioned way � the Earth always "falls" on the Sun and misses.

Rectilinear uniform motion and a state of rest are one thing, and any other motion is a motion with acceleration.

Remember, what does an electric charge moving past you with acceleration do? It radiates.

This radiation is the main source of energy for stars.

Digression: One of the readers of the first edition of this article asked a question.

��And why does no one deal with the energy released by the Sun, as an electrically charged body?

But really, the fact that an electrically charged body moving with acceleration radiates is not a secret. The fact that the Sun is electrically charged is also no secret. The fact that the Earth is moving relative to the Sun with acceleration or the Sun is moving with acceleration relative to the Earth is not a secret at all.

So what's the big deal? Why aren't these calculations available, at least in the public domain?

I assume that the reason is in the "Big Bang theory". If you calculate this energy, it may turn out that the age of the Sun exceeds the age of the Universe, according to the "Big Bang theory". And then what will the "scientists" who have received huge amounts of money for research in the framework of this theory do?

Although there is another source of Solar energy, in addition to possible thermal nuclear reactions and radiation of a charge moving with acceleration.

The sun is big. And it doesn't matter which model we choose, the gravity model or the swell model (discussed below), polytropic process takes place on it. For the sake of familiarity, let's take the model of gravity. Under the influence of gravity, the gas compresses and releases temperature from the outside (isothermal process) and stores it from the inside (a static process).

How much heat is released by the isothermal process in the Sun, it seems, is also not yet calculated.

And what happens to a gas when it gives up its energy when compressed?

It cools down.

On Earth, it is difficult to create models of what is happening in the Sun. On earth, when hydrogen is liquefied, it is molecular, not atomic, hydrogen that is liquefied. This is where the spin isomers of hydrogen work. The question is whether the spins of the hydrogen atoms in the molecule are arranged in one direction or in opposite directions. How hydrogen will behave at those pressures, when it becomes atomic and will be liquefied under a pressure that cannot be reproduced on Earth, we can only build models. The models can be different. It is necessary to calculate, and depending on the numbers that can be obtained by performing these calculations, it will be possible to assume that thermonuclear reactions in the Sun do not occur at all, and inside the sun consists of liquid gases at a temperature close to absolute zero.

I'm not saying that. This should be considered. But the possibility of such a hypothesis is obvious.




Temperature


And what is temperature in General? Why do bodies heat up or cool down?

Temperature � a value that intuitively quantifies the different heat of an object.

Living beings are able to perceive the sensations of heat and cold directly with the help of their senses. However, science requires that temperature be measured objectively.

The funny thing is that when scientists try to explain to you where the temperature comes from, they will start telling you about the degree of ionization of matter, more or less collisions of molecules, and other nonsense. The gibberish is very clever and correct, but it doesn't just tell you why and where the thermal (still � electromagnetic) radiation from this ionization and the number of collisions comes from.

And here everything is very simple. When there is a lot of ionization and the molecules relative to you change the direction of their movement, the same effect occurs as with solar radiation. Charged objects (and molecules are also objects), moving relative to you with acceleration (and when the direction of movement changes as a result of collisions, the acceleration increases), begin to radiate. Well, I assume so.

In a kettle where water is boiled, the movement of molecules is accelerated. The kettle is a small accelerator of molecules. And you have in your Cup � hot tea that will emit in the infrared spectrum-relative to you.

Remember all the time. This radiation is relative.

Objects with respect to which the electric charge does not move with acceleration cannot receive its radiation either.

But back to the Sun.




The sun and particles


Since the Sun radiates relative to us, it is radiation, though relatively, but objectively. This radiation knocks out some of the electrons (as lighter particles), which fly to the Earth and charge it negatively.

But does the number of electrons change from the point of view of a hypothetical observer, relative to which, neither the sun nor its molecules do not move with acceleration?

No, it does not change, because relative to this observer, the Sun does not emit or knock out a certain number of electrons.

Although it is difficult to imagine a frame of reference that is at rest relative to all solar molecules. But you don't need to submit it. Maybe there is no such system. But you need to know what's going on with such a system.

So we can say that the electrons flying towards the Earth are relative matter. But this relative matter is quite real for the Earth.

You, young people, better immediately get into the idea that all the substance:

a) is relative, not absolute;




����� ���������������� ���������.


����� ������������ ��� �������.

���������� ��� ����� �������, ����� ������ ��������� ������ (https://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=65772057) �� ������.

��������� �������� ����� ����� ���������� ������ Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, �� ����� ���������� ��������, � ���������� ���������, � ������ ��� ��� �������, ����� PayPal, WebMoney, ������.������, QIWI �������, ��������� ������� ��� ������ ������� ��� ��������.