“Here, some problems occur. These the most distant objects that move almost at the speed of light are not in the present time, but these are the objects that were there more than 13 billion of light-years ago! it should actually mean that these objects were moving at that huge speed 13 billion of years ago and that the objects from the recent past move only 300 – 2 000 km/sec. faster than us. It is obvious that the spectroscopy on these telescopes lies when it claims that celestial objects were moving much faster earlier in the past and that now, in comparison, they almost don’t move. The reason for it is the Hubble constant, which does not refer to the past, but to the present and future time. ..
It goes similar with the devices for measuring background radiation, which estimate the distance from the source to the device, i.e. Earth.
Let’s assume it originates from the Big Bang. If a background radiation from 13 billion of years ago travels at the speed of light, while matter at its best travels 10% slower, with taking the same starting place into account – how is it possible for them to meet now? What is the calculation that explains it?“ from Why telescopes lie?

A classic example of non-compliance with accepted principles. The table shows inconsistent and incorrect application of Hubble constant ( H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s^-1Mpc^-1). It is maliciously adjustment results in a failed hypothesis church, about Big Bang.

2018.y.

The forbidden article:

Gravity and anti-gravity

At the beginning of April 2014., this article was removed two times, after having been proclaimed a plagiarism ("Все о космосе и НЛО“), even though it had appeared in 2008., two years before the article that was „plagiarized“, which appeared in 2010.

A quote of a part of the text from the year of 2008: „... Celestial objects rotate around their axes; the rotation creates waves, which travel away from an object and in that way create repulsion forces, which prevent the objects, captured in the orbits around them, from falling onto them. Electromagnetic forces constantly direct smaller objects towards the greater, dominant object, which, due to its rotation, constantly repulses and deflects the incoming object until it gets captured in the orbit of the dominant object. That is why objects oscillate on their trajectories; electromagnetic forces of repulsion and attraction simultaneously affect them… “

A quote from the year of 2004 (Theory of Zadar): “Gaseous systems inside galaxies can be started off by rotation and in the center they create whirls, the objects which are tens of thousands light-years of size. They are the greatest space objects, due to its specific origin and structure.
Supported from within, the rotation of these objects, besides the electromagnetic forces that are proportional to the size of an object, also creates strong repulsion waves, which are proportional to the speed of rotation. “
If academics have been trying to claim the supremacy over this article, then it must be good and valuable text worth reading.

The author of the article: W. Duckss

Why the objects don’t simply fall on its central object (a star, a planet, the centre of a galaxy), just as it occurs on the planetary satellites, as well as on Venus and Mercury?

The laws of physics are clear: the bigger the object, the stronger are the EM forces of attraction. Nevertheless, something is wrong when we know that some objects linger in the orbits around the other objects.

It is logical to conclude that the rotation of a central object (an object around which other objects rotate) is here under observation. The rotating objects seize other smaller objects, whereas the objects without a rotation don’t have satellites. Due to the rotation, an object emits synchronous radiation, by which it pushes away the objects in the direction of the rotation. The EM forces that usually have an attraction effect now obtain a repulsion effect, i.e., they push away the objects and prevent them from falling onto a central object.

If a rotation did not existed (which is impossible, due to the atom structure and its bipolarity), there would have existed only straight trajectories from the smaller objects towards the bigger ones, until they explode and vice versa. The whole universe rotates constantly: the stars rotate, as well as the planets that are beyond the reach of the strong EM forces, the galaxies rotate, the universe rotates … The objects’ trajectories are circular, or elliptical, to be more precise. All objects observe that law, even comets and asteroids that visually travel early, firmly observe that law.

Central objects in the centres of the galaxies observe more complex laws that are not based on the physical black holes. Beginning from the stars the size of our Sun, even the low speed rotations cause polar cyclones, which will in time turn into whirlwinds of the galactic size (up to 30 000 light-years). They are able to hold together such a massive objects; the rotation of matter around a whirlwind holds the whole galaxy together.

Astrophysics clearly shows that here we don’t deal with black holes. “Black holes” are by their volume small objects (it has been suggested that the biggest of them are no bigger than a planet). If they were to gather other objects, these should be smaller in volume than the central object. Considering the fact that a black hole is sucking in, the area around it should be clear from its upper and lower side, i.e., there would be no matter at all, and it is not the case.

Whirlwinds have some black hole characteristics, too; they suck in matter at both ends and manage it along the spiral. The appearance of a galaxy proportionally corresponds to the size of a central object. The stars and planets are managed in the equatorial area, just as it is the case with some other objects. Furthermore, attraction and repulsion forces are now balanced (a big object = strong gravity = many objects seized in the orbits around a central object in the equatorial area).

Now we no longer need sheets or other requisites to understand why are the orbits around a central object stable and very long-lasting. When an object increases in size faster than the existing proportion of relations allows, it slowly distances itself and finally becomes independent, if there is luck (our Moon is slowly distancing itself from Earth; Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are distancing from Milky Way,…).

The Creation continued on the eighth day

Already at the end of the previous millennium, a research to find a spontaneous disintegration of proton ingloriously failed. At the end of the research it had been stated that a spontaneous disintegration of proton does not take place within the range of 10³³ and that it is more likely to happen at the order of magnitude of 10⁹⁹, which is impossible to verify.

Something interesting and similar takes place when a star explodes. When objects that are 1.4 and more the size of our Sun explode, the accepted term is that an implosion or a collapse of a star took place, under the influence of the gravitational force (at that moment, it equals to 10 masses of the Sun). Accepting the theories which have found the solutions outside physics needs to have serious reasons. Not before 2005./2006. did these reasons become obvious. During an explosion, an object (a star) loses a large part of its mass, which needed to be compensated. That was accomplished by introducing black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs (by no means red or brown ones!).

A big problem to this subject occurred when the following opinion took place, that matter was created all at once and that it was an unchangeable and finite quantity forever.

Even before the construction of an accelerator, the scientists found out that a disintegration of matter occurs, because they were regularly recording a muon landing from the universe to a laboratory (a muon is a part of a particle, i.e., of a proton, which has a negative charge within a generally positive particle). When colliders appeared, we saw and we can still see how and to what particles matter disintegrates, i.e., how protons, neutrons and electrons disintegrate. There is no doubt whatsoever that a matter disintegrates during the collisions at very high speeds. At that time, the visible matter turns into an invisible one. With a few short delays, which are called the particles, it turns into an elementary matter.

A problem occurs when we don’t want to integrate this knowledge into the already-existing weak theories, which are more inclined to look for the answers in the fairy tales outside the frame of physics. We know very well which percussive forces are created when any star explodes, and yet, we don’t want to consider the results obtained by the colliders as a correct interpretation of the event, just as if it were two different worlds involved. There is an endless quantity of high-value collisions within an explosion, similar or even the same as they occur in the supercollider, and yet again, we continue to interpret the loss of matter and mass outside the frame of physics, rather than through the disintegration of matter. It is clear now why did those stories of the mini black holes appearing in the CERN institute come out; if it was not possible to create mini black holes in these unimaginably strong collisions, how can then exist their larger counterparts – and the conditions for their appearance are almost the same as in the so-called Big Bang.

The period before the colliders’ technology and thus obtained knowledge have appeared can be understood and justified, but by no means can it be done the same way after the knowledge of the possibility for a mass to disappear.

The type 1a stellar explosions need to be related to the stellar objects of a lesser illumination, which are no dwarfs either, because the loss of mass should not be replaced with something that doesn’t exist (there are white dwarfs, which are just the regular stellar objects, the stars in formation), and it is obvious at the larger explosions.

The loss of matter should be replaced the way Fred Hoyle suggested the particles are created, which has, by the way, been confirmed by the sub-atomic research. The formation itself should be related to the quantity of disintegrated matter (he suggested one, and only on Earth billions and billions disappear daily, which has been confirmed by the muon landings from the universe, due to the charge opposition between Earth and muons). The disintegration is the end and the formation of matter is the beginning of the process of the fundamental matter circulation in the universe.

Where is that singularity?

Singularity is a place where it all came from, the place where the laws of physics are not observed and the place that is not too far, but also not so close.

It is not here without a good reason – on the contrary, it serves to fulfil a large gap that could not be explained by the Big Bang theory, and besides, it fitted in it very well.

If we were to have a telescope powerful enough, or some other measurement device, we would have been able to see the very beginning of all, the universe hatching out of its shell and developing nicely because of the inflation force and, some 13 billion of years we would have what we have now.

Besides those telescopes on the surface of Earth, there are the following devices: telescopes Hubble and Spitzer, satellites COBE, WMAP, Planck, etc. But, no matter how modern, powerful, good they are, with ever improving options of gathering data, we still have not gone farther than “400 000 years” after the so-called Big Bang. It is obvious that we will not improve already achieved results or get closer to the singularity, no matter how much we invest in new devices and technologies. What is wrong, where is the mistake?

By looking into the space, we get the results, expressed in the measurement units of length and we don’t establish history. How is it then possible that, when we register the waves approaching from the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years, we create history based on that fact, except for knowing the distance and that the objects that emit radiation were there that much time ago, which points us to the deduction of the universe’s age? Now we can see on that distance and to see even further, we need to change (frequently changing) opinion of the universe as an isolated unit, as well as that of the length being a distance from the observation point to the observed object. That means that on that distance exist the objects which emit radiation needed for the same to be observed.

If there were a singularity, where would it be, to the south, north, east, west, above our heads or, to the opposite, beneath our feet? Earth is a conditional sphere; how is then possible to see one and the only point, named singularity, from all of its surface points? What, in that case, represent other points that are sideways beneath or above it, or opposite to it – what is there? Our devices can’t see that because we still can’t bend the direction of observation in that way that we can observe forwards and backwards at the same time. They see the universe as it is. The results we have are the presentation of the universe in real measurement units of length, i.e., 13.7 billion of light-years is a distance from the observation point to the observed object.

That object emits radiation all this time and, according to photographs and insight into the universe, it can be concluded that it will continue emitting for the next 13 billion of light-years, just as it had already been emitting before, for as much time as has already passed.

The atoms - what are they?

This is a subject about which everything is known. The atom (of hydrogen, H) is a nucleus, consisting of a proton , as well as an electron which circles around the nucleus, thus creating an electron cloud.

The atom of hydrogen between powerful magnets (quantum physics US)

The protons and neutrons, as well as the electrons, which can all exist independently under certain conditions, have been isolated in laboratories. So, where is the problem?

It has been concluded by splitting the protons (as well as neutrons and electrons) in the particle colliders that a proton consists of the smaller particles, named quarks (three quarks for Muster Mark). The first problems appeared at this point. A proton would not split into three quarks, practically without an exception (only a few exceptions out of the billions of events have occurred). When a proton is bombarded by an electron in the particle colliders, the three peaks appear (+, - and 0) and these are the quarks. I will now deliberately evade the discussions about the entire series of the so-called particles, which have a very short life span (Lambda-Hyperion, 2.51 x 10^-10 sec., sigma-hyperion +0.81, - 1.65 x 10^-10 sec., and 0 ~10^-14 sec., and so on – only the muons have a somewhat longer existence, 2,2 x 10^-6 sec.). The reasons are obviously clear, here we don’t talk about the independently-occurring particles and therefore they can’t join the interrelations in nature.

The most important fact obtained by the colliders is the existence of the stable particles (neutrino, electron, proton with a variation of neutron and photon-energy) and that they participate in the processes of creation. The proton charge can, with the help of muons, be interpreted as bipolar, because the positive charge of Earth attracts only those muons occurring in the collisions of radiation waves with the particles inside the atmosphere of Earth (the disintegration of particles).

The next important fact is that they (protons and neutrons) at the end always split, after a few pauses, into electrons, neutrinos and photons (energy) and the electrons into neutrinos.

Bipolarity of particles (I will not go further from hydrogen here) is discovered through the non-existence of the free particles – they only exist joined into pairs (H₂). A particle that has only a positive (or negative) charge – or in other words, a single charge – can not attract another particle with a similar value. Only the opposite (different) charges attract: the positive part of a hydrogen particle attracts the negative part of another hydrogen particle and then they exist as a pair. Why are these not the electrons? In that case, the joining would end as proton (nucleus) with an electron, or more of them, and there would not be the need to join together proton with another proton.

A particle that has only a positive (or negative) charge – or in other words, a single charge – can not attract another particle with a similar value. Only the opposite (different) charges attract: the positive part of a hydrogen particle attracts the negative part of another hydrogen particle and then they exist as a pair. Why are these not the electrons? In that case, the joining would end as proton (nucleus) with an electron, or more of them, and there would not be the need to join together proton with another proton .

Since a proton is by its mass 1 836 times bigger than an electron, it is obvious that they join together to create a larger quantity of the negative charge – that value is above the mass (or charge) of 90 electrons.

By observing the split of proton we can conclude that it consists of a series of neutrinos, with energy as a carrier. It represents a thread made by a few million of these particles and a large number of electrons. That thread is huddled up because of its length and the imbalance of charges at its ends. It has a dominantly positive charge, with an insignificant negative charge. Namely this imbalance is a basis of the particle joining inside the visible matter. The electrons and neutrinos constantly circle around it, because of its dominantly positive charge. By joining of a proton with these particles (two electrons and two neutrinos, with some energy), a neutron is created. It is not permanently stable – only for some 17 minutes. The next round of joining is the opening of the threads of neutrons and protons and in that way forming the structures of the following, more complex atoms.

The forming of neutrino itself (a matter with charge) occurs as a result of different speeds of energy movement in the rotation of the universe. The speeds increase from the center of universe towards its surface. A friction is caused by the work of particles, which is similar to the ionization of particles inside the atmosphere of Earth, occurring at the times of turbulences and different drifts.

The joining (growing) is constant and it has an upper level of sustainability in a natural surrounding (from polonium to uranium). Even though the joining occurs continuously, the particles can not achieve the higher value than this. That the joining occurs continuously, we can tell by the radiation (dispersal) of the biggest atoms. It is a process of balancing, achieved by discharging the surplus, made by the new incoming matter (smaller particles).

The age of some celestial objects (planets, satellites, asteroids…) is measured by the higher representation of the upper elements, those with higher quantities of protons and neutrons inside the atoms. That is only one factor, though. Therefore, we can with certainty expect that these elements don’t occur in significant quantities (related to the mass of an object) on the Moon, on Mars, on the asteroids, on the comets…

Do we know all about the Solar system

This is a topic about which we are certain we know it all. There is the Sun, almost a dozen of planets, more than a hundred of satellites, three belts … What is wrong then?

The first thing that attracts our attention is that some planets have many satellites (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune), and some don’t have a single satellite (Venus, Mercury).

The number of satellites orbiting around a planet is directly related to the mass of a planet and its rotation around its axis.

Small Pluto has a radius of 2 300 km, 0.002 of the Earth’s mass; it has several satellites, one of which is really big, compared to Pluto. Pluto makes a single rotation around its axis in 6.4 days!

Mercury has a radius of 4 880 km, 0.055 of the Earth’s mass; it doesn’t have any satellites and neither does Venus, which radius is 12 104 km and the mass is 0.82 (!) of the Earth’s mass. What they have in common is the lack of rotation (their rotation around their axes is approximately the same as their rotation around the Sun). Jupiter is the greatest planet, with a radius of 142 984 km, 317.8 of the Earth’s mass and it makes a single rotation around its axis in 0.41 days. It has an impressive mass, great speed of rotation and, according to that, the greatest number of satellites, and it has rings, too. A radius of Saturn is smaller, 120 500 km, its mass is 95.2 of the Earth’s mass and it makes a single rotation around its axis in 0.43 days; that is why it has lesser number of satellites and beautiful rings.

The Sun (it is only a celestial object and must abide the laws of physics) has a radius of 1 392 000 km, its mass is 330 000 of the Earth’s mass and it makes 99.86 % of the Solar system mass total. It makes a single rotation around its axis in ~26 days at the equatorial belt and 33.5 in polar belts. Even though its mass is great, its relatively slow rotation is the reason that Sun has only 0.14% of the captured objects in its orbit.
The other planets are also in accordance with the conditions stated above.

Temperature of the objects is the second thing. Besides Sun, more four objects have somewhat significant own temperature, i.e., they produce it on their own. These are: Venus, Earth, Jupiter and Neptune. Jupiter’s satellite Io can also be adjoined to this company.
Generally, all objects that have 10% and more of the Sun’s mass are solar objects, i.e., they produce their own temperature. The objects similar to the masses of Io, Earth, Venus, due to the influence of the electromagnetic forces from Sun or Jupiter (Io), have a melted core, because their mass is sufficient for that in these conditions. When Venus and Earth double their masses, they would become solar objects with their masses far below the needed 10% of the Sun’s mass. Jupiter and Neptune emit twice the energy they receive from the Sun, which is in accordance to their size. They can obtain that only by producing their own temperature, which is a fact that implies the already melted cores of these planets.

The third thing is the fuel they burn. What fuel: petrol, fusion energy, fission energy? None of these. If this was the case, we would have polluted, radioactive universe and we would be immune to all kinds of radiation, but we are not. The core of Earth is melted and hot, but without a trace of radioactivity. With all these volcanoes, we should have an environment similar to that inside the core of a nuclear plant, but we don’t. Obviously, solar objects don’t burn anything similar or anything based on these principles.
By the mass increase of 10% of the Sun’s mass, the objects become solar objects, but also do smaller objects, under right conditions. As an object increases in mass, by collecting other objects, such as comets, meteorites, asteroids, etc, a pressure inside it also grows and after right conditions are fulfilled, the particles begin with a (significant) work. Due to attraction, repulsion, rotation, a friction is being created and its consequence is the increasing temperature. Therefore, the increase of mass over the critical point leads to the increase of temperature. Temperature is also affected by rotation; the faster the rotation, the hotter the objects are.

What if we really register the waves coming in from the past?

This article has already been published in “Kolumna +” and it has been the most recent work on the topic of the rotation of universe as the only reality and on the causal consequences that are the result of rotation, i.e., that cause the rotation.

I apologize to the readers for bothering them for too long and for the mistakes that have often been bizarre. Until some other opportunity, maybe already in spring of 2015, when the mission New horizons will have reached Pluto, to convince us that it does not have rings. The calculations are clear: slow speed of rotation around its own axis, small mass, and even though there is very favorable low temperature, there are no rings. But, it is needed to point out that the values are contiguous, which is demonstrated by the mass of its satellites. Related to their home planet, they are in terms of mass by far beyond the average of the Sun and other 8 planets.
The author

It is not all the same when you look at the distant person that strikes something with a hammer and a sound of it coming to us with a noticeable delay. We know that sound comes to us slower than light, but what it would be like if light also comes to us slower than our ability to register it with our observing devices? Would it influence significantly the rotation of universe and the relations within it?
Let’s check this through “the Big bang theory”, which is a dominant theory today. This theory claims, beside other things, that universe is ever accelerating, according to the Hubble’s constant. The direct consequence of that would be the idea that, in the very beginning, the universe had been accelerating slower. The results of observations disapprove this theory; they tell us that the observed objects, which are more than 13 billion of light-years far from us (by their interpretations, it should mean that these objects are by the value of 13 billion of years far in the past), move at the speed close to that of light (270 000 km/s) and those objects closer to us (Andromeda is 2.2 light-years from us) range from – 100 to – 2000 km/s, i.e., they approach to our galaxy. Either this theory does not have a basis or the constant of the spreading of universe is wrong, because it seems obvious that these data would tell us that the acceleration has been decreasing, i.e., that it almost stopped.

The question is, what it would be if there was a whole that rotates and represents universe in real values, i.e., that 13.7 billion of light-years is a distance. In the calculation of the size of universe it is a radius that rotates horizontally on the enclosed picture (from right to left). With the use of geometry (=2rπ) we get the length of the object of ~86 billion of light-years and when we include the speed of the outer edge of universe (270 000 km/s) into calculation, the result is the complete circle, closed in ~94,5 billion of years.

If we interpret the data in such a way, that Milky Way moves at a slow speed (~200 km/s), a conclusion is been drawn that we are very close to the central part of the whole (the volume of universe). The speed of the objects’ rotation within the volume of universe is constantly increasing from the center to the outer region of universe, so the greatest speed is at the distance of 13.7 billion of light-years, i.e., on the equatorial part of the surface belt of universe. Looking on the enclosed picture, it would be horizontal movement, i.e., the rotation takes place on the prolonged part of the universe (more recent research „Dark Flow“ show that rotation occurs in the direction from right to left).

If the observed objects that we see today were there 13.7 billion of light-years ago, during that time they have been inclined by ~52° of the circle (13.7 related to 94.5 equals to 52° related to 360° of the circle). But also, the other objects in the line would follow that inclination for the values of their own. At the first glance, the situation would be almost unchanged, independent of the view to monitor the observed objects in the present time, or to see them where they once have been (which is a logical conclusion).

I have no choice but to conclude that, when we observe and register (take photographs) of the distant objects, whose light waves came to us from a certain time distance, needed for the wave to travel that distance, we observe the events from a distant past and that fact changes nothing essential in understanding the relations within universe as a whole. This whole has its own rotation and it is a part of the more complex structures (a multi-universe, which, according to the initial data, is also not alone, it has a direction and rotation, which signifies it is a part of the next complex structure). It needs to be pointed out that the spacecrafts, which would travel to the outer parts of universe, would be exposed to the extremely strong currents of universe that are lateral, not turned outwards, to the surface. The speed of the currents would constantly increase to the value of 9/10 of the radiation speed, i.e., 270 000 km/s.

What are the dimensions of destruction and creation in the Universe?

The explosions of stars, known as novae and supernovae, are the final stage of life for these objects and the matter that creates them. Most of that matter, but not all of it, is being disintegrated, i.e. it returns into energy and dark matter, while the rest remains as nebulae.

In order to realize the magnitude of the matter disintegration, it is necessary to begin with the fact that supernovae originated from the huge stars, some of which are many million times larger in terms of mass than our Sun. On average, 400 different novae per year have been detected in the last few years. Let us suppose that there is only one nova (or supernova) on every billion of stars; it would mean that there are 200 of them in our galaxy. Their quantity is, of course, by far larger than that, because it is estimated that three of them occur per every 100.000 years in the galaxy (of course, that their number is far greater because different data show that happens one in galaxy in 100-100.000 years (at 13.7 billion years / 100-100.000 = 137.000 to 137 million explosions of stars in the Milky Way!))..

There are over 100 billion of galaxies in the Universe. Our galaxy is an average one. There are no less than 200 x 100 billion (or 20 trillion (20 x 10¹²)) of novae. Since an average nova (i.e. a star before becoming a nova) is no less than a 1000 times larger than our Sun, we get astonishing 20 quadrillion (20 x 10¹⁵) of the disintegrated Sun’s masses – even though that is a minimum of a minimum. (The mass of Sun is 2 x 10³⁰ kg).

Let us point out that every star, before becoming a nova, had some 0.2% of its mass in other objects within its orbit. They also suffered a catastrophe, whether they were inhabited or not.

Despite destruction (the disintegration of matter), the observations show that the Universe is not losing its mass. On the contrary, it increases. It means that the Universe is efficiently replacing all of the lost matter, the minimum of which is 20 quadrillion of the Sun’s masses, and even “some” more.

It is not to be forgotten that a smaller part of matter is also been disintegrated in the collisions of waves and particles. In order for the muons to be registered at all in the laboratories, a countless number of particle disintegrations needs to occur. It is an everlasting occurrence on the objects orbiting around a star from the beginning of time till these days and until a star becomes a nova. A good portion of matter is being disintegrated in the collisions of objects and galaxies. Therefore, the colossal dimensions are not related only to the creation of matter, but also to the growth of all objects within stellar systems, galaxies and the Universe. Millions of craters are only a reminder of that process being contiguous and ongoing. Due to the energy friction, the neutrinos are created. Then, they start joining into the electrons and are further combined into the protons and into ever larger atoms. The atoms join into the molecules and create gas, then dust, rocks … the objects that become the planets around a star … and ultimately the most of matter is being disintegrated through explosions and returned again into the elementary matter (energy and dark matter).

In order for the explosion to happen, a very specific sequence of events is required. It is obvious that stars grow into the centers of galaxies, 200 billion of which are there in the Universe. That is important to state, in order to rule out the significant importance of the mass or size of an object, as these are evidently not so important. It is not the case of combustion or consumption of fuel here; it is obvious from the whole spectrum of different values in terms of mass and radiance (rotation) that belonged to an object before the explosion. A pattern or regularity is not discerned in these parameters.

One object becomes a nova and a large number (millions) of others with the same parameters just go on the same way. It is necessary to consider some very rare factors, like, for example, the impacts of large objects into planets, but even more rare – those that hit only a small part of the objects (one event in more than ten million of objects - stars).

Within the growth of an object, some smaller object is starting a reaction when colliding with a star. If that should remain a rare event, it needs to be a specific event under the specific conditions. The only possible specificity is for that object (the errant objects, incoming from outside the Solar system) to arrive vertically onto one of the poles and to hit the opening of a cyclone that exists on the poles of stars. That way, it would get an opportunity to break into the interior of an object. Comet ISON is the evidence that objects with vertical trajectories really exist in the Universe.

When discussing the vertical trajectories, it is necessary to point out that only the forces of attraction exist there, because an object creates the forces of repulsion in the horizontal direction only. That way, a disaster is inevitable. Due to the friction, an object explodes. That event becomes an active detonator that starts a cascade sequence of events for the whole star. In these days, this possibility for our Sun to disappear is completely unknown; therefore, these deadly objects are not even been followed and nothing is also been done to get ready to deflect such a threat, which is by far more deadly than would be the impact of the same object into our planet! The size of an object needs to be sufficient to start a large scale event, which would influence the whole galaxy.

Mars & Life creation in Universe

Currently, the planet Mars is in the center of interest, because something is going on there; of the small scientific value, though, but there are for sure many “scientific” commentaries and texts. A new “research satellite” had been launched at the beginning of the year, to “discover” how and when did water and atmosphere vanish from Mars. They are looking for something that never existed and hope for a success! Obviously, some other, hidden goals and missions are set here.

It has stubbornly been stated for Mars, just as for Earth and other planets, that they were hot, heated at the beginning and then they had been cooling down in the next 300 million of years, following their rough creation. There is not a single shred of evidence – obtained by astronomical observations – that anything similar exists anywhere in Universe. It seems that the whole Universe was created in the same time, 4.5 – 5 billion of years ago. That is the time in which astronomers and powerful telescopes don’t detect such objects (heated planets, satellites, asteroids in the process of creation). They would need for this statement to be true: that at the beginning there are heated objects, which later cool down. The astronomical observations claim the opposite: that at the beginning there are cold objects and gas, which start to glow like dwarf stars once they grow over 10% of the Sun’s mass. The collisions of different objects, very large and very small ones, point out to the only true statement: the objects grow by accumulating mass. These events are so frequently mentioned in the astronomers’ reports that they should not be neglected any more.

There are so many craters on planets and their satellites that even a blind person could see the fact that objects grow in the constant flow of new matter and the process is a constant, from the beginning of time and forever. And in spite of these obvious facts, we are all more inclined to accept as true any false and constructed story with false evidence that contradict the reality and physics.

We are always susceptible to such frauds; sometimes long ago, somewhere far away, it was like in a fairy tale, i.e. everything was false; the forces were too terrible and impossible to be comprehended; etc. The astronomers have never discovered anything even closely similar to that and what is interesting is that the more distant and more obscure the observed objects are, the “evidence” grow ever bigger and “less disputable”.

Mars is a relatively young planet, the age of which could be estimated to 10²² of years, i.e. more than ten trilliard of years. That number is derived from the meteorites that have fallen onto Earth and were examined in laboratories. They are claimed by agreement to be 4.5 billion of years old. To double the mass, they need almost as much, and further on, with taking into account that Earth is collecting from 4 to 100 thousand tons of the space material per year. The mathematicians would say that, in that case, ten trilliard of years is not enough and the others would say that it is obviously too much and that it does not fit into contemporary scientific opinions. I am not talking about opinions here, but about estimation based on the events within the Solar system. The conclusions were made only based on observations, evidence and calculating estimations.

They say that there had been atmosphere, water, oceans, living beings, etc., on Mars, and that they all vanished, “evaporated”… they talk about permafrost and that the rest of water is frozen on and under the surface of Mars. It is interesting that, at the beginning of 2013, the NASA scientists have officially stated that, according to the research conducted by “Curiosity”, there is no life on Mars. They have been looking for it and have found no evidence of life existing on Mars.

Therefore, there is no life or traces of any form of life today or in the past. If they had found any shell or a skeleton or something else, it would mean that there was some form of life, but they had not.

In order for life to appear, among other conditions, water and life-supporting atmosphere are needed. Life has not been created on Mars because these two conditions don’t exist. It also means that they have never existed before, because there are no fossils. This means that life-supporting conditions, such as here on Earth, still don’t exist on Mars.

First of all, there is not a sufficient quantity of mass; it is only 0.11 of the Earth’s mass. Insufficient mass means insufficient pressure on the core, which then can’t be melted, due to the lack of particles’ work, which creates a critical pressure. When there is not a melted core, there also can’t be a rotation of core, different to the rotation of the planet’s outer parts. Without that, there is a lack of a significant magnetic field that would protect the planet from the space (cosmic) radiation. Life conditions on Mars are like living in a microwave oven.

Mass is essential in accelerating the process of creation; it should not be too large or too small. Mars has a scarce atmosphere in the process of creation, mostly consisting of carbon-dioxide. Carbon-dioxide means the lack of life, but also the beginning of one. With the improvement of life, in accordance to other conditions, too, the structure of atmosphere will also be changed.

If there is not a melted core, there are no frequent volcano eruptions either, nor there exists a diversity of chemical elements and compounds. Furthermore, there is no significant change of atmosphere. This means that life would be limited to a random occurrence without a possibility for the life colonies to develop. If there are no active volcanoes or adequate atmosphere, water can’t be created either. Water is only another compound, made by adjoining the particles of the space object. The livelier is the work of particles, the bigger are the quantities of compounds, sustainable under given conditions. Water will appear if there is a melted core and volcanoes.

If it was true that water comes with the comets, then it would be present on Mars, too (even its age is estimated by the science to be the same as that of Earth), because comets do not choose Earth exclusively. It has more sense that comets delivered more material to Mars than to Earth, because the position of Mars is in front of Earth!

Observing the quasars through rotation

I have been evading this problem for a long time because the events were too far, until the quasars were found relatively close in the neighborhood (Quasars are found over a very broad range of distances (corresponding to redshifts ranging from z < 0.1 for the nearest quasars to z > 7 for the most distant known quasars) Wikipedia).

A cyclone (compare it to a spiral galaxy)           a blazar

Almost all quasars have been situated in the centers of elliptic galaxies and their characteristic is an intensive glow. Blazars glow a bit less intensive because the axis of the galaxy center is not placed vertically to us, but is inclined to the side, which makes the glow look less bright. These events are related to the phenomena that do not belong to physics: black holes, pulsars or neutron stars. When something does not belong to physics, then it is a serious problem. Already during the 1990-ties, the “colored” dwarf stars (i.e. white, red and brown ones) were also given supernatural values (a spoonful of their matter was claimed to weigh more than the Himalayas, and so on; they were also given unprecedented gravitational values and much more) and later they were proclaimed the unfinished stars (which is also incorrect, if the context of analysis is taken into consideration). These horrible super-forces now exist in “the neutron stars and black holes.” The common feature of quasars, blazars, neutron stars (pulsars) and black holes is rotation. The omnipresent rotation, which is by itself a very interesting event, is situated into the impossible surroundings, instead of being observed as an independent central event.

From the astronomic observations the rotation can be divided into these categories: slow cyclones (they exist on the poles of Sun and similar stars of the slow rotation, as well as on some gas giants); fast cyclones (the shiny stars with a high speed rotation; also, the centers of spiral galaxies); very fast cyclones (elliptical galaxies and so-called pulsars or neutron stars). The faster the rotation, the stronger the gravitational forces are. Through the observation of a pulsar rotation we found out that it makes a single turn in a period from a millisecond to a few seconds or more. That clearly shows us the power and speed of a cyclone.

Based on the astronomical observations and research we can predict the diameter of the eye of a cyclone to be from 20 km (in pulsars) to more than a million km (in the centers of galaxies). When the eye of a cyclone, with a diameter of 5-6 km, makes a turn in a second, it is a common speed of some comets, asteroids, etc. and it is very unlikely to expect a spectacular light show. But, when a cyclone, with a diameter of 1000 km or more, makes a turn in a second, the strong forces are created, which by the particles’ friction create a light effect. A cyclone is a spiral thread, up to 30 000 of light years in length. The larger the speed of a cyclone, the stronger the friction inside the eye is. Also, the more intensive is the glow and more significant are different kinds of radiation. A visible trace that is related to the released matter is only the thrust of radiation waves from the eye of a cyclone on the gas and matter that exist outside of that event. From the cyclone research on Earth we found out that it sucks the matter in, but it does not release it through its eye. Therefore, we can with certainty reject the idea of releasing matter from the eye of a cyclone.

If there were black holes in the centers of galaxies, it would be completely unclear how they glow, since light can not escape from the black holes. Also, there is a question, how they glow so intensively through the 15 000 of light years thick layer of matter, when it is known that there is not a single searchlight on Earth that could illuminate through a kilometer thick fog (dust and other matter need not even be discussed at all in this sense).

When there is a cyclone (a thread) in the center of a galaxy, it follows the already known laws of physics.

Why is the Universe cold?

Traveling outside the atmosphere of Earth without the special equipment for the protection against cold would be very unwise. There is very cold and very inhospitable out there. The lowest temperatures on the poles of Earth are very pleasurable, compared to the conditions outside the atmosphere. So, why is it so pleasant and warm here on Earth and so cold in the area just outside Earth, which is, figuratively speaking, almost within a hand’s reach? These temperatures (around 100° K) can be measured only on places where there is no radiation, like for example, on the dark side of the Moon. Warmth and light are been created by the radiation waves (of Sun – in our system) when they collide with matter (visible matter, i.e. atoms). Matter is mostly incorporated into the cosmic objects, while there is almost none of it outside their atmospheres. When there is no (visible) matter, there is also no radiation colliding with it and, as a consequence, there is no warmth or light either.

However, it is not all that simple. Already here, in our Solar system, there is a clear law of nature that shows us that the matter outside the cosmic objects (i.e. invisible matter and energy) also reacts with radiation.

It can not be neglected that elementary matter (invisible matter and energy) warms up, too, for some 100°K! It is less cold closer to Sun; ~ 100°K on the dark side of Mercury. It gets colder in the space further away; it is around 30°K on the dark side of Pluto, while at the end of the system, in the Oort cloud, it is ~4°K (~-269°C). At the end of Universe, it is 2,4 – 2,7°K. Even if we did not know that there was something out there (outside the membrane, in the so-called “empty” space), from this we would be able to deduce that there was something following the laws, similar to these of the visible matter. It can also be confirmed by the constant decrease of power or intensity of the waves, with the increase of distance from the object that emits them.

All these facts confirm that this is a kind of matter, too, and it can not be denied of similarities with the visible matter, but there are also some differences between them. The only impossible thing, when discussing these facts, is connecting our space with that empty space. Empty space can not follow the same laws like those of the visible matter; it is an empty space, in which there are no laws. It can only transfer an event or action further, without affecting them in any way.

The characteristic of the visible matter (which does not possess its own energy source or hot core) and invisible one, too, is that they are increasingly colder if the amount, power and intensity of incoming radiation decreases. Warmth and light are typical of the visible matter, and the significant reduction of cold is typical of the invisible matter and energy, when influenced by the radiation waves.

By applying the analogy of the ascending sequence of events, the more we are distanced from the source of radiation, the lower are the temperatures. Between the multi-universes, they are a bit closer to the absolute zero. The temperatures decrease as the wholes grow. An endlessly large volumetric belt of energy is expanding after the last ascending whole and the temperature there is absolute zero.

By the analogy, inside this belt there is an endless quantity of the wholes, similar to that one, but it is very likely that the whole with the absolute zero temperature in it could be the outer and the last whole in the hierarchy that goes further into the 3-D infinity (at least the infinity as humankind understands it).

Why did CERN fail?

Nothing was standing on their way. They were alone, independent; about ten billion of euro were invested in their work; they employed the best scientists of the world. Success was guaranteed to them; the road to it had been opened and covered with rose petals, thrown before them by mass media. They felt themselves omnipotent and unstoppable on their way to the greatest glory on Earth and self-presentation.

They believed in success so hard that they ignored the warnings received from Zadar, that everything had been founded on the wrong basis. All the books of the world, except for that of Zadar, supported their work and competed one against the other in sucking up to them, hoping at least some of the future glory would be bestowed upon them, too. What went wrong?

The problem had existed already since the time of the formation of quantum physics. A number of laboratory successes followed one after the other, but the presentations of those successes, through explaining the meaning of the achieved results, had been ending up disasters.

At first, Bohr model appeared, as a misfortunate presentation. It was upgraded by having copied the model of Solar system onto the world of atoms. That way, the heliocentric system of atoms was founded and, as such, it remained unchanged as a greatest truth and achievement. The atom core consisted of proton and neutron little spheres, which were surrounded by the belt of electrons, the speed of which was 30 000 km/sec. At the end of the previous millennium they even started to destroy the chemistry by imposing the idea that the electrons, instead of valence bond, connected the atoms and molecules. (Valence bond is not true either, but it explains chemical processes well.)

Interpreting the events from colliders, they moved themselves even more away from the field of reality. They wished for the impossible by convincing themselves and the others that a broken-down particle, as a consequence of using high energies, could be able to accrete again and thus create a new, unforeseen kind of matter. That was set as an absolute truth and a basis of experiments, even though there was not a single pause (which they proclaimed particles) that was stable for more than a millionth part of a second. The further they continued with particle collisions, these pauses were ever shorter and shorter.

Generally speaking, from that time till today, a number of pathetic conclusions entered science, like for example: Universe hatched out from an egg (it was an attempt to please the Church – even the idea itself was brought about by a priest); some of the theory of relativity’s suggestions introduced black holes and singularity (Einstein himself was against such ideas); then they introduced the Hubble constant of spreading the Universe; then, instead of rotation, they introduced the fourth dimension – instead of making three dimensions more complex, the Universe became flat and lost its volume. Entropy dominated the Universe; it was suddenly forced to be the same from its origin or at least from the period when “visible matter prevailed over the dark matter”…

All doubts soon disappeared, because all who were trying to think differently were gone or marginalized. Under such conditions, nothing else could have even been expected in CERN. Peter Higgs himself said: “If this was not physics, I would not know what it was then?” He was convinced in its correctness, even though there were completely opposing evidence in the experiment.

Instead of sobering up, there is only silence; only some Russian scientific magazines gloat over the situation. Nevertheless, all who have contributed to this failure, continue to receive fabulous salaries. Their colleagues in our country continue to transfer millions to “poor” Swiss and their “underpaid” scientists for membership in that failed project. Even more, they are amazed that some scientists in Italy and Russia are facing trials for wrong estimations and, except payments from us and the Swiss, do not get paid anymore to spend billions of tax payers’ money in vain.

Are we blind or we don't want to see the dark matter!

Just like the time air had been discovered, something similar takes place: we don’t know how to “see” it or detect it by instruments. We know that 90% of matter is missing, but we direct the search in the wrong way; we run through the dark matter looking for it.

The dark matter is here, around us, and the best place to see it is outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The dark matter doesn’t glow, unlike the visible matter, which does; the dark matter is cold and it is impossible for it to become warmer.

Let’s have a look at this example of evidence:

There are two rooms. The first one is full of light and the other is dark. There is a star (Sun) in the background of both rooms, at the same distance from both of them. The first room is filled with the visible matter, which is familiar to us, while the other is filled with the dark matter. When the visible matter from the outside gets inside the first room, it becomes visible. When it gets inside the second room, it becomes visible, too.

The first conclusion: the radiation of Sun, colliding with the visible matter, creates light, while, on the other hand, it is not the case with the dark matter, which is why it is dark.

Let’s have another example. There are two rooms again. In the first one there is water and in the other one the dark matter. Again, there is the Sun in their background at the same distance from both of them. When radiation, or as we prefer to call it: light, goes through water, its intensity decreases with the increase of distance from the source of radiation. When the same radiation goes through the dark matter, its intensity also decreases with the increase of distance from the source of radiation. In the room with water, the temperature also decreases, as the distance from the source of radiation increases (if there was no radiation here, this area would also become dark). In the room with the dark matter, with the increase of distance from the source of radiation, it also gets colder.

The second conclusion: the both areas follow the same laws of nature that can be applied for the visible matter.

Let’s remember the article: Why is the Universe cold?

“Already here, in our Solar system, there is a clear law of nature that shows us that the matter outside the cosmic objects (i.e. invisible matter and energy) also reacts with radiation. It can not be neglected that elementary matter (invisible matter and energy) warms up, too, for some 100°K! It is less cold closer to Sun; ~ 100°K on the dark side of Mercury. It gets colder in the space further away; it is around 30°K on the dark side of Pluto, while at the end of the system, in the Oort cloud, it is ~4°K (~-269°C). At the end of Universe, it is 2,4 – 2,7°K. Even if we did not know that there was something out there (outside the membrane, in the so-called “empty” space), from this we would be able to deduce that there was something following the laws, similar to these of the visible matter. It can also be confirmed by the constant decrease of power or intensity of the waves, with the increase of distance from the object that emits them.

All these facts confirm that this is a kind of matter, too, and it can not be denied of similarities with the visible matter, but there are also some differences between them. The only impossible thing, when discussing these facts, is connecting our space with that empty space. Empty space can not follow the same laws like those of the visible matter; it is an empty space, in which there are no laws. It can only transfer an event or action further, without affecting them in any way. The characteristic of the visible matter (which does not possess its own energy source or hot core) and invisible one, too, is that they are increasingly colder if the amount, power and intensity of incoming radiation decreases. Warmth and light are typical of the visible matter, and the significant reduction of cold is typical of the invisible matter and energy, when influenced by the radiation waves.”

At the end, it needs to be said that if there was a vacuum outside the space objects, they would collapse, or would not be formed at all, because the vacuum is by far greater force than the electromagnetic force (gravity). Just as matter, it abides the law of communicating vessels, where there are no different pressures. There would only have existed dispersal, i.e. the objects without atmospheres, but it does not exist.

Who is lying that the earth is old 4.5 to 5 billion years?

The crust of Earth is acknowledged to be a trustworthy indicator of age.

It is known that at the faults of the tectonic plates, a part of the crust is subdued under the other part. On another places, tectonic plates are moving away from each other, with the always present magma (lava) to fill the empty place. These are the facts of a constant renewal of the crust through these and other processes.

The thickness of crust under the solid ground is 30-70 km and up to 12 km under the sea. The oldest rock found there so far is 3.8 - 4.4 billion of years old. The meteorites that fall onto Earth are generally 4.5 billion of years old.
The age is measured by finding out the time when did that particular matter become a part of the crust. A time period from 300 million to a billion of years is estimated for all the other events that followed the formation of Earth. The tendency is to „wrap“ it all up within 4.5 – 5 billion of years.
This old method is partially good for obtaining the results of age of the particular parts of the crust of Earth.
It should be mentioned that the crust is constantly been changing, regenerating. The Earth annually collects up to a 100 000 tons of new material from the outer space.

The mass of Earth is 6 x 10²⁴ kilograms – a number 6 with 24 zeros following it.
If we take into account that datum of 100 000 tons a year, with the presupposition that it has been an average value from the time of the creation of Earth, we will obtain the result of the age to be 6 x 10²⁴ years, which consequently means that the age of Earth is measured not in billions, but in septillion.

By observing the universe and the events in it, we have no reason to believe that anything had been happening considerably different in any period than today. Everything in the universe goes on slowly through time, by a space pace, everything is being born, living long and dying fast. Even during the collision of galaxies everything happens slowly. Great speeds do not mean faster growth, just the opposite, even negative: the already collected will be diminished.
Should this result even be reduced by half, presupposing that a half of the mass had been collected elsewhere, and, already collected, joined with Earth in many turns, it would make this enormous number no smaller; it would then be 3 x 10²⁴ years, which again means the septillion of years.

By observing the sole crust of Earth, we can also notice a great disproportion in the dana, estimating its age up to 4.2 billion of years.
The layer of the Grand Canyon at the depth of 1 500 m is estimated to be 1.6 billion of years old. With the presupposition of the average thickness of the Earth's crust to be 28 km, the age of the crust solely would be 30 billion of years. For the soil that has been newly created by the cooling off the lava, the zero age is being determined. The oldest registered rock, which is 4 billion of years old, had the same age, too. What they have in common is they are created by cooling off the lava and the age of lava is not taken into account. It turns out that the zero age is 4 billion of years even today, after all of these billions of years have gone. 2008/9.

… The recent the article as a conclusion. The age of celestial objects is different. The meteorites that have fallen to Earth are estimated to be 4.5 billion of years old. In the process of the following joining these objects reach the size of a Mars-like object, the estimated age of which (Mars) is 10²² (10 sextillion) years. An object with a melted core, like Earth, is more than 10²⁴ (a septillion) years old. The next in age terms are dwarf stars, then stars, ... The age of Universe is independent of the age of celestial objects, because they are constantly in the process of creating, growing and disintegrating and all of these don't affect the age of Universe. A single turn of the rotation of Universe is completed in 94,5 billion of years.

Likewise, there is the age of the melted part of Earth (which can't be measured directly) and the age of Earth's crust, which is constantly changing. In layman's terms, we can come to a conclusion that the age of Earth is the same as the age of the oldest rocks (4.4 billion of years). Instead, its real age is over a quadrillion of years.

Mass of the celestial objects is growing by its gathering. It is estimated that some 4 000 – 100 000 tons of matter and celestial objects per year fall onto Earth. The mass of Earth is 6 x 10²⁴ kg. The beginning of the origin begins with a meteorite or before 4.5 billion of years and the joining is adapted to that figure.

The originator of life passed near Mars?

What a shame; a comet Siding Spring closely missed the planet Mars. There goes away the opportunity to plant life onto this dead planet. Now we will have to wait for the next opportunity.

Just to stay clear: we all know that life to our planet had been brought by storks¹ , i.e. comets, I apologize. These are the objects which start from the Oort cloud at a high speed (this comet had been moving near Mars at the speed of 56 km/sec., or 203 000 km/h) and carry green aliens with large eyes and long necks on their surfaces. These beings are supernaturally strong, as they make it without injuries through the collisions at these low speeds to them. Since we had several satellites around Mars, we obtained some photos at firsthand. They were much clearer than those from the last mission, when something went wrong. Some claim to have seen something similar to the parachutes on their backs and that removed all suspicions of their happy landing.

For a half of the century, we have been sending in vain missions to explore our Solar system, because all the results were unable to remove the fallacy of Panspermia from the official and school materials.

There is a planet inside the Solar system with existing life and a hot core, on which an egg membrane-thick crust is floating (egg membrane, not the eggshell, because the eggshell is too thick for the comparison). There is another planet with a hot core, but because of the Sun being too close it has no rotation of its own. Due to that, the life conditions there are impossible, but many billions of years ago, they could have been more than realistic. We have researched the majority of planets, many satellites, asteroids, comets, and all results indicate the absence of life. In short: it is either too cold or too warm, or there is no atmosphere adequate to form the organic compounds. There are no aliens squatting on frozen rocks or lumps of mud, waiting in hibernation an opportunity to warm up a bit and invade Mars or any similar planet. (At the present time, Mars has been very inadequate to live on.)

If we take into the consideration a hypothesis of these storks bringing life, how is it possible that they failed to bring life to Mars and other objects that come in the line before Earth? The comets arrive from the Oort cloud and from that perspective Earth is the last in the line, besides Venus and Mercury, which are the satellites of Sun. Why did water “arrive” with comets to Earth and not to the planets and objects before it (there are 99% of all the objects from our Solar system before it)? Why did the heavy chemical elements arrive to Earth and not to the other objects? Science claims that they arrived all the way from the supernovas. Everything arrives from the outer space and – what a wonder! – only to our planet. Probably the aliens have some very precise cannons and they shoot at us, from the unknown reasons or motives to me.

I hope everybody understands now that our science is more similar to a polygon to tell all kinds of fairy tales than to a place of making and realizing evidence. The evidence obviously values less than constant deception of people and most of the scientists, in a Higgs manner: he would tear off a part of the non-existing space, without even suspecting the idea that, besides obtaining results, the machines could be able to fantasize like him.

As we know it from the history of our planet, the comets are only the cause of extermination of the already existing life. They are no “good storks” that bring life; they are, on the contrary, “the storks of destruction”.
______________________
¹Storks are said to be delivering babies; a tale that is told to children about the origins of babies.

Do Not Criticise The Old Lady (NASA) - She Will Not Forgive You For It

The comments on the article below were the cause of a sudden and one-sided cease of cooperation. The whole history of my comments were deleted, from the very beginning until today. Only traces of them still exist on Facebook (under the name of Slavko Sedić); only the first comments are there, without further discussions by replies and quoting.

NASA Mulling Life-Hunting Mission to Saturn Moon Enceladus
NASA already plans to launch a spacecraft to the Jupiter moon Europa in the early to mid-2020s, and it's also mulling a mission to the Saturn satellite Enceladus that...

„Enceladus has an average temperature of a bottle of nitrogen (-198 ° C). Let NASA scientists explore life in liquid nitrogen, that on Earth is closer.“ Weitter Duckss

The comment to the text, given by NASA, from:
" ... the existence of the oceans of water below the surface of the moon of Saturn, named Enceladus... ", was as follows: " ...
NASA has the obsolete, Bible-like, worldview of the origins of the objects in Universe ... the origins of Universe itself and the processes in it. Its worldview considers everything as having been created once and for all... "

My intention was to encourage changes in the way these things are usually thought of, after having witnessed the last couple of NASA failures: NASA is searching for life on Mars (as if life on Mars was something beyond any doubt); then, there is a search to answer the question of Mars's missing atmosphere (the latest evidence have removed even the slightest possibility of something similar having existed); then, the rings of Pluto are also said to be existing beyond any doubt and would be visible once we get close enough to it (of course, there is no ring or any cloud of particles whatsoever around Pluto); ...
These are only some in the already long line of fatuities, coming from the once very respected and prominent institution. Almost everything that is coming from NASA – except for the respectable engineering works, which can also go to the next level – is unthrustworthy and you can bet with a high probability that all of it would be dismissed once material evidence are presented. This statement is almost a rule.

I have to point out that I am glad when NASA and other space agencies are moving ahead, because it is the way of progress, which has been for already a while endangered by the persistent, persevere, obsolete and progress-stopping viewpoints. One would expect these leading agencies to be a guidance to follow and not for one to be left alone, without an approach to the self-complacent and self-sufficient system, which is rarely open to an interested outsider and even if one has the access to it, one can only get irritated with their obsolete understanding of events, regardless of the evidence to the opposite.

They feel so weak that, opposite to the amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech, they forbid the publishing of those comments to a text above, which are not the panegyrics of their scientific accomplishments –which are practically non-existing, except for the already mentioned engineering works.
It is not only illogical, but also pointless to search for the atmosphere on Mars, with the explanation that it had once existed and then later "escaped" from the planet. Almost every object, smaller or bigger, in our Solar system has the atmosphere, some of which are more prominent, some are less. It depends on the phase of development, position, whether it is a main object with its own rotation or only a satellite, age, geological processes, etc. If atmosphere did not "escape" from Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Titan,... – why would it "escape" from Mars? There is not a logical parallel to support such a conclusion.

Life (on Mars and elsewhere) is above all related to the rotation of the object (due to the temperature amplitudes) as well as to the geological processes and optimal temperatures. To find a life form of an important kind is not to be expected if the temperature is very high and levelled; it does not contribute to the creation of different chemical compounds, because it creates a monotonous surrounding, without events. It is the same if the temperature was very low, due to the same reasons. If the events are sporadic, then it is not a suitable surrounding for life preservation – even if it would by any chance occur.

Water in traces exists on the majority of objects; the more active ond long-lasting are the geological conditions on an object, the higher share of water could be found on such an object (again, it also depends on the surrounding and the conditions on an object). The laboratory of geology needs to be working constantly, because the dynamics of events, given enough time, creates life. This goes beyond our contemporary way of understanding the time flow.

The existence of rings around an object is created by the rotation of that object. It has to be faster than the one of Earth and the object needs to be more independent, with a low temperature. There has neither the first, nor the second condition been met on Pluto; it is a dual system. Satellites around objects without the independent rotation or around other satellites without rotation can not be expected (although, some distant, irregular satellites, which have some form of rotation, might be able to seize some smaller objects).

If there existed the oceans of melted matter below the surface of Io, it would have been registered in the surface temperatures. The comparative temperatures on Jupiter, Io and Europa exclude such a possibility. The volcanoes on Io are the events, characteristic for the cold objects; they manifest themselves as outbursts of a less cold matter on the moon's surface, due to the action of heating forces (on Io, it is a gravitational force).

A blocked site is free again, followed by the text in question:

Slavko Sedić Zadar
Enceladus has an average temperature of a bottle of nitrogen (-198 ° C). Let NASA scientists explore life in liquid nitrogen, that on Earth is closer.
Sep 1, 2015 7:22am

Jeffrey Patten Research Assistant Law Offices
That's on the surface. There is substantial evidence that there is liquid water within Enceladus, and that it is powering these geysers.
Sep 1, 2015 7:46am

Slavko Sedić Jeffrey Patten 
Those say so. The truth is closer that due to the large range of temperature occur geological activity (min. -240 ° C, max. -128 ° C). The bodies at this stage of development does not contain significant amounts of water, it is proper to bodies with a hot core and geological activities related to the molten core.
Sep 2, 2015 7:38am

Jeffrey Patten Slavko Sedić - Enceladus is essentially a giant snowball. It is more than 50% water ice. According to NASA, "Data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have revealed Saturn's moon Titan likely harbors a layer of liquid water under its ice shell." See http://www.nasa.gov/.../whycassini/cassini20120628.html Sep 5, 2015 8:12am

Slavko Sedić Jeffrey Patten 
I know (I looked) vision of NASA. These are just assumptions, not evidence.
NASA is keep outdated conception of formation of the body ... the universe and processes inside and outside of the universe. Those think like the Bible, everything is finally all occurred at once when to create ...
In this phase of development of the body, in terms of the environment, it is unrealistic to assume water in significant quantities (Mars teaches us about it).
Look at the composition of other bodies and the environment (material evidence) and decide for yourself Is there a water of the ocean beyond Earth.
Sep 5, 2015 4:21pm

The universe is rotating, after all

Note: All pictures used in this work are downloaded from Internet

The fact that Universe is rotating is concluded from the form of Universe, the existence of blue and red spectral shifts and the rotations of all smaller cellestial objects.

Even though Multi-Universe is rotating, the universes inside it don't have a coordinated axis with a direction of rotation. The currents that carry them around are a consequence of the relations among the gravitational force, repulsive forces and the rotations that are the result of all rotations of the particles.

Similar to the galactical collisions, there are also collisions of the universes inside Multi-Universe. These collisions are caused by the rotation of Universe, i.e., Multi-Universe.

..&

................. The particle of proton is a thread or string, with its ends connected together and with a different charges on them. It is made of a vast number of neutrino and electrons (which are also neutrinos combined), with a significantly stronger positive than a negative charge. That disbalance is the origin of all joining or creating, from the simplest to the most complex forms of animate and inanimate matter. When creating more complex atoms, the strings of a particle is breaking up and connecting with another strings. Some of the already formed wholes are stacked together, one on another, and thus form another atoms. Some of the atoms are created in the combination of these joining processes.

A tangle of snakes is a good representation of the formation and structure of atoms. The sizes of particles have an upper sustainability limit after which they are starting to disintegrate and then we are speaking of the emission of particles (electrons, protons or helium), i.e., of radiation. A disbalance of charges compels the constant joining and growing of particles, which occurs in accordance with the laws that are the same for all objects and all Multi-Universes; the only thing that differs are the conditions in which these events occur.

_{................. ..a part of Multi-Universe, made by the snapshots of the universes from ESA and COBE satellites}

Inside this process, a process of upper and structural sustainability of the celestial objects also occurs. Stars grow ever larger (which means older, too), and then, as a consequence of the disrupted structural balance, a Super-Nova occurs. When stars have grown large enough, they start to gather enough of different celestial objects and become centers of galaxies, which can also turn into Super-Novas.

Most of the matter, occurring after a Super-Nova explosion, is disintegrated, i.e., it returns to the beginning, to the state of elementary matter, made of energy and invisible matter (mostly made by neutrinos).

....

................................Rotation is a central event and law in the Universe and beyond. All celestial objects are rotating. The objects that have their own rotation, such as planets, stars, galaxies, ... , they emit waves that constantly direct the incoming objects into an elliptic trajectory around them. Due to slow rotation speed, the Sun has only gathered 0.2% of its mass (all planets and other objects inside the Solar system).

Those objects that don't have their own rotation can't capture another objects into their orbits; these are, for example, Venus, Mercury, Callisto, the Moon, Triton, etc. They only have attraction forces.

....................................The age of celestial objects is different. The meteorites that have fallen to Earth are estimated to be 4.5 billion of years old. In the process of the following joining these objects reach the size of a Mars-like object, the estimated age of which (Mars) is 10²² (10 sextillion) years. An object with a melted core, like Earth, is more than 10²⁴ (a septillion) years old. The next in age terms are dwarf stars, then stars, ... The age of Universe is independent of the age of celestial objects, because they are constantly in the process of creating, growing and disintegrating and all of these don't affect the age of Universe. A single turn of the rotation of Universe is completed in 94,5 billion of years.

Likewise, there is the age of the melted part of Earth (which can't be measured directly) and the age of Earth's crust, which is constantly changing. In layman's terms, we can come to a conclusion that the age of Earth is the same as the age of the oldest rocks (4.4 billion of years). Instead, its real age is over a quadrillion of years.

....

Mass of the celestial objects is growing by its gathering. It is estimated that some 4 000 – 100 000 tons of matter and celestial objects per year fall onto Earth. The mass of Earth is 6 x 10²⁴ kg. The beginning of the origin begins with a meteorite or before 4.5 billion of years and the joining is adapted to that figure.

Traslated by: prof. Zoran Ćoso (Zule); mail zcoso@unizd.hr

Zadar's Theory of the Universe (2004.y. – links 2018.y.)

In this substance I will present different viev on aspect and relations inside of space for which we have enough evidence that they are realy like that. I will elaborate the theme of gravitation and galactic, so called black hole. Working out the begining of space I will give the presentation of the permanent proces as an ever present and locate the conditions and causes in that it develops. In the course of the presentation of the subject-matter I will separate the totality of the space into three categories of matter that are in fact on the same, that exists at different conditions and interrlations. I will present the suspect into credibility of the theory of particles that with small additions gets on weight and gives the possiblity for achievement of probably results.  I'll take you for the freedom to observe the matter and space in which exists the universe, and our material in it.  All argumentations will have in their base the existing discovery that will be here presents in another way.

Hubbel constant¹
Let us observe out of todays conceptions the fact that the validity of this constant we can place on the different base. Astronomic observations are here undoubtedly and we have to accept the fact: what our telescopes see further the speed of opserved bodies grows up. We have a clasic growth of the speed per depth².
The evidences that we have the rotation in the minor systems as well as in galaxies it intrudes itself upon our seriously check if it is valid for the universe too. The photos from COBE have given like discus shape of universe in value 13,7 billions light years (we will overlook the official presentations).
The rotation of universe as final (conditionaly) space would give as the result that is as the greates speed of its rotation realizes on the out part and that it declines per depth³. It is not here of crucial importance to locate the place inside of universe from where we do observation, because we can get the results of equal or similar valuables out of many parts of its space. Blue shift in the condition of rotation is an unavoidability⁴. The near objects that are far per depth have a different speed and in their collision, which is passing over, have a blue shift. That we can note even indirectly and in collision of far objects, which all togehter for us have the red shift. They remove from us or we from them because of declining speeds, but betwen them´selves they have a blue shift⁵.
That at the case of Andromed we can not too emphasize the influence of gravation it clearly show M 32, Great and Small Magellan´s Cloud ⁶.
On condition of rotation of universe all the inexplicable events get the satisfactory solution. We can take as an assumption that the said value of 13,7 Gly (billions light years) (according to the scientists that elaborated the results of snapshooting of COBE) is a radius. It is very easy to calculate the speed of rotation of universe in this values at known equality that it on its outside zone has a speed of 270.000 km/s⁷.
All of this has as a result that the universe is coditionally a closed entireness and builts the relations inside and outside of its space.

Universe, matter and correlations
The closed universe is made out of matter which exists and bulits correlations with the field outside of it as well as with visible matter.
The researches showednthat fails 9/10 of matter, witch we call a dark substance. ⁸  Dark matter and to us visible matter arhe conditionally a total matter of one unstable entireness which is our universe.
The conditions are put for reason because the rotation has its value⁹ that we can easy attribute to the matter and the wholeness must undergo thechangeability because of correlations with the matter outside of universe. It shold not confause us the fact that I use the term matter for all, because the former researches are enought that we affirm that all one the same matter is.
That what is different are the arised relations inside of itself. ¹⁰
The back-radiation from 2,4 till 2,7° K we evalue as a value that prevail in outside field that describes the universe, inherently it is a temprature´s value of matter in which exists our universe. ¹¹
Knowing the conditions that we have at the material at supra-conductivity we notice that our universe satisfy to that conditions an that the energy (the dark one) is the supra-conductive matter. Impulses that develope inside of it undergo that regularity. If we observe separated they are uniformed and unbroken. Impils of the light of 300.000 km/s is an unchangeble constant, as well the impulses of another radiation. Trought the shut universe it is easy to understand why the matter, although it radiates, doesn´t get lost. Its value is under that conditions unchangeable in relation to the whole read off.
For argumetation of read off that the whole matter is growing I will elaborate later. The visible matter is a product of the whole matter included the outside one because of pressure-powers. Enrgy = matter is is a fine substance that at constantly pressure from outside to inside built us the visible matter. Similar proces is at the beginn ings of universe but the variety is the temperature at which they erised or erise. ¹² The beginning of a new, conditionaly, matter has as a result that this one is warmer than the precending one. Our universe according to the temperature greater than outside matter in which it exist. Its rotation has a direction that is a starting base for reconstruction of its surroundings.¹³

Constant proces
Presser powers with pressure bring to passing of energy through energy and as a result we have polarized particles of the whole seriesof volume.
Depending on wolume of paritcles they erise with essantial disturbed balance to the benefit of positiv or negativ charge.¹⁴ Disturbed charge inside of fluid particle initiates the automatical proces of saturation. Because of a great number of volumes and difference of disturbed charge we have a great dynamics of connection and it develops on more levels at the same time.
For us separating proceses are of greatness of quark, electrons and neutrin.
One clearly read off that the whole (dark) mater has no stressed charge and it is for us neutral or without charge.¹⁵ As it all develops inside of that matter of particle at forming of more and more complicated system they use this matter too.
At  the arising of neutrons by quarks are uniting two elektrons, two neutrins and 2x0,136 MeV of neutral matter which, while it is in neutron, is an unalternating magetized because of permanent connection of quarks because of their non-balance at charge. ¹⁶  The charge always drives the charges and the united systems to further connection as to create system that finds its (condationaly) peace in the surroundings.
The charasteristic of matter is that it allows systems of definite upper greatness, above of which in that conditions can not arise any more elements of row, and it comes because of a new conection to permanent fall or radiation. Similar proces we have at isotopes that are with tendence of transfer into basic state of the next row. ¹⁷
Rotation of particles inside of system even parts of system inside of different structures is the weight even gravitation that unites the catching power because of magnetic´s powers and the repulsive force that that because of rotation sends the waves far from body. ¹⁸  Most decided is that at celestial bodies that have the rotation (bodies that have no own rotation do not send the waves) when we, because of direction of motionof atoms getsincrotonic´s radiation that disturbs neutral energy making the repulsive waves.¹⁹
Value of catching el. magnetic forces break themselves repulsive. Wen the object is pulled up by elektro- magnetic force  of the Sun it because of greit speed has the greater value than the repulsive forces at the planets which have the own rotation, and the crashes of that kind are sure when the planet is in the orbit of coming object.
Bodies captured in gravitation of biger object and they are inside of values that do not allow them that they have own rotation in addition to their elektro-magnetic forces they catch the coming body and their and thair area is essential wrinkled in that proceses of collision. Repulsive waves²⁰ decline per depth that we read off at gradualy less speeds of captured bodies in depth.
United particles because of permanent alternating elektro-magnetic forces gather into entireness inside of which is continued more and more complex combination on range of opportunities. In time and dynamics that arises out ofconditions comes to systems that start to radiate²¹, and with overcross of critical conditions, as well as with greatness so which compecsity comes to the last phase when because of explosion, major part of particles lose the integrity and cross into neutral matter. There is a whole row of secondary events that lead also to disintergarte of particles of visiable matter.²²

Conduct of matter
Low temperatures have extract the magnetic powers out of matter of universe leaving pure energy that supports supra-conducivity of different impulses. Neutrality of energy has a regularity that is as a whole exists as one particle or one quantity at one place inside of colder identical energy.
Rotation that realizes universe separates it inside of that conditions and is responsible for its duration. Speed near to the light of matter (visible) without of use of energy can realize through time only in supra-conductivity matter (dark matter).
Creating of visible matter is a rising proces to the greatness of mega-stars that for a corrective factor have conditions in which they exist  and into length of time of origin (lifetime if it is longer because of slow arise till decline it will the faster out growing of upper borders have a shorter lifetime of some celestial body).
Gathering of matter is not only unitary. Gassy systems inside of galactics can be movend by rotation and in the center they make leeches when we get body of greatness of ten thousand light years that are because of their specific of arise and structue, they are the greatest celestial bodies-objects.²³  
Rotation of these bodies which is supported from inside creates beside elecro-magnetic powers, that are adequate to size of body, the strong repulsive waves that are well-defined when the rotation is greater.²⁴ ,^24a ,^24b ,^24c, ^{24d, 24e}, ^24f, ^24g
Inside of closed universe the speed of rotation declines from outside to inside.
Matter has not as an effect forming of systems such as are the black holes because the space is open and the compression leads to the forming of particles.²⁵ Desintegration  of matter can only result as a proces of balance to the lasting viability or rather when to it contribute another conditions for instance collisions at great impulses when we have a radial direction. Like discus from arise out of rotation that gives to the body an ellipse and the repulsive powers of gravitation do concentrate at elipse. Mass of bodies and rotation give an indirect weight that is to be read of on number and structure of the captured objects.
At protons (atoms) sufficient impuls impresses additional neutral quantity of neutral matter when we have awaked state of protons. Rotation of quarks that is not similar to rotation of celestial bodies, has a tendency of reversion.  As more energy entered intoa closed space the rotation forces it out faster. Overturn of quarks forms constant alternating electro-magenetic forces that affect on the pulling up and reject of particles of lower row as for instance electrons and neutrins, and a row of another particles. Atoms of more complex elements need not only have a creation of protons, neutrons and neutrins than they can integrate even some of less stable single or different united particles. Structure of neutrons is changed at enterinof pair of electrons (two)and neutrino as well as major share of neutral energy that now with permanent alternating magnetizing from the side of quarks addetional contribites to the stability of this system. Structure of higher row (of helium) has one item where develope the connection andcentral rotation which is inside of element so that the outside expanded parts of structure are intern. All higher elements in their structures hav „blank“ space through which more of less move electrons, neutrins and dark matter. Moving of inpulses we do not identify with moving of matter of these rows of volume. As the blank space does not exist all movings must bind to the complexity of field in volume.²⁶
Sending the electron into the field to the open hole we with them hit the full field that send the impulses of tensor value further into the field.
As in the hole that field also filled with the row of volume of htese particles the impuls flows further on to the obstacle. In the measurer we register the arrived impuls that came through the field of electrons. Tensor value of impulses includes hte second as well as the third hole and the passing impuls is composed.²⁷
Arousing of dark or neutral matter is in charge of transmissing of impulse of all radiatioms. As we observethis matter as one particle in this field we can not have major density. Essential characteristic of fotons is that they the gratest value get, except power and quantity of impulses, at the collision with obstacles.²⁸,^28a,^28b,^28c

Shorter summary from the work „Two-pol fluid world“, author Slavko Sedić
Zadar, 4th October 2004.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.  Demolition Hubble's law, Big Bang the basis of "modern" and ecclesiastical cosmology & Where is the truth about Big Bang theory?
http://www.globalscientificjournal.com/researchpaper/DEMOLITION-HUBBLES-LAW-BIG-BANG-THE-BASIS-OF-MODERN-AND-ECCLESIASTICAL-COSMOLOGY.pdf
Https://www.ijser.org/onlineResearchPaperViewer.aspx?Where-is-the-truth-about-Big-Bang-theory.pdf