(work against the mainstream)

Author : Luis Biarge Baldellou – Email: lbiar@mail.com

RSS y subscriptions : press here


(any of these hypotheses are in co-discovered with colleagues)

Classic physic is correct (Newton physic), actual and mainstream physic is false and imposible (Einstein physic) : How is possible actual scientist belief in this impossibles?. This people (actual scientists from Einstein) don’t understand the physic and belief in impossible in same form that not consider an illusion like real, without understand is only an illusion (like perspective) and without understand that all can explain with classic physic and facts and without impossibles.

O01 – The theory of relativity is false.

                              O01-a – Light speed is not maximum speed

I would also to send info that the Theory of relativity is also false, according to the note of this days over neutrino and light speed. Really neutrinos already show that this theory and base are falses, and that scientists are not scientists, they are pseudo-scientists, they work like sectarians, that believe already in any demonstrate is false. They like today study that gravity change all but gravity only could courve the way and by that longer it with more distance. How many proofs need acual pseudo-scientists for understand theirs beliefs are falses?. In past already was demostrate speed over 310c (see below) but they continue affirming that is maximum speed. Same occur with expansion of the universe, with many proofs against but belief in mainstream.

Really neutrinos not need to superate light speed for make error all the theory of the relativity, because according to this theory any particle traveling near light speed (not wave) their size would to be infinitely smaller (time also more slowly) in that case the neutrinos would to be a size near infinite small and this is false also. This is so important that if would decreate size they would use like a evidence from true of the theory of relativity. Really a less size is not a proof acording to the theory, but not decreate size is a proof against this theory.

So a particle (not wave) traveling near light speed and not compress infinitely in size show that the theory of relativity is false.

Einstein lying

(really Einstein was liying)

(read also O11 – E=mc2 and relation with meteorites in O15)

Here I not speak over if neutrino is faster that light speed or not (today is possible that neutrino travel more faster but with travel near light speed the theory is false), but I go to explain that light speed is not maximum speed and by that the Theory of relativity is false.

The Theory of relativity (remember is a theory without proofs, with one only proofs would not to be a theory) take the light speed like maximum speed like begin.

From where is  taken: In the past scientists measure light speed, this is equal in all directions that they take, also considering that the Earth travel by the universe. From here consider that light speed is constant and the maximum speed.

Here all is error and by that all the rest also is error: Why is error?

If we consider the sound speed, this not change with origin speed, here is one of the errors, if this would depend a plain cannot exceed sound speed. If a plain can exceed sound speed is because the sound speed is the same that a stopped plain.

More: the sound speed depend in environment (water, air, …) and also in the speed of this environment, if not depend of this in a plain with more of sound speed people cannot speak and ear. So a plain traveling at more that sound speed into it the sound travel like a stopped plain and out of it at speed according to Earth movement. By that into it people can speak and out of it crash sound barrier.

By all this is really that light speed also is equal in all directions, first it’s indifferent from stars speed (remember, not has relation with speed of emissor), and second the Earth is like the interior of the plain in the example.

By other side, in sound we can obtain Doppler effect (and also in light) and also addition and subtraction of speed, probably with light speed also but remember that light is 300000 km/sec, and by that a plain at 3000 km/hour is 3000  km/3600 segundo  equivalent to 0.83 km/sec = 0,00000276 respect to light speed or near 400.000 times less. (near to relation of sound 1,234.8 km/h with a motion of 33 meter/hr).

In the same form that a sound into the plain is different to out the plain, in incoming sound need to be one only form and not 2 or more, in the same form that people into the plain don’t ear the sound barrier probably the sound that become to the plain adjust to that system.

By that, Light speed is not maximum speed, and according to this also is incorrect all the Theory of relativity.

Also: Why only speed has maximum?. According to Einstein and this theory only the speed has a maximum = c, but not size, temperature, gravity, time, voltage, power, …  All magnitudes have minimum = zero (and zero + zero = zero) but only speed has a maximum. In this form n + n = 2n in gravity, size, power, … but only c + c = c and none mathematical or physicist reject it.

That the Theory of relativity is false is also demonstrate also by other ways: physics say that a photon against another give light speed, this means that c (light speed) + c = c, if you make that a photon travel from A to B and another from C to B (A, B and C are 3 points at same distance and in straight line), the distance is make in half time.

Also is demonstrated but physics deny it: “The Wang Experiment: Light Traveling Faster Than Light?” in http://metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/archive/010824FTL/Meta-in-News%20010824.asp that say: “A new laboratory experiment at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton claims to have achieved propagation speeds of 310 c (c = speed of light)”. This is same like a cheetah (the quicker animal over terrestrial) and another cheetah running over it cannot give to cheetah the maximum speed, minimum is zero and also 1 one over other both at zero speed is zero speed, by that dog speed cannot to be the bigger speed, but can to be the normal bigger speed. In Earth in many centuries bigger speed probably was 115 km/hr from the terrestial more speed animal = cheetah, cheetah is the quicker animal but 115 km/hr is not the bigger speed.

There is not the same to be the quickest animal (so is the cheetah) and to be the maximum speed, so the cheetah can to be the quickest animal terrestrial in the World but cannot to be maximum speed (2 cheetah are more quicker that 1 only). In same form occur with lightspeed.

String theory (O06) also demonstrate is false, because this new theory (String theory) is born because the theory of relativity has errors.

The neutrinos also demonstrate is false: neutrinos are particles (not waves) and according to this and to this theory a particle near light speed their size decrease infinitely what is not true with neutrinos. In fact if really their size really would decreased like this theory affirm this would be a proof and not would be a theory: a proof means the end of a theory and convert in law, …

In same form electrons also demonstrate is false, according to this theory they would to be bigger but by speed become smaller, so they would to be bigger that nucleus, …

Also galaxies with blue shift would to be littles according to this theory, for expample “Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second (c/952) relative to the local co-moving frame of reference” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way, or M86 that it is approaching the Milky Way at 244 km/s, and ” the high velocity value would indicate that M86 is moving at a peculiar velocity of more than 1500 km/sec” (c/200) – http://messier.seds.org/m/m086.html . It would to be enough to astronomers to confirm the Theory of Relativity, they can measure differences from a second or arch, … But today is only a theory without any proof.

But physic work in demonstrate that nothing can travel quicker that light speed and use pseudoscience to show that 2 bodies with speed near light the addition is not more that light speed.

Until today probably the only proof according to the Theory of relativity is the clocks the satellites that delay, but this can to be by more options: not or less gravity, not atmosphere, … and in all conditions if a fly that fly into a supersonic plain: What has more speed fly or plain?

Really in universe are not reference points, then why can have relation speed, maximum speed, size, time in relation with a maximum speed?

The Theory of relativity treat to join : speed, time, gravity, size (at more speed more little), .. but this is more mathematics that reality.

A work with bad bases is all bad, the base of the Theory of relativity is that light is constant and maximum speed and this is false, probably maximum speed is infinite, but this not means that can to be taken.

This theory also take 2 more points: “E=mc2” (I speak against it in O11) and that “light is curved by gravity”, this last is true (a fact), but Einstein was error in their calculation, is probably this was a good hit, a work taken from others before or a chance (black holes was already knowns). But a good hit not means that the theory is true.

So, in this work I show that expansion and Big Bang theories are false, also that the Theory of relativity is also false. Mathematics are good for mathematics, work against science is only pseudoscience. Believe in expansion and Theory of relativity is only a believe against science.

The actual nominated Nobel prizes of physic are not the only bad, all prizes in relation with this 2 bad theories are all bad.

That people believe in any question not make it true, thing the bad face that take all this doctors and scientist when see that all this is against science and only a believe like in past was that the Earth was flat, … All this big scientist will be discredit.

More of 2 years make I write to astronomy and scientist newspaper and this is rejected, but by many rejection the universe does not expand and Einstein was error.

You can compare this information with that give you a scientist and note where is well and bad or how answer your questions.

And the article error that I say before is not rejected : that say that angle in light show evidence of dark energy, but this show really that not expand and that light way is more that real way.


O02 – Wormholes

This theory is absurd, according to it a body that go into a black hole travel to another black hole, but in many black hole that astronomers know in all go into many bodies but in nothing take out any body.

A black hole atract by gravity and gravity power is inversely proportional to distance, so making a wormhole and an black hole in space the gravity power would to decrease. So wormhole and black hole (taken as hole) is against physic laws.

In same form: a hole or wormhole not add attraction force by increment of mass atracted, a gravitational mass really increase by mass attracted (more mass means more gravity force).

This theory is so ridiculous that not need more info, born in 1916. Near 100 years without any proof and without any burden of proof. Born from the Theory of Relativity (O1) that is also false.


O03 – black hole

The actual theory say that a black hole is a hole in the space from what cannot escape nothing

A first error is that cannot escape nothing, they emit x and gamma rays and particles, by that is false that cannot escape nothing.

Black hole is in relation with Wormholes, that not emit light, a very big mass, eccentric (way that travel the light), …

If a black hole take the definition that has many mass and light cannot take out the name would not be black hole, would be anything like black star, black body, mass star, .. but black hole is because is taken like a hole in the space.

An example: suppose you add mass and in more mass more attraction (more gravity), the body has more gravity and probably more dense, in a level you add a kilo and the body disappear. This means black body. Against this and according to actual theory a black hole is a hole in space that would to decrease gravity force by more distance, this is false.

Also according to wormholes and black hole the black hole is empty but has more gravity power accordint to more mass, this means that a bigger black hole has more gravity power (this is according to more mass is more gravity power) but not according to theory that say that make a hole in space and a wormhole, according to these theories the gravity would to decrease and according to gravity power that decrease with distance. These theories are against physic laws.

Same case to eccentric that say the theory, if would exist eccentric the gravity force would decrease by distance and also make an hole that has explanation in 2d (stone in sand) but not in 3d. I speak in my hypotheses over that eccentric cannot exist. The light is curved by gravity without existence of eccentric.

If from a body cannot escape the light also cannot would escape the x and gamma ray because are of the same nature, but black hole not emit light (or we not see it) but emit this ray.

If a star emit light and x and gamma ray, but adding mass disappear the light and grow the x and gamma ray the normal is that change any by the other and by that that light by gravity (gravity curve the light) is converted in x ray like say O4.

If a star has gravity, a black hole has more gravity, by that is few probably a hole, because the gravity grow like a body with more gravity but like gravity curve the light this is curved and not visible or converted to x ray. In none moment this give any proof of that make a hole.

Black hole attract body in relation like a body with more mass, then seem very few probably that create a hole. According to physic laws and rationalism the so called black body only is a more mass body that attract in their relation and that curve the light or convert it in x ray.

If this bodies don’t emit light visible but grow x ray, the logic explain that convert 1 waves in the other. It’s proved that gravity curve the light and by that probably accelerate or brake also it.

The theories also say that all is by curved of eccentric (none proof over this), and like I say in my hypothesis 3h space cannot to be compress by gravity (none proof over compression of space by gravity) and none proof over eccentric curved (eccentric is the way that the light travel).

This theory has none proof in many years, not given burden of proof and against physic laws (hole in space, space compressed, against mathematics, …).

In general is ridiculous, a hole that not emit light, but emit x ray, gamma ray, particles by the poles, …


O04 – Cosmic X-ray and black holes

Abstract: In this article I show that there are signs sufficient to understand that cosmic x-ray are light and waves with frequency increased by gravity (probably), this explain why normally the emitter is not visible and more solutions in x-ray. Can to seem difficult to understand that gravity increase the frequency but give good answer to all show x-ray radiations and also there is today no good answer by light traveling in empty space.


First any solution this hypothesis give: black holes are like black body, black holes don’t show light (this give the name of black holes), black holes emit x-ray, many points emit x-ray but not visible light, x-ray background, x-ray from Galaxy Clusters. All this is easy to explain by conversion from light to x-ray by gravity in black holes and difficult in other form.

Show 1 by 1:

1x – Black holes are like black body: any emission from black hole is converted to x-ray, also by reflection (need also escape from the gravity of black hole).

2x – Black holes don’t show light, the classic theory say that “cannot escape nothing, also light” but this is not really true, black holes emit particles by the poles and x-ray. According to the classic theory black hole don’t emit light, but by the same theory canoot emit x-ray and gamma ray (the 3 are photons). It’s impossible light not escape and ray-x escape. Really black holes don’s show light and show x-ray. Any maybe the solution and this is not according to classic theory.

2.1x – Gamma ray, x-ray and light are 3 of the same nature, all 3 are photons and by that with the same physic laws.

3x – Black holes emit x-ray: this is a fact true.

4x – Many points emit x-ray but not visible light: the light and all waves are converted to x-ray. Probably that seem that also emit light is from other point really.

5x – X-ray background: Probably any gas clouds before to be stars are black holes (really this is demonstrated that any stars without light are black holes), it’s more probably in the first stars in time probably only there is hydrogen. Here is important understand that in that distance (CMBR) 1 degree is more of 2000 milky way like I write in my website. This coincide more with my hypothesis over that universe cannot expand (this is impossible and is creation) and CMBR not exist and before stars only is gas clouds creating first stars (maybe other elements). This is another proof according to my model and against expansion, big-bang and creationism.

6x – X-ray from Galaxy Clusters: Actual theory say that are empty and very hot, this is difficult and more to have near 200 times the temperature of stars that have energy and according to the model are empty. Against this my hypothesis is according to a galaxy in the middle that with the addition of gravity emit x-ray and by that not visible. By the actual theory they would emit also light visible and by that we need to consider in all forms incorrect.

6.1x – Old galaxy Clusters: “The X-ray emission originates from the hot intra-cluster gas: subject to the cluster’s gravitational potential, the gas is compressed and heated to temperatures of over 10 million Kelvin, and shines at X-ray wavelengths.” – http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/An_Old_Galaxy_Cluster_Discovered_In_The_Young_Universe_999.html – difficult with actual model and according to my model where only are cluster with addition of gravity making x-ray and not light visible. In my model galaxies and clusters are near the same. In my model galaxies only are concentration of stars that attract others and also sweep the space.

7x – By actual theory black holes are consider at same time like big gravity and at same time empty, this 2 models are incompatibles and I only accept gravity mass. Only many matter and dense can attract by gravity. Is time also to understand that wormhole is impossible.

8x – Temperature of black holes incorrect: theory actual say that temperature of black holes is very low and this probably because not emit light and understand this is in the form of x-ray give a good answer. Theory actual say: “Quantum mechanics predicts that black holes emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole “A stellar black hole of one solar mass has a Hawking temperature of about 100 nanokelvins.” Really a black hole absorbs stars and need at least have that temperature and also increased probably by breaking the light emitted.


Here I give any hypotheses and this can be error, I treat of give any solution:

Hypothesis: The gravity in big mass brakes the light and by that this grow the frequency or decrease the wave length, and by any question remain in this frequency after to abandon the massive attraction of black hole. This brake and increase of frequency only is by black holes, probably only in very low distances without action in less gravity where light escape quickly from gravity. This effect is in all frequencies, not only light and affect to hot and cold black holes.

This idea can to seem strange and impossible but the facts are the facts, this answer well to all the know conditions. Also another qualities of light today are strange like that light (wave) travel by empty space and only accepted in past by ether and today by quantum.

Another hypothesis would be that by more gravity black holes have less dissipation and by that the temperature grows until conversion to x-ray from light but this only would to be useful for very hot black holes.

Another probability would be by others forms of create x-ray, today is know by hot, but for example in past only know to create light by incandescence: light bulb, fire, … and today we know diodes,  fluorescent light. We know a form but can to be more form of obtain x-ray. Sun emit x-ray but this seem different to the theory of many degrees, Sun’s corona has more temperature but not seem that the x-ray emission is from here.

That x-ray from black hole is according to visible light (up of frequency, convertion total to x-ray, …) not means that this is the only x-ray formation, Sun utilize another method probably, …

Also can be another sources, not only black holes.  Also there are many black holes, not only in the middle of galaxies, many stars and gas clouds can to be black hole.

This hypothesis can also answer the question of that light is brake by gravity and not only curved.

The result is against to the visual expansion of the universe (remember my work against real expansion of the universe in my webpage), the expansion stretch the wave, the gravity by black hole concentrate. Really x-ray in the universe also are stretched how is supposed.

Other linked hypotheses: not wormholes, a black hole is big mass that make big gravity and not a hole, there is not geodesic (the way that travel the light is not curved, is curved the light) how I say in my web, the space cannot to be created, expanded, compressed, curved.


O05 – Dark Energy.

According to expansion and Big Bang theories, exist a dark energy that create the expansion of the universe but this is indifferent of the quantity and force, because according to Hubble’s law the universe expand equal in all points and directions.

Also according to expansion of the universe the space each time is bigger but the expansion is the same, in physic nothing has the same value without attenuation less this.

So dark energy has a value, this is indifferent of accumulation of dark energy, at the size of the universe, … because according to Hubble’s law the expansion is equal in all points and directions and according to new Nobel prizes 2011 the expansion is accelerating without motion and without relation to Dark energy quantity and distribution.

Einstein was according to Dark energy and this show the bad value of Einstein like scientist.


O06 – String theory

A theory that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory).

By the effect is easy to understand also is false, treat over quantum (false by O7) and Theory of Relativity (false by O1).

The physic that has lose the principles thing that according to a frequency can change particles – energy near to stem cell (relation Big Bang to born of a person, String theory to stem cell, all in relation to Gods and creationism).

This theory (without any proof and without burden of proof) need 6 dimensions more (needed but not sufficient). And give relation to universe with a human body, creationism, stem cell, … in the same form that the Theory of Relativity treat to make relation from time, space, speed, … and quantum theory treat to make relation wave and particles, …


O07 – Quantum theory

Normally called quantum physic but without any proof, is really only a theory.

Like the other theories remain like theory, none proof, none burden of proof.

All begin with light and that cannot admit that light (waves) can travel by empty space.

The particle theory of light is so big that in any time was considered the light only like particle and not wave until that wave experiments demonstrate that the light is wave (so in time was already show an error, later demostrate false, today need the other false error: It’s only wave). The ridiculous and false only live a time.

Today the light is considered wave and particle and from here born the quantum theory reinforce by photon experiments.

If light would be particle a bulb with light would emit particles and by that lose mass. This is false, by that light is only wave and not particle and by that Quantum theory is only false.

Light is the same nature that radio waves, x ray, gamma ray and microwaves, by that if light has photons also radio waves would to be radiotons, x ray would to be xtons, gamma ray would to be gammatons, microwaves would to be microwavestons.

A particle is not a wave, emit it represent lose of mass and cannot emit in all direction like waves, so the Sun (near us) emit many particles (neutrinos, …) and only a few of theirs arrive to 1 point of Earth, like particles we only would receive any few photons of far stars.

The quantum experiments are curious, but cannot give to light a particle component, the bigger experiment is that a particle excited give a photon that given to another put in excited, is curious but not represent quantum physic.

An example, a speaker can to move a rope, also can to break a glass, but nothing call a soundton at the unit of sound that break a glass, …

Also would consider quantum from microwave oven, laser scalpel, .. that also need a quantum unit to work, radars (in radars with big energy is possible to fry eggs, telephone antennas, …

Quantum theory is only a theory without any proof, this so big experiment has not proven that quantum theory is another thing that only a theory.

Quantum physic only can to be an error, cannot to be any true from any false.


O08 – Higgs boson

Another time the creationism and stem cell.

Higgs boson is the equivalent in physic to stem cell in biology.

Always treating to find a point in common by some particles.

Make few moth would find a false positive. Also that find this not means that really is what they thing, maybe a particle (there are many, many differents particles) that look near this particle.

It’s in relation with creationism and stem cells, scientist say that would explain the mass of particles, then suposse particles without mass, this is in relation with Big Bang theory and creationism and without relation with a universe not created.

Really Higgs boson may exist (a particle the has any characteristics), this is probably (a probably particle) between millions of particles. Another is that can to be relation with mass and Big Bang. Note that the so called Higgs boson is a possible particle, not only with their theory. This is not a binary form that demonstrate an particle with that characterists the true of their theories.

Nothing more to say about this absurd.


O09 – Olbers’ paradox

This say that “With infinitely many stars, every angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should be as bright as the sun” – http://www.weburbia.com/physics/olber.html

Here the only paradox is the proper paradox, by simple see we cannot see the sky light in night, there are relation distance – attenuation, same in the case of all static we cannot to see more of 13.7 billion years, …

Nothing more to say. This for me seem the low level admit for many theories, and the low level of astronomers and physics.


O10 – jumble

This is not a real point but inform that are points that physic use for all.

This jumble (like the medicine that work for all from talkative in the west films) are: quantum physic, wormholes, another dimensions, dark energy.

Normally this show where is false, because normally that what is good for all really is good for nothing and is false.

O11 – E=mc2

Today E=mc2 is considered true but I see many indications to thing against this.

This theory born near the prehistory of the nuclear physic, also make few time before the atom was considered indivisible (another false theory, today proved and rejected).

Near this formule is the kinetic energy, this say that E=mv2/2 – in kinetic formule is for a crash where mass and velocity give energy without conversion from matter to energy, but according to Einstein in nuclear power the mass is converted to energy. An example a car crash, in the crash half of the mass is in the rest of the car, the other middle is by the environment in screws, … taking the formule without 1/2 the result of lose mass in equat to e=mv2. In other example a car traveling at light speed would converted in energy losing the mass to act like Einstein formule say. In O15 I speak over e=mc2 is a collision formula.

Today we know that in nuclear power many sub-atomic particles escape from the container, and e=mc2 treat over very big differences in units: c2 (quantity) is 300,000,000 x 300,000,000 , so for example 1 kilo from water would produce E=mc2
= 0.111 (a litre of water has 0.111 kg of hidrogen) x 300.000.000 x 300.000.000 = joules.

This formula in case that born from experimental work not consider the particles that escape, but I think is theory (from theory of relativity) in this last form is only a theory without proofs and in this case is near impossible this is true from a base false of this theory. This is used today like the begin from nuclear energy, but real begin is radio, .. from Madame Curie, … and from fussion to see what happens in stars.

This formula e=mc2 has double significance: 1 – like generation of energy: this may be good, but only for nuclear and fission, a potatoes cannot generate energy in relation to this formula. 2 – conversion from mass to energy, in this sense maybe true conversion but in relation mc3 or mc4, not mc2. Really this formula is of conversion, not of generation, but in many cases is taken for generation of energy (read also relation with meteorites in O15).

In all case a lose of mass is according to particle emission and by that this formula (nuclear reactor, …) maybe according to particle emission and by that lose of mass but not according to conversion from mass to energy. Case of exist conversion mass to energy this would to be lower. Also remember that the theory of relativity is only a theory without any proof. In nuclear reactor there are lose of mass but explained by particle emission and in that relation they create radioactiviy in the environment. A truck that lose part of their load when it’s moving not means conversion mass-energy.

In this formule there is not considered the radioactivity that escape, also is difficult to measure really the quantity of joules that generate a nuclear bomb, also not a nuclear reactor (really this convert nuclear in heat, but is know that particles escape from reactor and generate radiactivity in water and other elements in near or far contact with the radio elements.

Also would be interesting consider the conversion from mass to energy in carbon, wood, petroleum, …

Also this consider the relation mass – energy but you cannot take a grame of potatoes and convert it in energy by this formule, you only can make this conversion by nuclear power (fussion or fission) and here the work is by critic mass.

Maybe real conversion mass – energy and viceversa (I doubt it in part by the fact that physics like to obtain a relation mass – energy also if it’s true or false), but if really exist the relation would to be more much bigger, not 300,000,000, many more because many of the particles escape from the container.

No all matter is converted in energy, you cannot put matter in a table and this convert in energy, you need to give pression or create collision (nuclear elements are collisionables in nature and have critial mass. Nuclear energy (fission) create also radiactivity in objects and environment that also is a form of lose mass. Also in collision energy (car collision, meteorites, … ) we could make relation between energy created by collision and lose of mass.

Physics are very simple, they like to joint mass – energy – time , … from here born a theory so impossible like the theory of relativity (see more in Oo1) and all this theory is false, this means that if really exist a relation mass – energy is not a contribution from Einstein. (sometimes a person say a true when all say is false, but not seem this case). From a false base is near impossible obtain true solutions, the base of the theory is that light speed is maximum speed and this has proofs that is false, same in Einstein time.

A simile: a vehicle travel at light speed (c) and has a collision, in this collision lose m/2, then according to kinetic formule e=mv2/2 the energy of the collision would to be e=mc2 from v=c and lose mass of m/2. Then in this simile the matter lose is converted in energy? (remember that in an nuclear reaction is considered the lose mass, not the total mass). According to kinetic e=mv2/2 there are not conversion and according to Einstein e=mc2 there are conversion, and in this simile you  can applicate both formulas.


O12 – X-ray from galaxies clusters are not by gas clouds, are by other galaxy

Center of galaxy cluster emit x-ray : “observations of X-rays coming from CL J1449+0856 made with ESA’s XMM-Newton space observatory. The cluster is giving off X-rays that must be coming from a very hot cloud of tenuous gas filling the space between the galaxies and concentrated towards the centre of the cluster. This is another sign of a mature galaxy cluster, held firmly together by its own gravity, as very young clusters have not had time to trap hot gas in this way”. – http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-distant-mature-galaxy-cluster.html

This emission of x-ray is supposed by very hot (hot is a normal creation known of x-ray) like say : “very hot cloud of tenuous gas”  but not visible (very hot and not visible are near contrary), but they don’t see anything in that place, then: How is possible a gas cloud so hot and not visible? the more near relation is a black hole that not show light but emit x-ray.

By this the only explanation is that in center there is a black hole or another galaxy that joining their gravity with the other galaxies have a perfomance like a black hole: emit x-ray but not visible light. Like not emit visible particles, the most probably is a galaxy that add gravity to near the mass of a black hole in relation.

Actual explanation speak over a very hot cloud not visible, but this means near an empty space and not visible, without explain the cause of so big hot without a star, ..  and without light (hot normally produce light), but all this is against physic laws and with bad explanation and near to black hole (x-ray but not visible light).


O13 – The moon does not turn

Mainstream says that the moon has sincronized turn because always show same face to Earth.

That moon turn or not is more near a definition that a movement. If we define that a body that always show same face to their mass center and without change the other 2 axis not turn, then moon not turn. If we consider that moon turn, then all the building in Earth also turn because turn of moon and object in Earth have the same mass center.

Moon is difficult to relation to Earth because Earth turn a day each time, but according to their mass center and sidereal time the Earth make a turn more to Sun each year and relation terrestial day and sidereal day is near a difference of 4 minutes. But astronomers that work with sidereal time has problems, the sidereal time has changes that not know the cause.

We go to study the cause: if Moon turn, then the cause is not comprensible because each day at same time Earth would need to point to the same sidereal point, but if we understand that moon does not turn and by that the Earth adjust the turn to the point in the relation to the Sun and that the Earth is a big flywheel is easy understand this errors in the sidereal day that astronomers not understand the cause.

In same form the Moon not always show exactly the same face, has little changes produced also by to be also a flywheel.

The way that travel the Earth around the Sun is an ellipse and by that not all days correspond a perfect rotation equivalence, this added to a flywheel explain well the sidereal differences.

In general a body that show always the same face to their mass center and not turn the other 2 axis would to be called without turn (same that building in Earth, and all the furnitures of my house when I don’t move theirs) would to be considerer without turn.

Earth around the Sun turn a time a day, then turn, but according to sidereal time each year make a turn more (366 turns in a day of 365 days) in same form that moon make 1 turn every moon month (day of moon), but if really moon does not turn then sidereal time is only a useful for astronomers, in same form that my house make a turn sidereal each day.

Other sign or evidence is that like I tell the sidereal day is not constant, has variations and this variations would to be accumulated in form that in a time at midday would to be at night, but like the moon does not turn, this supposed errors in sidereal time are adjusted and always midday is with Sun light. Same by that a year is 365 days and 6 hours, that give error in turn by a sidereal turn.

Astronomers also consider that by tide forces the bodies go to sincronized turn, but really is not turn the considered sincronized turn.

This was my first hypotesis, I obtain in make near 20 years ago, in that time also it was rejected in forums, .. and I obtain agresive and  contemptuous words, so big that I abandon by 18 years to informate in my hypotheses. Really the conditions are changed few in this 20 years, today I obtain reject and also same words by my hypotheses.


O14 – Local Sidereal Time fluctuations

For astronomers local sidereal time fuctuantions today are not explanations, but according to my O13 hipotesis (the Moon does not turn) is by that the Moon does not turn and by that the Earht each year turn 365 times (a year of 365 days) and not 366 times according to sidereal time turns. See (O13).

This explain the cause of this fluctuations : a big flywheel that not turn in case of Moon) and that in case of Earth is not according to sidereal time and that adjust with eliptical orbit


O15 – Reality of nuclear energy = collision energy.

Mainstream say that nuclear energy is transformation from matter to energy but that is impossible like I say in “O11 – E=mc2” by that another need to be the solution.

Really is a collision energy, I go to explain with an example very near to nuclear energy (maybe you initially not understand this similarity, the meteorites collision with others, planet, .. and can give many energy near hundreds or thousands or nuclear bombs and with speed far from lightspeed and without polarity, but nobody thing that matter convert in energy, really many times after collision lose mass and this is in relation with (Elemental subatomic particles-017). Then : why in atom we consider energy from matter and in meteorites we consider collision? but really are very similars.

Suppose now that the meteorite travel near lightspeed and in the collision there are polarity like electrons (negative) and proton (positives), then the energy would to be million times more but not nuclear. In the case of the atom (nuclear power) the bodies have polarity, the collision is near lightspeed, mass is low but are many collisions near lightspeed and with attraction.

Also if the meteorite was considered elemental particle after collision would to consider conversion from matter to energy by not visible result after collision or by lose of mass if result is visible. – this is considered nuclear power: collision and after collision lose of mass considered converted to energy.

With attraction the speed grow inversely to distance.

No all matter is converted in energy, you cannot put matter in a table and this convert in energy, you need to give pression or create collision (nuclear elements are collisionables in nature and have critial mass. Nuclear energy (fission) create also radiactivity in objects and environment that also is a form of lose mass. Also in collision energy (car collision, meteorites, … ) we could make relation between energy created by collision and lose of mass.

In the fusion the hidrogen create helius, not dissapear (in part lose mass), in fission create other elements by fusion and fission and radiactivity. In a collision also is the same: unions and fragments.

According to Einstein formula e=mc2 the mass is converted in energy, but according to collision formula or kinetic energy is E=mv2/2. This means that a crash collision at light speed would to convert the car in energy and all the car dissapear. Also for example a car collision where half of mass is taking appart of the car suppose the same formula, for example a of 1000 kg that after collision have 500 kg by e=mv2/2 would to be 1000v2/2 and after collision 500v2 according to Einstein formula (if they would travel at lightspeed). Really is same formula, in Einstein E=mc2 they consider not all the mass, only the difference, in this probably half mass in action go to the environment, half remain in form that uranium after live is not zero mass. Against this uranium not dissapear only lose mass that go to the environment.

It’s easy that in nuclear power the speed is lightspeed or near by the charges (negative for electrons) that go to positives and the speed grow in relation with distance, so in time is more near to the other charge the speed grow until lightspeed or near.

Also a formula over conversion from mass to energy not leave none mass, so the uranium afther their period life would dissapear, but this not true, part of the uranium rest with mass and other part of the uranium rest in the environment.

According to Einstein formula the middle or all the car would to dissapear (converted in energy) and also in atomic power, according to collision forces remain all the mass, part in the body (uraium or car) and other part in the environment (screws for the car, radiactivity environment for atomic power).

I write this hypothesis before to know kinetic energy formula, knowing that e=mc2 is impossible like conversion from mass to energy, this formula is a proof that this hypothesis is true. I’m not a scientists and don’t know all, like a person that know that a magician trick is not real without need to know all the tricks (same knowing none trick).

Reference: “Several mathematical description of kinetic energy exist that describe it in the appropriate physical situation. For objects and processes in common human experience, the formula ½mv² given by Newtonian (classical) mechanics is suitable. However, if the speed of the object is comparable to the speed of light, relativistic effects become significant and the relativistic formula is used. If the object is on the atomic or sub-atomic scale, quantum mechanical effects are significant and a quantum mechanical model must be employed”. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy   – They know but they lie or belief or both . (scientists)

Reference: “When vehicles collide, the damage is proportionate to the relative velocity of the vehicles, the damage increasing as the square of the velocity since it is the impact kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) which is the variable of importance” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_%28mechanics%29

A good proof is the worn-out combustible, according to E=mc2 this has not sense – only would to be less mass, but according to collision without end at zero speed is very understandable, a piece of the combustible active and inactive go to the environment and another remain in the combustible, but this lose qualities, by that need to change the bars before their end of life.

A car consume gasoline and by this need refuel, according to the theory of relativity mass is converted and energy and by that only would need refuel, but really after a time the combustible is considered worn-out and need change all their by a new one. This is according a collision with not total collision, where part of the energy is lost in any collision. Also consider for this the control bars that control the reaction speed. This so called worn-out combustible is active normally by hundred years but they consider worn-out because has not sufficent power that they need.

In both case lose mass but in meteorites nobody thing is converted in energy. See also o17

So the bad called nuclear energy is really collision energy

O16 – There are not more dimensions

Mainstream say there are more dimensions but really are not possible (actual and maximum dimension are 3 in distance and 1 in time, so can call of 4 dimensions).

We see it with an example: a person that live in 2 dimensions observe miracles, bodies that appear and dissapear without now the cause, also a person in 2 dimensions cannot observe nothing of 3 dimension.

In our universe we not see miracles (not appear and dissapear objects), also scientists say that can observe and proof the existence of more dimensions but from less dimensions is impossible proof the existence of more dimension less with miracles like a person living in 2d never can demonstrate and show or manifest 3d. All this demonstrate is false. Only can lie with false. If really exist more dimension is against that say scientists.

The only posible is that exist more dimension but we cannot have relation with theirs, because not appear objects. So would to see invisible for us always and if they are invisible also are indetectables.

This is also against string theory.

O17 – Elemental subatomic particles and bosons

Mainstream say that know the elemental subatomic particles but this is not true like I go to explain.

In past during many time was considered the atom the elemental particle (atom in greece means without division) from antique Greece but this not give true to this belief.

Later was considered electron and proton, today the so called elemental subatomic particles, but this is so true like the atom.

I cannot give proofs (invisible) but can give signs:

  • I read (not find where) that in particles accelerators appear energy, that consider this evidence of other dimensions, but never a person of less dimension can make appear more dimension, but against this if there are particles more little this can collide (O15) and create energy by collision and not miracle or unknow dimensions.
  • This days speak over “Higgs boson” and say that 2 groups find in different zone : “range 116-130 GeV by the ATLAS experiment, and 115-127 GeV by CMS” . Really if was an boson both groups need to find the same. but if it’s a composed particle elusive each group can find a different. If would exist 2 both group would discover the 2, not 1.
  • In accelerators consider conversion matter to energy and viceversa because consider that are elementals, in case of the meteorite of (O15) if the meteorite was considered elemental particle after collision would to consider conversion from matter to energy by not visible result after collision or by lose of mass if result is visible.
  • Matter and anti-matter are not zero result like say theory : “The existence of nonzero neutrino masses somewhat complicates the situation” against standar model . An not elemental neutrino particle explain this according to less differences impossible today to measure. 1-1 would to be zero but 1.001-1 is not zero. A frontal collision of 2 equal cars or give same problems or would to be zero, not 0.1 and zero, but if they are differents the result would not be equalized.
  • In particle collision considered elementals thing that after a collision the mass convert to energy, but in the example of the meteorite not (O15).

Higgs boson only can to be an not elemental particle and by that false (O08).

O18 – Conversion matter to energy

According to O15 we can see that really are not conversion matter to energy and by that also e=mc2 is false (O11)

Mainstream like to connect all (in this case matter and energy) and that in time of Einstein (false and lie, …) use any argument false to obtain like they desire.

Really considering elemental particles a particles that are not elementals each time there is a collision and part of the mass is not show seem that lose mass, and against this with energy joining mini-particles not shows seem that energy is converted in mass. In the example of the meteorite this can occurr (defrag or join) but nothing speak in conversion matter  – energy.

No all matter is converted in energy, you cannot put matter in a table and this convert in energy, you need to give pression or create collision (nuclear elements are collisionables in nature and have critial mass. Nuclear energy (fission) create also radiactivity in objects and environment that also is a form of lose mass. Also in collision energy (car collision, meteorites, … ) we could make relation between energy created by collision and lose of mass.

In the fusion the hidrogen create helius, not dissapear (in part lose mass), in fission create other elements by fusion and fission and radiactivity. In a collision also is the same: unions and fragments.

Above explain the so called nuclear power in O15 and also the born of the impossible quantum theory (O07) and string theory (O06) , the belief in more dimensions (O16)whormholes (O02) and other belief impossibles until the same theory of the relativity (O01).

O19 – Nuclear physic of fusion and fission

Both nuclear physic are considered differents, but really are the same if we consider really theirs like collision physic (O15). If we consider the mainstream explanation is difficult to understand why fission and fusion are both nuclear physic with same results.

Considering collision physic both create energy by collision, in fission is easy to understand, the uranium with many electrons this go out of their nucleus and create collisions, like result create radiaction in the environment and pass the radiactivity to other objects.

In the case of fusion, the hidrogen is a very volatile element with only 1 electron and not stable, this with heat and/or pression create collisions with others elements and by that create also nuclear energy.

In the fusion the hidrogen create helius, not dissapear (in part lose mass), in fission create other elements by fusion and fission and radiactivity. In a collision also is the same: unions and fragments.

Really both are the same. Mainstream say that fusion not create radiactivity, but the Sun and stars emit many particles, … also only has been proved in h bomb from fission begin of reaction without evidences of who create the radiactivity.

O20 – Classic Newton physic is correct, modern and quantum is false

In begin of XX century physic don’t understand many physic occurs and invent new and impossible physic: theory of relativity, quantum theory, big band and expansion of the universe theories, conversion matter – energy, nuclear power (fussion in hidrogen and fission in uranium), string theory, …

All this modern theories are impossibles, classic physic is correct but this auto-called big scientists not understand it and by that create many impossibles theories like the true.

A check of all theirs are impossibles: Big Bang and universe expansion is the name of this pages, is impossible and creationism, creating in begin and all time space from nothing, theory of relativity (light cannot to be maximum speed, neutrinos and subatomic particles travel near light speed and would to be very small according to this ridiculous theory), strings theory (take the physic like biologogy with sterm cells), …

How is possible that people in pass and present so considered very big intelligent today consider true all this impossibles?

Who create a belief from impossible is only a sectarian.

O21 – Matter and antimatter

Another time mainstream use ambiguous term to confuse. Matter and antimatter are both matter. Is like say that man is human and woman is anti-human.

The difference is that antimatter is like matter but with charge opposite.

Probably the antimatter only exist in the particles accelerators, because matter and antimatter in contact collision (their are with attraction).

In the atom are both, but electron (negativ) turn around the proton (positive) and by that is like gravity, the electron not escape by the attraction of charge positive, but in accelerators the particles are free, and by that with attraction and collision (at less distance more attraction). Is the same case that make that neutrino travel without problems because has not attraction (has not charge).

By other side even without existence of antimatter it’s possible, in particles accelerators can separe subatomic particles and join in form inverse (or in nuclear plants, …). This not means that exist really in nature and less the theories over antimatter and Big Bang.

O22 – Cause of life in Earth = the Moon

Against mainstream, probably Earth life is from the Moon and not from and special Earth.

Today many news are over probably life in different planets but not consider that Mars is near us and without know life.

Probably our planet has nothing special for life (distance to Sun good, water, …) but all this probably also was in initial Venus and Mars, so Earth seem not have nothing special. Another planets had water (in fact distant planet have ice normally from water.

Go to check: Earth is simil to other planet if we consider Earth without water or the other without lose the water, … but Moon is the only one moon know so big and with low distance. Really Moon is the only know, and Earth is not special.

The Moon turning very near from Earth create tidal forces and this create many things: tide, volcano, .. also indirectly probably the wind and this the swell.

All planet in their creation are the nucleus hot, but in time this heat dissapear and the planet become a dead planet, Earth by tidal forces turn the hot nucleus and this obtain: volcano, atmosfere regeneration and expansion (volcano emit gas), earthquake, Continental drift, …

Stations, win, … not deppend directly from Moon but probably indirectly or help to it with meteorology. Also ocean currents has relation with tides and tides are relation with tidal forces from Moon (also read O26-glaciations and O24-gravitational axis , stations, …)

Life also need the Earth’s magnetic field, this is incremented by tidal forces from Moon, the magnetif field is created by the magma in moviment (maybe low by rotation of Earth [very low for life], but this in incremented [needed for life] by tidal forces from Moon) and this move and remain hot by tidal forces (see also O27, O24, O26 and O23). Example of tidal forces: Enceladus (moon) of saturn has also water and hot by tidal forces from Saturn – “proximity to the planet can then lead to tidal heating of the satellite’s interior”    – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29

Distance from star in relation to temperature is important but without seasons and meteorology without many value: so Moon without atmosfere change between +107° C and -153° C (and a moon day is of 28 days) – http://www.universetoday.com/19623/temperature-of-the-moon/

The axis of Earth permit the seasons and the climate with it, seem that all planets have inclined, but also here the magnetic field have different inclination by Moon. Moon turn over Earth in inclined orbit, but really Earth turn 1 time by day over the axis with tidal forces from Moon and this make that the magnetif field axis is different to turn axis. (this is probabliment the cause of pulsars). Really that Moon turn over Earth here has few importante: Moon lose 28 days in 1 turn.

Also with all this can exist millions of planets with live and civilizations. Also need to include other variables like a gravity not very big, temperature, water, atmosfere, day or turn period of few hours for not very cold in night, …

Read also in O27 that the Moon moving away and closer periodically is sufficent to explain many causes in Earth: life, magnetic field, ..

O23 – Cause of Pulsars

Mainstream unknow the cause of pulsars but this is in the same form that Moon over Earth, by tidal forces make that Magnetic axis is inclined from turn axis (see O22)

This create the pulsars:  “The “pulses” of high-energy radiation we see from a pulsar are due to a misalignment of the neutron star’s rotation axis and its magnetic axis” in http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/pulsars.html .

But scientist really don’t know the cause for pulsar and this is: in same case that Moon over magnetic axis of Earth: “How magnetic field is created and sustained in a normal star (like our Sun) is not fully understood yet” and ” In the process of collapse, magnetic field may get affected by turbulent motions of matter” in  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/061128a.html . This is near to say “any solution would to be”

A pulsar need a object that create tidal force in form that misalign magnetic axis. A neutron star has many more gravity and quickly rotation that Earth and tidal force of Moon, also normally the misalignment is bigger that in Earth – Moon, but the cause is probably the same (same case give same result): a object that create tidal force and with mass and rotation of neutron star misalign magnetic axis of the neutron star. In the case of Earth – Moon is rotation of Earth and tidal forces from Moon that incline magnetic axis from rotation axis.

O24 – Cause of different axis of Earth

In same form that pulsars the Earth has different axis for rotation axis and magnetic axis or misalignment of the last. The cause is the rotation of Earth with tidal forces from Moon (Moon is misaligned in the flat of Earth and Sun.

By this magnetic pole of Earth is different from geographic pole and compass not points real geographic pole.

Really is by tidal forces from Moon and Sun (like tides in the sea, plus inclination of rotation axis, plus rotation of Earth and that Earth nucleus is a flywheel. In same that meteorology really is a combiation of more that 1 force.

2 more: “The North Magnetic Pole moves slowly over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth’s core” and “Over the life of the Earth, the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field has reversed several times, with magnetic north becoming magnetic south and vice versa”, both in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole  : this is easy to understand with the forces show in this hipothesys and different distance of Moon from Heart: “The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm per year” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29 . In this case distance from Moon to Earth change the tidal forces Moon + Sun over Earth nucleus. Also changes in inclination of rotation axis and all this in relation with volcanology, galciations, movement and changes in magnetic poles.

More:  The only option to reversed the orientation of magnetic field of Earth is the tidal forces from Moon (proved). There are forces in 2 direction: Earth rotation force the movement in a direction, tidal forces from Moon and Sun foce in the other direction: when Moon is far the tidal forces are low and by that magma not move or move in direction of rotation axis (with few tidal force from Moon and Sun), in that moment the polarity is against actual, when Moon is near the movement of magma is near to the movement of the tide in the sea (against rotation of Heart)  with variation in magnetic axis by inclination of Earth axis and Moon orbit that are not in same plane and all in relation with the flywheel that is the Earth that delay the effects and maintain the inertia. Alsos read in O26 over glaciations. Look that without tidal forces the magnetic field of the Earth is in one direction and with tidal forces is the opposite (rotation of Earth is in 1 direction, tides are opposites in direction).

Like Earth has few mass and the tidal forces so is low the misalignment is low, in pulsars (O25) is more.

Read also 022 and 021

O25 – All pulsar are “binary pulsar”

According to O23 – Cause of Pulsars all pulsar are by tidal forces and by that all are binaries.

By wikipedia: “A binary pulsar is a pulsar with a binary companion, often a white dwarf or neutron star” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_pulsar

In same article say “Although the binary companion to the pulsar is usually difficult or impossible to observe” – this happend in the pulsar that today are considered not binaries.

O26 – Cause of glaciations

Actually is know that glaciations are by less inclination in rotation axis of Earth but this would give winter with more temperature more near to an autum. According to o24 there is relation between tidal forces from Moon and magnetic field and volcanoes, this relation may have also relation with glaciation, is probably that inclination of rotation axis make the changes on glaciations (also earthquakes like from Japan change this inclination) but also in part (or all) is in relation with tidal forces and distance of Moon. Moon today is spiraling away from Earth and this go to less temperatures in the nucleus, …

Is probably like say the science that rotation axis change the inclination by time according to glaciations, but seem few probably a regular period with changes in the inclination also by other causes like the japan earthquake  (Japan earthquake shifts Earth’s axis 10 centimetres) – the only change periodical in this relation is the separation of Moon with changes knows in polarity of Earth (see o24). Is probably that the periods of glaciations are from rotation axis inclination and that earthquakes and more not change it very much, but seem few probably a periodicity with this variations.

More: it’s very probably that earthquakes, … can take down the theory of change in inclination of rotation axis and this in relation with glaciations – Changes in the tilt occur in a cycle 41,000 years long . Also is unknow this cycle that maybe also by effect and not cause from magma and tidal forces from Moon.

Also in time the Moon is far the tidal forces are low and tide in the sea to be null or very low, this also would change the ocean currents, … (like in an film the stop of ocean currents start a glaciation: “The Day After Tomorrow” [in the film is by heat the stop of ocean currents). Or by: “A shut down of the Meridional overturning circulation would suddenly decrease the amount of heat in the North Atlantic, leading to much colder temperatures in Europe and North America. A 2003 report prepared for the Department of Defense outlines what would happen if an abrupt climatic change similar to the 8200 years before present event were to recur today” – in http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

Mainstream consider that glaciations is by less inclination of rotation axis of Earth and that glaciation is by addition of summer less cold, this really give summer more cold but also give winter more heat and by this seem few probably glaciations by winter with more temperatures (by the less inclination of the axis that make the winter more near an autum). So this affirmation from mainstream science seem not really true (I remember in past they say that compass point a place with many iron and not by magnetic field). Against the mainstream explanation and that the heat of summer not arrive to winter, … is more understable is by Moon, tides, … (Nort America is cooler that Europe in same paralell by ocean currents).

Really seem few realistic to say that glaciations is by less inclination in rotation axis of Earth, with winter with more temperature (less inclination in winter means more temperature by rays by point – more near to autum that to winter actual).

In other sense the nucleus temperature in this moment is near big, this is a oven and can delay the effects but probably there are relation directe on indirecte between tidal forces from Moon (from distance from Moon to Earth) and glaciations.

O27 – Moon move away and closer periodically

By O24 and O26 with proofs like change in polarity of magnetic field in Earth is easy to deduce that Moon periodically move away and move closer from Earth. Today move away : “The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm per year” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29

The principle is near to planet orbit and Halley comet, by escape forces the Moon separate from Earth, but when this escape force is null the force of attraction make to bring. Probably in this are also another changes like time in the turn of Moon over Earth or against it the speed in this turn, or a combination.

Actual theories like that the rotation axis of Earth change periodically for glaciations cannot explain why the polarity of the magnetic poles change, …

The only condition of that Moon separate and go near is sufficent to create all the relation need for: change the polarity of magnetic poles in Earth peridically, volcanoes and glaciations by tidal forces, tides – ocean currents – glaciations without tides, magnetic field for stop particles of Sun and aurora borealis. And also from here: Why life in Earth is from Moon (O22).

O28 – Change in polarity of magnetic field in Earth is by Moon

According to O24, O26, O27 is easy to understand this all is from Moon.

When Moon is near the tidal forces make that the magma move in opposite direction to rotation like ocean tides and create a polarity, when Moon is far the low tidal forces make that magma not move or move in the rotation direction and that change the polarity.

The North Magnetic Pole moves slowly over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth’s core” and “Over the life of the Earth, the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field has reversed several times, with magnetic north becoming magnetic south and vice versa”, both in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole  : this is easy to understand with the forces show in this hipothesys and different distance of Moon from Heart: “The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at an average rate of 3.8 cm per year” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_%28astronomy%29

O29 – Continental drift near sure is by Moon

Other planets have volcanoes, but not continental drift, also they have big volcanoes like Mars by this not moviment of continents. Only is know continental drift in Earth and by that this is probably by tidal forces from Moon.

In same form that create tides, this probably create by tidal forces the movement of continental drift, both by tidal forces and in same form that magnetic field, …

O30 – Against actual theories fussion power is not clean

According to actual theories fission energy is dirty but fussion energy would to be clean. Really both are the same collision nuclear. By that both are dirty and not according like actual science consider clean the fussion.

A proof easy, the Sun emit many particles, in Sun and in nuclear plants are fussion and fission.

O31 – The frequency is not energy

Actual theories say that frequency is energy, so E = h v – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant – this is impossible, like in the same error more frequency give infinite energy – This relation between the energy and frequency is called the Planck relation or the Planck–Einstein equation: – like I say in my hypothesis the frequency need to see near a resistance.

If would to be energy this v (v = frequency) would to be in formulas and this is not: w (power) = v (volt) x  (ampere), e=mc2, … and also adding frequency would obtain energy. This is false.

Is more near to resistor or capacitor, in fact in electronic resistance low with frequency until a quantity where there are loss of energy.

Also Planck formula the emission increasing the frequency is increasing until a moment it decrease, in form of bell like you can see here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

O32 – the electrons in atoms are not quantum

There is not relation of energy of electrons in the atom with Quantum theory (Quantum theory only is false), really that electrons in atom is by levels can to have many other causes without use an impossible (Quantum only is impossible).

“Each orbital has its own set of quantum numbers such as energy”  has other causes.

A probability is that units are not so elementals like scientits believe, then with fractions would obtain inter-levels, another option maybe (very probably) that atom always is stable and stable need levels – Against a solar system the atom always is stable.

If the electron in atom is Quantum, also would to be Quantum the rain water because not fall until make a quantity (photon), the treble sound that crash a glass and also a Zen Bamboo Fountain like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4x-Hm7B4Kg

O33 – Black pulsar is by different speed

“The first major discovery came when the space telescope detected a pulsar in the CTA 1 supernova remnant that appeared to emit radiation in the gamma ray bands only, a first for its kind”

What options there are? – fews: a black hole – no, a black hole is know by other characteristics.

Only can to be that the particles that emit all pulsars go to different speed that light and in the point is visible the pulsar create gamma rays. There are many forms of create gamma rays. The gamma rays travel at lightspeed (c) but not the particles.

Pulsars emit waves and also particles, so the waves that travel at lightspeed arrive at this speed, but particles travel in other speed. – “They emit jets of charged particles which emit synchrotron radiation in the radio spectrum”

So the light visible of that pulsar arrive in the past (if the speed of particles is less os lightspeed) or in future if travel more quickly. They are proof that more speed: “Faster-Than-Light Pulsar Phenomena” – ” Researchers say as the polarization currents in these emissions are whipped around with a mechanism likened to a synchrotron, the sources could be traveling up to six times light speed, or 1.8 million km per second. However, although the source of the radiation exceeds the speed of light, the emitted radiation travels at normal light speed once it leaves the source.” – and – “And Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity is not violated.” – sure, light speed not exceed light speed.

CTA 1 is only at “about 4,600 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Cepheus” but this is not the origin of the pulsar, this is only the origin of gamma rays, by that the light can to arrive to us in past or future with differences of many years, thousand or maybe million years, like the origin is unknow also is unknow the real distance.

Probably travel at more speed the particles.

Also is know in any other places of the universe emission of x-ray or gamma ray without light.

O34 – Gravity change time or frequency

Against scientist that say that speed change time (like Einstein Relativity theory  – without any proof) this has proof, the gravity change, this is from the experiment they consider a proof over photons and Quantum (false).

The experiment is: “When an atom transits from an excited state to a base state, it emits a photon with a specific frequency and energy. When the same atom in its base state encounters a photon with that same frequency and energy, it will absorb that photon and transit to the excited state. If the photon’s frequency and energy is different by even a little, the atom cannot absorb it (this is the basis of quantum theory). When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshifthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Curiosly here are not any proof over quantum, … only there is a proof that the gravity change time or frequency, this is same in satellites where the time is delayed and scientist say this is by speed and Relativity theory, true, but this is to say that a light in the sky is a UFO. For example: a fly flying in a yet travel at more speed that the yet?. Against this (without proofs) is proved that gravity change time or frequency in the experiment of excited photons like I say in my hypothesis

In all this there are none proof over quantum, over delay clocks in satellites, … but the only proof is that gravity change frequency or time or boths.

All the rest is suppositions without any proof, in same form that the “Zen Bamboo Fountain” in “O32 – the electrons in atoms are not quantum” is another example of quantum.

Is strange the things a believer of a sect like modern science can create in their belief and sect like you can read in https://bigbangno.wordpress.com/classical-and-modern-science/

O35 – Why a proton is lighter that a neutron

There are many of 1 solution probably, but many probably is because nothing of theirs and from actual know particles are elementals. In same form against the theory matter and anti-matter give a few difference to matter.

Probably this is another proof according to “O17 – Elemental subatomic particles and bosons” that actual minimum particles are not the elementals.

O36 – Wave is an expresion of energy

The waves are energy, an expresion of energy, but frequency is not energy (o31).

Light and all waves are energy, the matter create energy by impact, …  but matter is not energy, so photons cannot to be quantum.


Tags: Cosmic X-ray, cosmic gamma rays, black-hole, light, visible light, black body, X-ray background, gas clouds. Galaxy Clusters, gravity, Temperature of black holes, wormholes, accelerated expansion of the universe, Big bang, Big rip, Big Crunch, galaxies, universe, universe expansion, mathematics, physics, astronomy, astrophysics, expansion, infinite, hypothesis,magic, creation, creationism, belief, believer, sect,Nobel prize, the Theory of relativity, relativity theory, Einstein, pseudoscience, E=mc2, moon, turn, moon does not turn, sidereal.


Author: Luis Biarge Baldellou

Email: lbiar@mail.com

Copyright ©2011 Luis Biarge Baldellou – You can copy all or part of this work giving this web page direction.