sábado, 23 de junho de 2012

sábado, 21 de abril de 2012

 This blog is down for maintenance. It is being made ​​corrections and translation into English

In this blog, is given a solution to the problems of dark energy, dark matter, matter and antimatter, cosmic rays, the Higgs boson,  singularity,  cosmic expansion, the birth of the universe, without the big bang and many other mysteries.
 See the original version: - www.olhandoouniverso.blogspot.com 
This blog is written in Portuguese (Brasil).
 Please translate into your language.
This post in English what follows is not reliable because it has not the latest fixes, must be used solely to get an idea of the proposed theory.
  make a better translation and avoid mistakes. See original blog for this.


Experiment COBE satellite, Published in April 1992 by George Fitzgerald Smoot III (1945 -), University of California at Berkeley.
Received on November 10, 2009
Last updated: agosto 2012.
This blog is undergoing changes monthly, in order to be patched and updated.
The main purpose of this blog is to show the birth of the universe and existed before his birth.
Headline Einstein: All physical theories should lend itself to a description so simple that even a child could understand.
The universe must be simpler than you think. Something is wrong. It is possible that we can not unravel this mystery, which is the universe. The problem, in my view, is the big bang theory. This theory has harmed much, logical reasoning and led to errors, disabling unlock many secrets of the universe.
Just a little imagination to understand, for example, that the universe rotates and does not expand. It's all a matter of optical illusion. At first glance, it seems totally absurd, especially for those who are stuck to the old theory. Observe the evidence: As for spinning: science does not approve of this possibility, but the evidence is so clear that we can not easily dismiss. Theories change, but not the evidence. They may just be misunderstood. As we can see, there are theories that have been proven mathematically that were not accepted due to lack of observable evidence. The truth is that the universe is rotating, including its periphery, as in galaxies. The universe can be compared to a giant galaxy. Only galaxies are made of stars and the universe, galaxies. This uniformity can be seen also in planetary systems, atoms, etc.. Everything turns and draws.
Due to the complexity of understanding the universe we tend to attribute their existence on the natural. If the universe is God's creation, then who created God? Everything has a beginning. With this thought we will get nowhere. As the rotation of the universe had no relationship with the big bang (which is conventionally the universe did not have a center), it was forgotten.
There are three ways to prove that the universe is not expanding. The first is to prove that the universe revolves, though this, in practice, can not be used to disprove the expanding universe. This rotation can not be seen easily, the second is to prove that the universe contracts. Speaking on this, it would be a crime, at this juncture, the third, perhaps more likely, is the problem of cosmic dust that dims the brightness of celestial bodies. This cosmic dust filters out ultraviolet and blue rays, preventing its passage and passes red and infrared, quite easily, tricking the viewer. The farther is a heavenly glow, more cosmic dust is in front and he is seen more red. The universe is awash with cosmic dust. It's like several lighted lamps, dipped in the sea. As is deeper, less shine. The cosmic dust is formed in the periphery of the universe (it will be seen later). There is therefore more cosmic dust in this region. This makes it appear that there is an accelerated expansion. The cosmic dust could also explain the paradox of Olbers.The sun on the horizon is seen reddish without indicating which is further away from that when seen at noon, or even indicating that it is booming.                                 

To be based on supernovae to measure distances, we have to take into account how far away is the star that exploded or was truly a star.
The cosmic dust dispersed in the universe can not be detected, but only in clusters.
This dust increases the density of space phenomena and causes of optical illusions, such as redshift, gravitational lensing, etc.. (Will be discussed later).
"The universe is an optical illusion."
First try to prove the rotation of the universe, to show that it has a center (the standard theory denies this). This will be useful to clarify the problem of dark matter, dark flow and the higgs boson (will be shown later).
1 - Observe the elliptical shape of the universe. This format is identical to that of a galaxy. If not rotate, its shape would be spherical and the more spin, the more you flatten (see illustration above). When the bodies coalesce and fuse, its shape tends to rounded and when not melt and stick together by the force of gravity they tend to elliptical shape, a cluster (round) or a disc depending on the rotation. It would behave like a liquid.
2 - galaxies closest to the center of the universe do its translational movement shorter than the most distant being observed and this center will see roughly the most distant galaxies moving away faster, causing the illusion of expansion of the universe and the more far more pronounced is this optical illusion, why do we spin faster. It's like the planets around the sun. Our galaxy is near this center. Unfortunately this argument is not used to indicate the removal of galaxies (will be seen later).
3 - In the universe and everything revolves attracts. We note that, in subatomic particles in atoms, meteors, planets, stars in in planetary systems, galaxies, black holes and by assumption, in the universe. The rotary motion is in the nature, severity as part of the bodies. This combination fills the entire space occupied by matter. The rotation opposes gravity and the two are balanced, maintaining this harmony we see. In the space where there exists gravity and the rotation the stronger the gravity, the greater the rotation and consequently the centrifugal force. It's like the opposite: positive and negative, north and south, matter and antimatter, etc.. There is no force or antigravity antigravity would remove galaxies to infinity.
The cosmic debris to clump together to form planets and satellites that are spinning around a gravitational center (star). A galaxy also keeps its stars revolving around a center of gravity (black hole). The universe, as their fuses and clusters of galaxies are rotating around a center of gravity (center of the universe). This seems to be a natural condition and repetitive universe and still have the atomic and subatomic universe.
Even if the rotation of the universe is not confirmed, the evidence is very positive to be easily overlooked. see: "the universe" Nasa's picture (rotation of the universe). Physical laws would not be "distorted" understanding this difficult?
They say that the universe has no center. This is absurd, every body has a center, which can be: the geometric center, center of gravity and even virtual center, as the case of a body in a ring (donut). The same happens with a number of bodies united by gravity (cluster of stars, galaxies, etc.).. The total gravity focuses on a common center (black hole). "The universe can be compared to a giant galaxy." This will be better understood in the course of this report. It is necessary to prove the rotation of the universe, because it will help explain dark matter and dark flow.
4 - Why can not we see the rotation of the universe? The rotation of the universe, may not be noticed due to translational and rotational motion of the Milky Way. If the direction of rotation is the reverse of the translation, the sky will be seen as if they turned to an observer on earth, as happens now. A movement is opposed to the other and cancel each other out. It's all an optical illusion. Maybe it's where the English astronomer, Paul Birch, can recover its credibility with this new hypothesis, since he claimed that "the universe is expanding beyond revolved around its axis. Their theory was dismissed for lack of evidence observable (in 80s), even though it had mathematical proof (in many cases, the evidence outweigh mathematical proof.) This phenomenon is only observed for a few thousand years, depending on the point that is occupying our planet in the galaxy right now. believe the standard theory is wrong and that the universe actually rotate; including its periphery. If the rotation of the universe is proven, everything is solved. hardly the universe expands, just spins and increases in size by accretion of matter on its periphery, exactly as a galaxy (will be seen later.) These five proofs of the rotation of the universe and the following ten oppose both evidence of no rotation. Reasons for denying the rotation are: 1st is turned induce a kind of cosmic change in temperature the "microwave background", which was not observed and 2 the presence of rotation implies that the locations along the axis of rotation were somehow "special", which violates our understanding of relativity that the universe looks the same, regardless the location of the observer. judge must now.
5 - If these are not sufficient evidence, leave for a different and more likely to show that the universe is not expanding. The cosmic dust is present throughout the universe and have their origin in the periphery (explained later).
This dust filters out blue light rays and ultraviolet and leave the red and infrared pass quite easily. It is possible that nearby galaxies, are seen as distant galaxies. This dust scatters can not be detected. It can only be perceived when crowds.
All distant galaxies have a layer of dust sharper in front, another closer, because the space is full of dust and other corpuscles as neutrinos. This increases the density of space (as stated above) and confuses the correct perception of the galaxy and can lead to misinterpretation, interfering with reasoning and cause the impression that all galaxies are moving away because they are more red and cause sense of expansion of the universe. It was published by newsletter@sciencedaily.com: "Some galaxies have more than other interstellar clouds" and "The Young and distant galaxies have more dust than a galaxy old" (and closer) and this should help them to be seen more red without indicating that deviate. We know that a galaxy seen from above, in addition to being round view is clearer than if it had been seen in profile (and elliptical). Thus, this galaxy will be seen more red, without indicating who is moving away. We found that some clusters of galaxies (in rhythm collision) show galaxies with slightly different shades of color. Note also that a photo of type ultra deep field, hubble taken by satellite, shows galaxies of various colors when they should be all red, infrared, or should not be seen because the frequency is less than visible light in this "supposed" away. Another important thing is the case of the light spectrum indicates the composition of minerals in a star near or far. Will this spectrum also does not suffer the effects of redshift?
Should suffer these effects, but so far have not found any articles that talk about this.
I want to show with this that we may be seeing galaxies moving away, unless this is actually happening. This hypothesis, together with the evidence shown below, would eliminate the much-discussed "dark energy." The galaxies are moving away can not. An example is the star "Zeta Ophiuchi", surrounded by a blue star space dust and red is seen. Here was this perceived anomaly. There are more arguments to disprove the expansion of the universe, as we will see later.
 A reading of the distances of galaxies that could confirm the redshift, would measure some galaxies, their redshifts annotate and measure them sometime later and compare the colors to see if there is variation in order to prove his retirement 
Headline Einstein: Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.
If the rotation of the universe is discarded and none of the suggestions presented here is accepted, we leave for another more radical solution, but very likely to have happened. In the formation of the universe, there was a "IMPLOSION" energy, (proving that matter is a concentration of energy) and a contraction of particles that gave rise to all the stars (still happening today) and this is not a big crunch ( will be shown later).
As for the contraction of the universe seems absurd even bigger, but it costs speculate. The important thing is to prove that the big bang did not happen and that the universe is not expanding rapidly. This will continue to be tempted now.
Observe the 10 following evidence that contradict and prove an expansion or a rotation and a contraction of the universe. Is there a kind of contraction that causes the galaxies become increasingly distant from the periphery, the birth of galaxies in this vicinity. This is not a big crunch (will be shown later).
1 - If the big bang happened, galaxies on the periphery should be the oldest because the matters that gave rise were the first to be thrown into space and more power, the younger ones, because they would be the last to be thrown . This is not what we see but just the opposite. The galaxies are younger and more distant views should also be seen, much older than the more central, due to the time they took to get there and how long it took their light to reach us. What we see are young galaxies, with 13.7 billion light years away, its light took that long to reach us. Is not included in the travel time there. This is not traveled there, just born there. This suggests that the big bang did not happen, that the universe is expanding, galaxies are born in the outskirts and walk to the center of gravity from the center of the universe in a kind of contraction, like the stars of a galaxy ( this will be explained later).
2 - The Milky Way galaxy is a very old and occupies almost the center of the universe, ie, about 100,000 light years of the center (there is controversy in the distance), where there is a massive cluster of old stars called "Great Attractor Vigor "(center of gravity of the universe) and our galaxy seems to be attracted to him (this will be seen later). If this is true, there are two hypotheses: our galaxy is moving in the space, faster and faster as we move closer to the center and see the other galaxies moving away faster and faster for us, giving the illusion of accelerated expansion of the universe or would spin faster, also giving the illusion of expansion. If we combine the two, the end result will be well marked, the redshift effect, observed in the expansion of the universe keeps happening in contraction or rotation. Imagine three points in a straight line: O, A and B.
What is the center of the universe, galaxies A and B are (A, would the Milky Way). If A moves away from O and B moves away faster than A, we have accelerated expansion is seen nowadays as A. If A is approaching faster than the B, we have also seen a rapid expansion of A, but in this case they walk into the center of the universe (contraction), unlike the previous one (expansion), which go to infinity. In the case of contraction or rotation, after the galaxy B rises Galaxy C, D, E etc, causing galaxies existing become increasingly distant from the periphery and this would not be a big crunch or expanding the universe there . This also suggests continued growth of the universe and justify all matter exists. The accelerated expansion of the universe is best explained in contraction (not a big crunch) or rotation and dispensing naturally dark energy causing it does not exist because there would be no expansion of the universe to infinity. The distant galaxies suffer little influence and walk more slowly and explain the accelerated expansion in a more logical and eliminate dark energy and help demonstrate the rotation of the universe. Unfortunately this can not be used to prove the expansion of the universe, because the time for observation would be too long, and we can not as yet see the rotation of the universe. What is more likely to explain dark energy, is the idea of ​​cosmic dust. Look on the internet: "Dark Side of the universe is challenged by astronomers." Perhaps the discovery of what causes the effect of dark matter, discover if the interference of one over the other. We will see later that the magnetic field affects the photon and has a magnetic field that has its origin in the center of the universe, as it exists in the black hole in a galaxy, making this dark center, as well as dark spots from the sun are due to fields magnetic sun.
This could also interfere with the light of the heavenly bodies of the universe and be responsible for the effect of dark energy.
The center of the universe is the center of gravity of this universe. While not comment, it is clear that the universe has mass. It would be like the black hole of a galaxy. "The universe is like a giant galaxy." Only a galaxy consists of stars and the universe is made up of galaxies. .
How're spinning in orbit around the center of the universe and everything revolves around us too, did not realize this rotation. The universe is all an optical illusion. Perhaps the expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by cosmic dust or effect of any component of this dust (neutrinos, magnetic fields, etc..
The background noise detected should be all the same color, because it would involve a microwave, but presents itself in the colors: red, yellow, green and blue, as detected by WMAP satellite or the video shown below, giving the impression that it is a plasma that cooling will over time and more plasma arises to replace the previous one and will thus eternally (go into detail later). Red indicates the moment of discharge of gamma rays (explained later).

3 - In an explosion or big bang, the center was almost empty and the whole mass would be in the periphery (like super nova 1987). When there are materials in the central part (except for the core), these materials have less mass than the materials from the periphery. This can also be seen in nebulae, grenades military, fireworks, etc.. Everything is reversed, the universe has too much raw dough inside and few materials with less mass at the periphery, like a galaxy. This contradicts the rule of an explosion and suggests that the universe is not expanding and not a big bang happened. A galaxy is not the result of an explosion but rather an agglomeration of stars, they acquire a rotation and flattens to form a galaxy. Following this logical path, we understand that everything is reversed.
4 - We know that the heavenly bodies are formed by the joining of smaller bodies, which in turn are formed by union of still smaller bodies and so forth, by gravity. So to be union, it is necessary that these bodies would coalesce and there can be no agglutination with expansion and contraction with yes.
It would like the human body, consisting of hundreds of quadrillion living cells. There is talk that galaxies move away, but what is observed is that they clump together and fuse from the beginning.
"Discovered cluster of galaxies more distant land." Writing Site Technology Innovations - 23/10/2009.
"Astronomers observe colliding galaxy clusters" - June 2011
 "Astronomers discover galaxy cluster 'fat' and distant" - 13/01/12
 The existing clusters, clusters were not in the beginning. How did this condition? With departures? This in my opinion is very poorly explained. What is observed is that everything in the universe attracts, collides and merges. View the Internet: "The universe may not be expanding at a rapid pace."

5 - With the big bang, galaxies or never would be shocked if aglomerariam. Would travel from the center to the periphery straight away increasingly from each other, as in all the explosions in space. Should be spread evenly through space. There is no uniformity in this universe, there are voids and spaces filled with galaxies. They say the universe is expanding rapidly. Because everything crashes all the time? This should not happen in an accelerated expansion.

6 - The concentration of massive stars in the center of the universe may be remnants of galaxies that have reached their final destination. This also proves the contraction of the universe. The center of the universe is little studied; nobody is interested in it that have not yet realized the potential of this center is the center of gravity of the universe (is conventionally the absurdity that the universe has no center). Perhaps the Great Attractor force, nor is that the cluster galaxies and pull all or he must exist, but something pulls as demonstrated by the "Seven Samurai" (American astronomers in charge of studying this subject in 1989). This would be the center of gravity of the universe. This center does not need to have mass inside (it would be like a wagon wheel). As the black hole's gravitational center of a galaxy, the universe (a giant galaxy), for the same reason also has a gravitational center. View the Internet:
7 - If the big bang happened, the center would be the hottest part and the periphery, the coolest part, as in all the explosions. There is this hot center and periphery emits thermal radiation, to well over 13 billion years. How is that possible? This is attributed wrongly, in my view, the background radiation echo of the big bang or (This will be seen later). The age of the universe is much higher than estimated, ie about hundreds of billions of years (this will be explained below). With the high age, background noise should not be more noticed. All this was an adaptation to justify the big bang, like many others. Expected to find one thing and found another, equally satisfactory, we cheated for decades (we will detail later).

8 - The highest concentration of galaxies lies at the center of the universe and becoming sparser in the periphery, just like the stars of a galaxy. This feature is opposed to a big bang, which is exactly the opposite. This seems to be repetitive in the universe. We can conclude that this is not expansion and contraction reinforces the suspicion and or rotation of the universe (see illustration below).

9 - For the above, the galaxies are born in the outskirts and walk to the center, in a process of continuous contraction of the universe, just like the stars of a galaxy. How is that possible? This will be explained later. The Milky Way is about 12 billion years old and is located in the center of the universe as several other ancient galaxies. On the outskirts there are only new galaxies and the time it took their light to reach us is about 13.7 billion years and that is how we see it. We see old galaxies in the periphery.

10 - The universe is huge, it has more than 170 billion galaxies. We know today that the size of the universe is 78 billion light years from end to end. See: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYZNTsFTZ5w"

If there was a big bang and walked galaxies at the speed of light (something seemingly impossible to happen), it would take about 40 billion light years to get where they are and in this case should be viewed much older and still have to add the time it took their light to reach us. If this had happened, the galaxies would be so far away that we would see the unlikely. The age of the universe would be well over hundreds of billions of years and background noise would not be present to be detected or not the big bang happened. The cosmic inflation never existed (this nonsense will be seen later). Look on the Internet: The zero point - by Jomar Morais reporter (how long the cosmos exploded?).
The above picture taken by satellite "COBE", is not a picture of the early universe (primary), as is supposed, but the most current universe possible because after billions of years (the time it took the light to reach us) and shows with hundreds of billions of years old. It shows the universe with a size of 78 billion light years from end to end. This is not a primordial universe but current (large). What is old is small, of course. He was born small and grow over time (will be shown below). This interpretation is reversed. The cosmic inflation, never happened. Indeed, evidence that the universe is not expanding, is the case of "cosmic dust", subatomic particles, magnetic effects etc..
There is more evidence, but these are enough to prove my suspicions. See more in evidence: http / /: bigbangneverhappened, org.
Evidence shown above were chosen so that this does not coincide with Blog (will be shown later this report).
See also: - errors big bang --- Problems with the big bang ---- the controversial issue of modern cosmology, etc..
As we can see, there are many proofs of non-expanding universe. We therefore think that this is possible, mainly to prove that dark energy does not exist and would therefore be an optical illusion. Look on the internet: "The univers does not expand" - by Luis Biarge Baldellou. See also: "universe may not be expanding at a rapid pace," says research USP.
Until now it was believed that only a big bang, would be the only way to explain the beginning of everything, but no alternative, as discussed below:

When you deny the big bang, we must have another explanation for the beginning of everything. Here is a proposal to try to explain this problem.
Headline Einstein: Two things are infinite: The universe and the folly of men.

Distribution of galaxies measured by the 2dF Galaxy Redshiffht Research, Covering 6 billion light years.
This explanation will be made very easily in order to cover people with less knowledge of cosmology. Not used mathematical calculations to prove anything. Only comments. The intention is to prove that the universe is simpler than you think. No need for complex mathematical calculations, nor extra dimensions, as well as physical laws unknown, distorted and adapted nor resort to quantum theory. See "Radical theory explains the origin, evolution and nature of life." By Erik Andrulis, professor of molecular biology and microbiology at Case Western University, USA. Like me (in 2009) and "Dr.Andrulis" (in 2012 ) also agree that the solution is simple, non-mathematical, and experimentally verifiable. far too much math was used, with chaotic physics, for nothing. now using much evidence, with many sources of queries, most other physical logic and seems to solve the great mysteries. See on the Internet: "Misconceptions about the Big Bang."
 See also: "Gödel's incompleteness theorem."
The big bang theory too complicated understanding of the universe and must be discarded. Before you read this whole report is very important to see the video on the Internet: "A tour of all the galaxies we know today.
He shows no purposeful way, how the universe came about: From outside to inside

Here's what was posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:05 = the Newsroom Brasilia Hits: 1169: "Astronomers say the Universe spins like a carousel since the Big Bang." (Look this way on the internet). If it rotates, has an axis and has an axis, a center. If the universe rotates, centrifugal force should play all galaxies out (this could be the dark energy). This does not happen because there is a gravitational force pulling everything inward, as in the case of a galaxy of stars. This force would be dark matter (will be shown later).
The main intention of this blog is to show another proposal for the creation of the universe, without the big bang.

Headline Einstein: No scientist thinks with formulas.

In the days before Einstein, the universe was considered static and was limited to just our galaxy. When Edwin Hubble discovered that there were other galaxies, they went away, that it originated in a big bang and later discovered the cosmic microwave background, was a total euphoria. Had been discovered a new theory, denying everything that existed before. Nobody thought that all this was just a terrible coincidence that deceived us for decades. When the first difficulties appeared to understand some phenomena of nature, Einstein was there to solve, inventing new laws that are perfectly shaped and apparently resolved the issue. He really was a genius and was convinced the new theory of the big bang and even acknowledged his mistake cosmological force. Do not opposed to anything. Only he died and now we have a lot of mysteries that need to be solved and he is not here to solve. Nobody thinks able to counteract the great master. Scientists fear putting their reputation at stake and we can not continue in this situation. It was necessary to use particle accelerators to try to unravel the mysteries, still based on the old theory of the big bang, which many insist not to oppose. Only now some innovative poucaspessoas began to challenge these ideas, such as the space-time fabric, relativity, singularity, cosmic inflation, etc.. Already there is talk of separate time from space. See the magazine "Scientific American, January 2010, p. 12" (so says the physicist Petr Horava about space-time).
Perhaps some of these items are discarded. If we adopt another physical, will not solve anything. We must admit that the current cosmological physics, is wrong. Anyway we have to modify the big bang theory. Who dares? Few people have this intention. Physical theories in use are based on the big bang and the expansion of the universe. If there was a big bang and the universe does not expand, it will have to be rethought.
Some articles presented here contradict the standard theory, but it was necessary to be able to think differently, Otherwise we will not leave the sameness of all time. Moreover, we know that the standard theory also answers many questions and not being reassessed. See in technological innovations or on the Internet: Dimensions evaporate in quantum gravity.
We know that the currently accepted cosmological models, depends of gravity "Newton". But there is one mistake that casts doubt on this theory of gravitation or the standard theory. Refers to the number of galaxies orbiting the Milky Way and one of the two has to be modified. Perhaps this proposed theory presented here help to resolve this impasse.
Look on the internet: 7 questions that frighten physicists.
"What men really want is not knowledge, but certainty."

Bertrand Russell. "






Headline Einstein: Any man who reads too much and uses less brain acquires laziness of thinking.


There are several interpretations for nothing, for vacuum and space. Nothing vacuum and space, may even be synonymous. A more detailed explanation of nothing is written in chapter 12.
Now be proposed some modifications in the standard theory, which will interfere with the creation of the universe model presented here. These are just my thoughts about the protests about the standard theory. As João Magueijo said astronomer, do not believe everything you've been taught in school. The laws of physics do not come up with the big bang. They have always existed, what happened to the sugimento the universe, the laws of physics had to be respected.
To begin, let's say that the electromagnetic energy has always existed, because it can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed (say physics). This energy can not be created in the big bang (it always was) and could play the "ether", ie serve as a conductive medium of light in vacuum.
Let us assume that the universe has a center (the standard theory denies this). Every body has a center. That space and time (absolute), have always existed (were not created in the big bang) and also suggests Petr Horava, physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. Space is unlimited if limits exist, then the limits of this space, there is always something that is more space. An explosion or expansion of space can only occur if there is room for it. The space is not created, it already exists. Let us assume that the big bang did not happen, the lack of uniqueness, cosmic inflation, etc.. The theory of space-time, in my view, can only be used in certain cases. See: Space Time and Beyond by Jean Michel Jarre. It would be like saying, before I was born, time did not exist.
A team of astrophysicists in Australia and England discovered recently, evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe. Look on the internet: "Laws of physics vary throughout the universe." This, might help to understand the difference of time off the ground. "Physical laws were drawn up, imagining an expanding universe." There are cases in which we use four dimensions to locate us (ex: meet me at two o'clock on the fourth floor of the building on the corner of W Y). In others use only one (ex: I live in the last house on this street) and if the location of a body in infinite space, do not use any, because there is no point of reference.
Nothing can be faster than light, said Einstein. As explained above speed of light in distant galaxies (as in the case of cosmic inflation)? This was used to explain the theory of space-time, as it were possible to explain the tissue space time can expand at speeds exceeding light and galaxies not. We are studying the possibility of separating time and space if the orbit of Mercury is best explained by quantum mechanics, according to Petr Horava.
Why could not reconcile Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory? Because something is wrong, of course. The interpretation of the tissue space-time gravity is to demonstrate the deformation caused by a weight placed on top of an imaginary tissue. A force of gravity from below causes the deformation of this fabric (which is not done in the field). It takes a gravitational force to demonstrate that gravity is a curvature of space (This is an aberration). Only matter has gravity. Gravity acting on the space is totally wrong. Matter attracts matter or is that the interpretation is not so? As will be then?
It will be difficult to prove that space-time does not exist or exist in special cases. Science admits the existence of atoms of space time (how is that possible?). Without the opinion of the scientist Petr Horava, I would never have the courage to write what I am writing. The demonstration of the orbits of the planets by the deformation of the space-time fabric, indicates that the planets, to lose speed if encaminhariam to one of the poles of the body that orbits, which does not happen in reality. It simply falls from orbit, directly on the body which orbits a celestial body and passing near a planet would divert down to go through depression and then would rise again and this is not observado.Tudo this would indicate that a wormhole would be impossible.
Without knowing what Petr Horava idealized about space time, this part of the review is still very uncertain. Are there two kinds of spaces? Really when it comes to space, imagine this infinite space in three dimensions. On the other hand, we say that an atom occupying a small space. This is a space (limited) inside another space (infinity). Must be where the secret of all this. If space is a problem, time is a much bigger problem. As this has nothing to do with the focus of this issue, we will not go into details.
Search the internet for Petr Horava. (Dividing the time space, the theory of gravity Petr Horava), or "drops quantum of time." His style kills the notion of big bang and the birth of the universe.


 - Speed ​​of Light.

The light is transmitted in the vacuum of the universe, at an approximate speed of 300,000 km / s, the water would 225.000Km / s in glass 200.000Km/se in diamond 125.000km / s, etc.. We know the perfect vacuum or absolute does not exist in our universe. The vacuum is relative, that is, there are materials at low pressure and very low pressure in the universe and is influenced by the photon density. The gravity influence on the density, as can concentrate particles in a medium with greater or lesser density (physical laws may vary throughout the universe).
Another explanation for this phenomenon.
The electromagnetic energy or a spark jumps from one point to another, more readily if it is low pressure. This means that the photons may travel more slowly at higher pressures and higher densities and faster at low pressures and low densities (in vacuum).
In the center of the universe vacuum has a maximum density, whereas in the periphery has a minimum density. In the center of the universe, there are more and more serious matter, unlike the periphery. Therefore the speed of light in the vicinity would be faster than at the center of universe. This would explain the "speed of light from distant galaxies," more simply and without using the artifice of spacetime in this case. The speed of light varies with the distance from the center of universe. Thus, it is possible that far from downtown, where the density and gravity tend to almost zero, the speed of light exceeds 300,000 km / s (this needs to be proven) "physical laws vary throughout the universe."
It was published on 18/08/2011 in technological innovation, "light overcomes speed of light - twice." Of course this can not be true, but there are many controversies regarding the light (see below).
The deviation of starlight by the sun's gravity, which helped confirm the theory of Einstein's general relativity, in my opinion, does not prove that it was only the sun's gravity deflected the light. The photon has virtually no mass and should not suffer influence of gravity. You can only suffer deflection when traversing an environment with different density (this has been proven). We know that the sun's surface is warmer than the environment of the universe around him, has very dense materials being ejected from its surface, a large magnetic force and a strong gravitational pull. Anyway, it is an environment with a high density and can deflect light and not the severity that should not affect the photons (though not enough, still do not know enough about light and may have news, on the density we have no doubt). Example of news: "Brazilians create technique to measure the rotation of light" and "give scientists node in the light", and NASA announces plan to send a probe to study the sun's atmosphere. "Reducing the speed of light is obtained within a silicon chip". "Paradox of the photon mass (center of logical deductions)." See also the Internet: "Magnetism of light is measured directly for the first time" "Light overcomes speed of light, twice."
The magnetic field can have an influence on photon and be responsible for the dark black hole, as is the black patches of sun. The magnetic field can deflect light (photon) and be responsible for the illusion of dark energy.
Galaxies have a cloud of dust and gas around them and their gravity coupled to gravity imposed by the supposed dark matter density influences this. The same occurs in clusters of galaxies.
All this would have the effect of "lensing" (not further shown).
According to Stephen Hawking (to justify the impossibility of a big crunch), the space can only rewind, time does not. In this case time would be separated from the space, each with its own function. I ask: How backward infinite space? If you have space limitations, only the limits of this space can move and the space this would be offset by the space can not disappear. Conclusion: can not move in space. He is infinite, boundless, like time, energy, etc. "Einstein developed his theories, assuming an expanding universe."
Dr. Peter Hayes argues that the theory of relativity is not science but an ideology like Marxism. Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia created by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, suggests that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot (see American scientific magazine Nov., 2010 pag. 14)
"The Danish astronomer Willem de Sitter examined general relativity and Einstein sent a detailed account, in summarizing the problem and proposed a radical solution: general relativity would only work if the whole universe was exploding in all directions from a point core ". If the big bang did not happen and if the universe does not expand, it will have to be rethought.
I'm not supporting this thought. Just quoting what I found there. Also do not get the extra tests that make up today to prove this theory. Are there still questions? Why not Einstein won the Nobel prize for this? One gets the impression that Einstein's relativity, does more harm than help. Look on the internet: "Errors of relativity."
The theory of Petr Horava says: One of the principles of general relativity can be violated. The principle is called Lorentz symmetry (invariance or Lorentz). Look on the Internet: Another new theory of gravity by Andrews Zimmernan Jones.
For better understanding on the subject, I suggest reading the article on the internet:
 As the discussion on relativity is not the main intent of this blog, but the emergence of the universe, we will leave this issue open for future discussions.


We do not know what gravity is, but we know that the opposite is the centrifugal force - there is a centripetal force - (see center of logical deductions). They are opposite but not together as in magnets. One precludes the other and that is what makes it possible to spread all matter in the universe. Studying a, we know each other.
Gravity does not have a negative side, do not know the negative gravity. It would be like the case of magnetic monopoles or "magnetricidade" (presented by technological innovations). View the Internet: "Exotic Material spintrônicas reveals surprises." According to the model of "Donoghue", there may be a chance that the speed of gravity is larger than velocidadeda light.


 (Paragraph copied from an article Univérsico Institute for Research and Education EDUARDO GERAQUE).

Read more: http://iupe.webnode.com/news/em-busca-do-boson-de-higgs/

"Speed ​​of gravity can be greater than the speed of light?" (See Internet).

(Based on Graeme Stemp-text Morlock - FQXi - 12/10/2011) - John Donoghue, a physicist at the University of Massachusetts, USA.

The severity arose when the matter arose. Field attracts the field.
The gravitational energy is not as light, ie not traveling at 300,000 km / s. Its action must be instantaneous, continuous and not by waves. There are no gravitons and gravitational waves have not been and will not be detected. It would be like a rope connecting two bodies that rotate around each other, keeping the rope taut by centrifugal force. The rope would like the force of gravity. If this line is broken, the two bodies will be launched into space instantaneously regardless of the point at which the rope was cut, the distance between the bodies (as would be missing gravity). This instantaneous action of gravity could perhaps explain the case of particles separated by billions of light years from each other and instantly respond to stimuli (quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, etc.).
Speculating a bit more and studying

best gravity, could perhaps be used

for faster communication,

and travel much faster in


The centrifugal force can also be used to create a gravity and or eliminate the effect of gravity, that is, create an anti-gravity.
  This "supposed" experience made recently to prove the deformation of spacetime fabric, with gyroscope, may have been misinterpreted (see Internet).

The gravity pulls gas and dust and

cause deformation perceived

giving the impression that the earth is

dipped in honey (space is not empty).

There is no deformation of the space-time fabric, there is no wormhole time travel through this process, see: "All aboard: Express Worm Hole From vai". If time travel were possible, we would have people coming back from the future to the past, to have eternal life.
Also say that gravity bends space around it is to say that space has gravity and this is fanciful. The truth is: gravity bends the materials (including gases) around it, ie: gravity only interacts between subjects. The space appears curved, because the universe is not flat but rounded. Why gravity is a mystery to this day? Why the standard theory has no explanation for this?
We can increase the mass of a body, or only increasing its rotation speed.
This could be the Higgs Boson. The field (energy) that gives mass to particles (with its spin), generating a centrifugal force, a kind of gravity. Thus, the Higgs particle would not be a yes and energy (gravity or electromagnetic quantum gravity) and for this reason can not be detected as the black hole (with their imaginary gravitons) gives its rotation mass (gravity) to the hollow center of the galaxy , deluding perception and appearing to be a massive body. The same happens with the center of the universe. Their rotation gives mass (gravity) to its hollow center giving the illusion of dark matter (will see later). The higgs boson is a gravitational energy and not a particle. Higgs boson, black hole, dark matter. Three effects equal scale of different sizes
There must be many strange things written here on this blog, but there are many strange things written there, including current physical laws.
They say that this blog is not reliable. I ask: Is there anything reliable in cosmology? Quite the contrary, there is talk of another physical. Much spoken here contradict the current theory, but you must eliminate everything that does not agree, because this does not interfere with the new proposal of the emergence of the universe, which is the intention of this blog.
"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose" (John Haldane, English biologist 0.1892 to 1964).
Look on the internet, "seven questions about the big bang." Many adjustments were made to justify the big bang, as we can see.
Headline Einstein: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than possible.


What existed before the "supposed" big bang?

Absolutely nothing.
Nothing will be explained further in Chapter 12.
The cosmological nothing, ie: An infinite space with extreme characteristics: an absolute vacuum, at a temperature of absolute zero degree and also the total absence of light. Absolute vacuum is as absolute zero; unobtainable in our Universe. Time is also another thing that is infinite and both space and time were not created in the big bang, they always existed as electromagnetic energy. There are three requirements for the creation of the universe: energy space and time (infinite). This idea is not worse than stated below:
See the absurdity that the standard theory says: - The big bang was not an explosion but an expansion of content that swelled along with the space created at the time and also time coming. This makes no sense. The content occupies a space that no matter how small, is a space. If no space, nothing can exist (for one thing there is space required). After the confines of this space there is always something that is more space or nothing and nothing is space. The space can not disappear, but turns empty space, which is also space. The space always exists, as time (as is the numbering).
The time can only be a reference (eg before Christ and after Christ). Thus, energy, space and time are infinite, ie always existed, as the cold darkness, etc.. The weather began to be counted from this time (birth of the universe), in ascending order which goes to infinity, but can also be counted in decreasing order which also goes to infinity.
Having infinite space and time, the energy ends up turning into matter (M = E / C ²). In this case, just an electric spark to start the whole process. How did it happen? This will be seen later.
Three conditions to generate an infinite universe with a beginning and without an end, as our universe.

According to Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics, the universe is a fixed amount of energy and matter. This can not be true. What is there must be an infinite amount of electromagnetic energy that is being converted into matter, infinitely. This was designed, assuming the big bang. "If the big bang did not happen, everything will have to be modified." The matter is being created every moment. There was a certain amount of matter in the universe. Before created the universe, there was no issue. The universe is the creation of matter (M = E/C2).

Much attention not to employ the rules of the standard theory when judging this explanation made here. Physical theories based on standard theory, were made assuming an expanding universe. If the universe does not expand, it will have to be rethought, or not understand what was exposed.
How long did it matter to be created (the birth of the universe)? The "SPACE" and "POWER" always been there for a "TIME" infinite waiting this event. The beginning of the birth of the universe is just a reference to begin to tell the time, as in the case of the birth of Christ. Only one reference. Time is not a dimension. There is no logic or need to know how long it took to start the birth of the universe (just an infinite time). This would be time zero.
This is the outer space where there is nothing even the photon. Perhaps due to the extreme conditions and favorable, favored the emergence of ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, the first of the four basic forces of nature, from which originated the three others (this will be explained later). We understand this, that there is absolutely nothing, because it was saturated with electromagnetic energy. Therefore, nothing would be the only matter.
Using the idea that space-time was created with the big bang, would not be possible to pre-existence of electromagnetic energy (the energy responsible for all) and there would be absolutely nothing. Everything would have to be created out of nothing and that would be absolutely impossible. There would be the primeval atom, space and time, the uniqueness, the four basic forces of nature, etc.. The electromagnetic force would have to be created, as it apparently was, along with the other three (super strength), as well as the primeval atom (the big bang). We would also have to admit the artifice of singularity where the laws of physics fail. The theory of space-time is already under suspicion and a number of other inconsistencies. All this means that there is a universe out of infinite space. The universe is located at a point without reference, that can not be found by someone in this infinite space. This case will not use any dimension to locate it. Look in Scientific American (Special) No. 41 (Feb. mar.de 2011): "Time is an illusion" and "Time may end." See also the special issue number 46 (April 2012): Deep Mysteries of Time magazine and in June 2012, "Enigma start and end time (physical special edition 2).
Tell physics: the electromagnetic energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Therefore, it could not be created in the big bang, it would always exist. The electromagnetic energy would be the "God" of science, creator of all things and does not need to be worshiped nor requires sacrifices from anyone (to unravel a mystery).
Electromagnetic energy is an immaterial existence capable of producing changes and, as such, can produce material or vice versa (E = MC ² or M = E / C ²). This energy is the primordial energy, the atom surrogate primary illogic of the Big Bang theory. Energy is a mystery to scientists, beginning with the definition.
This alleged electromagnetic force space outside the universe, we know little or nothing: as it is (loading, radiation, spin, photon energy monopole, strings, etc.)., How did, how it behaves in space outside the universe infinite, where this energy is also infinite. This seems an impossible thing, but it is not. Every empty space is occupied by electromagnetic energy and the gravitational energy, if there is matter. Energy is eternal. It all depends, perhaps, a new theory: the theory of space outside the universe, like the law of quantum theory to atomic universe and Newton's laws for the mechanics of our universe (three basic universal laws, at least).
Three basic laws universal, three fundamental colors, four basic tastes, four basic forces of nature, four amino acids for the formation of DNA, etc. Nature makes combinations of three or four things, to obtain a multitude of different effects. Nature is simple.
 So she takes two up quarks and one down quark for one proton and one up quark and two downs to get a neutron and the union of the two originate the nucleus of an atom and the atoms make up all matter in our Universe. Observe the three riddles of nature: the origin of the universe, of life and intelligence and the three items Abstract: energy, space and time to the creation of the universe, which in my opinion perhaps always existed. See also the three cases for obtaining life: amino acids, energy, and water (or other liquid). These three items are applied in several other cases.
Note that in these cases the preexisting energy and or time or space, and are always present in any event at least once during the three following item

Energy  space and time = universe.
Energy aminoácido and water = life
    Life  evolution end time =  intelligence


How did this whole matter of the universe, in the beginning there was nothing? According to the theory of the Big Bang, the primeval atom always existed (from nothing) and this little atom disintegrated (not sure how), transformed into energy which turned on again and it filled the whole universe and having to take into account, matter and antimatter that annihilated during the Big Bang and an extra amount of matter that this blast left (not sure how) and it filled the whole universe in a miraculous way. We still have the dark matter that this theory also want to add this event beyond the four basic forces of nature (super strength). How much matter can fit in a small primeval atom? That overwhelming force would be needed to compress the matter so much? The universe is extremely huge. Where did this strength? What kind of power is this and what's your name? We know that if we eliminated all inter atomic space of a person, we would have the equivalent of a grain of sand weighing about 80 pounds; entire population of the world would be about the size of a ball bunk, with more than 270 million tons , the entire universe would be like a planet much bigger than Jupiter. Eliminate this entire space is an inter atomic thing practically impossible. Where did so hard to make this service? Furthermore, disintegrate an atom is too complicated to occur randomly. How did the primeval atom? Miracle or magic? There is no way to accept such a justification. To go from nothing to everything there is only one explanation: the electromagnetic energy of space outside the universe (nothing is energy, everything is matter). "The big bang theory is limited to justify the mass of the universe and its thermal equilibrium," says Carneiro Hugo Reis, Ph.D. in particle physics from the University of Campinas (SP) and author of a study on the production of matter in the early universe . "It would be necessary to fine tune the equations that demonstrate the theory in order to reconcile it with what is observed today in the cosmos" (Another adaptation). See details in "Ground Zero" - Jomar Morais reporter.

We still have the first law of thermodynamics

which says that all matter and all energy

atom were contained in the universe

According to the formula of Albert Einstein's E = MC ², where M = E / C ², to obtain energy from matter (E = MC ²) as in the case of the Big Bang, we have to disintegrate the atom and this creates matter and antimatter to annihilate and generates a burst of energy, which is the purpose of the Big Bang (and LHC). This is destruction and not creation of matter. In the formula M = E / C ² have no explosion, but maybe, an implosion. C ² means an electric spark. We know that having electromagnetic energy in a vacuum, and logically will spark after a spark, unleashed an endless series of them - a mega electromagnetic implosion (proving that matter is a concentration of energy.) This would be the real Big Bang, transforming energy (E) on (M), ie M = E / C ². Look on the internet: "Scientists transform energy into matter" and "Scientists use light to create particles." In this experiment, clashed photos of gamma rays with light green leisure high power, used to extremely strong magnetic fields in an atmosphere of extreme vacuum, etc.. It was about those above conditions (extra space universe).
These super ESD (gamma rays) came from all directions, initially around a point supposedly opposite polarity (mutant), which soon turned into a ball of plasma, which continued to increase slowly and infinitely diameter, expanding by accretion of matter, very fast at the beginning and becoming slower as he grew up, when the ESD became more spaced plasma ball and hit a huge size (it would be like a star creating complex material in its interior). As the universe grew, the middle part was growing cold (see the video as an example of the WMAP satellite), turning into micro particles and gases that were coalescing dagravidade by force and has begun to sub atomic particles such as that formed quarks. These should be formed by different sub particles, so that there are six types of quarks. Hence arose the atoms that formed the cosmic gas and dust, stars, star clusters, galaxies quasars etc. (entropy). Today this plasma is present in the periphery of the universe and is confused with the echo of the big bang (see figure at the beginning of this blog). So there is no singularity, the expansion of the universe, cosmic inflation, and other inconsistencies.
According to the photograph taken by the COBE satellite microwave (see figure), the periphery of the universe presents a series of red and blue spots. The color red is the hottest part of blue color and the coldest part. This temperature, perhaps, can not be measured correctly by all that is thin at the periphery of the universe, as in galaxies. The same can be seen in more detail in the photo the satellite WMAP (see video).


 - GAMMA RAYS, COSMIC RAYS, supernovae, NEUTRINOS, OVN'S AND spontaneous combustion.

Gamma rays generate cosmic rays that make heavy materials that supply the periphery of galaxies. Look on the internet: "VLT Obsevações of gamma-ray bursts reveal ingredients."
 Here's what was posted on 02/01/2011. "Distant Galaxies in the age of reonização."
These ESD (gamma rays) are responsible for flashes in the confines of the Universe. There are about 30 million per year, or about one every second discharge, with an energy variable, the most powerful, equivalent to about more than 200 billion stars for each discharge. These discharges are becoming more intermittent in time (at the beginning would be continuous) and are what is most energetic in nature. I believe, as we do not know exactly its origin, were attributed to several factors such as: explosions of supernovas, of supermassive black holes by collisions between neutron stars, etc.. This is happening around well over 13 billion years (uncorrected age of the universe) and if it were true, there would not be any more heavenly body to be destroyed now and we would not have so many discharges recorded and so many stars in the sky. This happens since the beginning of the universe and are these discharges that cause the explosions of stars, turning them into nebulae. After all not born a star each second (primarily supernova), each star takes billions of years to form. In a stellar nursery, the stars are not formed at the same time, though many stars are formed, there is a very wide range of birth between them. Furthermore, it takes billions of years for it to reach a certain age to explode (the current standard theory). The universe started small, of course. Everything starts small and early, destroying a star per second was more than the amount that was born. This would be destructive to the universe. And he would not have grown, we would not have so many stars in the sky and we would not be here. It is true that the stars can explode and emit gamma rays, but are of lower intensity and less frequently. It is known that a star has enough energy to explode and this was attributed to energy neutrinos due to its detection in an experiment done at the time of the explosion of the supernova 1987A. Will was not a false alarm? "These neutrinos arrived months later when expected, remember Ronald Shellard." The latest research in this regard, attaches to the explosions sound effects (Scientific American-Special-Milky Way out.nov., 2010, p. 36) . My proposal presented here, they are gamma rays, responsible for the explosions, not out of conjecture and seems most logical. Maybe more than one cause. Look on the internet: "Scientists propose mechanism for supernova explosions." and see also: "5 oddities of our Milky Way - V838 Monocerotis" ie:
 In February 2002, a star yet unrecognized (perhaps obscured by cosmic dust), there are about 20 thousand light years of us, struck a light a million times bigger than the sun. The following month, the event happened again. And then, in April, it was thought that it was a new type of star explosion that increases the brightness of a star. But new does not happen three times and then stop. But can coincide discharges of gamma rays arise in the same location as the atmospheric lightning. This rationale would validate my suggestion of the explosions were caused by discharges of gamma rays. These gamma rays can also contain antimatter, that would be explosive in contact with matter.
Look on the internet: "Simulation shows 3D supernova explosion", where it says: It is very rare to observe a supernova of truth - was only one in 380 years. Whenever there is change, there will be emission of gamma rays, cosmic rays, antimatter, neutrinos, etc.. e = mc ² (disintegration of matter), m = e / c ² (gamma ray burst) and c ² = e / m (action of black holes). This review is part of a more polemic, but could not be different. Nothing is fully explained yet. There are many questions about supernovae that have not yet been clarified. According Avishay Gay-Yam, we really do not know much about supernovas. Look on the Internet: Fermi detects chocking surprise from supernova's "little cousin".
Why nebulae are different from each other? Every boom has its own pattern. This, in my view, should be the point where the gamma rays reach the stars (or southern polar), its rotation, age, size, etc..

Discharges of gamma rays are what is most energy in the universe and that would be what are known as big bang. Therefore, there is a plethora of "bigs bangs" responsible for creating and maintaining the growth of the universe. Each discharge of high energy (with trillion degrees centigrade), turns into plasma and then into tiny particles of matter that cluster, while other discharges initiate other similar processes and interfere with each other and follow the normal entropy of the universe, ie is formed stars, star clusters, galaxies, etc..

These ESD, with large amounts of gamma rays and antimatter maybe (tbc), generate energy fields under intense heat (emit many photons) and very intense magnetic fields which cause an interaction can transform energy into matter. Perhaps it is also capable of sterilizing nearby galaxies, preventing life in these regions, celestial bodies disintegrate nearby exploding stars, young or old (super new), turning them into nebulae and even cause small solar flares, the distance as with our sun (storms, solar tsunami, super flash, etc..) and it is quite possible that they are responsible for some mass extinctions that occurred in the past of the planet earth as well as the explosion of poorly explained Tungusca in Central Siberia in 1908 by Sprits , Elvis, etc.. (Radii above the clouds), transient lunar phenomena by (lunar flashes), create magnetáris, magnetized rocks by the moon, which is currently a mystery, called "dynamo" lunar. They would also be responsible for indecipherable fire balls (or balls of light) or ball lightning.
There are photographs of lightning, in which they appear, in fractions of seconds, tens of balls of light in the environment. Only, gamma permanence of these balls is much greater. This sometimes is confused with OVN. See also the cases recorded in the Bible and in ancient legends. It would be also responsible for the explosion whale (sperm whale), Taiwan, UFO (UFO), electronic fog (nickname given to a mysterious energy and very strong which was detected when a driver crossed the triangle of shorts), no mysterious aircraft accidents conveniently explained, damaging compasses, computers and instruments, causing lack of aircraft (eg, perhaps the flight of the aircraft from Air France 447 2009 and other) accidents transmission of electricity (blackouts), accidents in the Triangle Dragon, earthquakes, case of death of poorly explained Jeannie Saffin, who suffered spontaneous combustion in front of witnesses. In these and other similar cases, spontaneous combustion took place from inside the body, preferably in body fat. This suggests that it is likely to microwaves, from gamma rays and perhaps antimatter (which would cause a burst of energy).
Through walls without a trace, are concentrated beams of varying diameter and intensity and make no noise as atmospheric rays. Look on the internet: "spontaneous combustion."

See also the case that appeared on May 4, 2007 in the village of Kurmagram in the Indian state of West Bengal. Five elephants were found dead in mysterious ways, grouped in a clearing near a river. They were with their bodies scorched by heat, bloodshot eyes, marks rays without the body and were not poisoned. Look on the Internet: Mysterious deaths of five elephants in West Bengal.
The case of the "death of fish in the river acre," leaves no doubt. They opened a still living, dying and found internal burning. This can only happen with a microwave. Posted by oaltoacrenoticias on 26/07/2010. It happened also with birds, flock of sheep, etc..
 See also: the case of earthquakes from heaven, that is, gases apparently warmer
(With temperturas acimade 400 degrees centigrade), that appear for a few seconds. There are many unexplained fires. Perhaps it is also responsible for the case of Lake Nyos in Africa shrimp, elimination of CO ² from the lake bottom, as many people showed up with skin burns. Also eliminating methane hydrate on the seabed of the Bermuda Triangle, caused perhaps by discharges of gamma rays or volcano, causing bubbles in the water, reducing its density and be responsible for sinking ships.
There are many more cases not cataloged. Several people report that suffered burns when strange lights from the sky. Look on the internet: "Mystery on the island of Colares, Amazon." In this case it seems that was swept by beams of gamma rays from quasars, or galaxies, or magnetáris, etc..
(Perhaps gamma rays of lower intensity), causing death in two. Unfortunately they were not in autopsies and do not know the health status of people (especially mental health) because gamma rays can affect the brain. It is only known that Captain Holland (Operation Commander "dish"), had mental problems and in 1997 and appeared dead (suicide?). It is necessary to analyze this case on this new scientific aspect. A security camera in Indonesian, made a video of an alleged gamma ray, see "supposed angel appears in the plaza indonesia."
It may be also responsible for the appearance of life on earth and by changes in living things (changes in DNA), etc.. Speculating a bit further, we can say that also could have blown our sun, partly by launching into space a ring of matter that would later lead to the planets.
They say that old stars and supermassive collapse, explode and generate black holes. As said, this would be destructive to the universe. When an explosion leaves a nebula as a result, it is believed that it was a star that exploded and when there was a black hole. Moreover, there are old stars and not monstrous that collapsed on itself, whereas smaller and younger stars have disappeared. This makes no sense. Look on the internet: "Star defies magnetic theory of black holes", ie:
On 18/08/2010, which was published European astronomers showed, first, that a magnetic star formed from a star with at least 40 times the mass of the Sun. The result challenges current theories of stellar evolution. Until then it was believed that a star with a mass of this magnitude should become a black hole. Take the case of a star that turned into a diamond of 10 billion trillion carats. That is what should happen to a star that collapsed on itself and not become a black hole or explode. I see no logic in this.
It is likely that when a star is young or old hit by gamma rays, it explodes, becoming cloudy. The older a star is more likely have to be destroyed due to the time it was exposed. However there are stars that look older than the universe and remain whole. "THIS MAY MEAN THAT WE ARE WRONG AND THEORIES THAT KNOW THAT NEED TO BE REVISED" said Avishay Gay Yam, Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, about the explosion of a star with the theory. Look on the internet: "Explosion of a star with a theory."
These discharges could cause contractions and expansions of the stars before the final explosion depending on the polarity of the magnetic stars found at the time of the confrontation. These discharges must also contain antimatter that would cause a big explosion when hitting the subject.
Look on the internet: "Because our supernovae do not explode?"
I do not see why a star condenses the force of its gravity should explode. She can condense and even become a neutron star or diamond, but explode for this reason I see no logic. If so, could explode materials using a giant press (not to speak of creating mini black holes?). There are celestial bodies lonely, monstrous, deleted and cold, wandering the universe as planetary or stellar black holes and this could be the end of the stars that did not explode. These black holes capture material universe as you walk in the room and go bigger. We notice a very dense atmosphere around them. These are black holes that can explode when they collide with other stars in the universe (see the nebula IC4406). Apparently, it was a clash between two solids or semi-solids.
 Look on the internet: "Astronomers discover a new class of black holes." Why are there so many differences in appearance between the supernova explosions? Should follow its own pattern.
We are in a privileged area of ​​the universe, ie, away from the more dangerous gamma ray universe and extra space radiation away from the galactic center. This region of the galaxy is ripe for life.
In 1985, it was observed for the first time, a new super 140 years old, by a physics professor, Stephen P. Reynolds, State University of North Carolina, USA. This observation suggests that not only are old stars that explode and or massive. There was little time finding a kind of cosmic bubble (like soap bubble), probably explosion of a newborn star. In my view, a nebula originates from a young star has a clean look and spherical, with possibilities disappear faster; already originated by an old star, shows up dirty and misshapen, like nebulae ant, cat's eye, hourglass, helix, etc because they present more complex material inside. Not only are stars that can explode, planets and black holes, planetary (or stellar) may also suffer these damages. Here's what was posted on newsletter@sciencedaily.com: On 12/10/2010, a giant star in a faraway galaxy recently ended its life with a dust shrouded instead of the typical bangs. Note that the nebulous "IC4406", with an appearance of a square and very dense, has an aspect that was a solid body that exploded.
It was published on 5/3/2010 in Science Today, an article that says nebulae discovered young stars in the constellation "Orion" - The European Southern Observatory nicknamed her "cosmic bat."
These discharges (gamma rays) whose temperature reaches a few trillion degrees centigrade, they behave as rays, penetrating deep into the universe, but seldom with danger to our planet.
Not all gamma-ray bursts, causing these disasters, many of them, those of shorter duration, are just not normal ESD encountered a major obstacle to the point of preventing its path, the center of the universe. Are therefore two main types of supernovae: No le 2 (there are others), depending on what is found in front of her. The satellite Beppo in 1977 was the first to observe that the long GRBs, occur toward galaxies, suggesting they found a celestial body. Our galaxy is located at a safe distance this extra radiation universe. In the past was closer. This would be an impediment to life in distant galaxies (periphery).
Recently, NASA detected a strong sound in deep space that defies belief or any explanation, said Alan Kogut of the Goddard Space Flight Center, USA. They do not know the origin of this crash. According explanations, they expected to hear a faint sound of the background radiation and heard a bang six times higher than expected. This, in my opinion, is the noise of a discharge of gamma rays, which coincidentally was directed to the detector and was first recorded. More details on Google in: more mysteries in cosmology and NASA more mysteries in cosmology.


- BOSON FROM HIGGIS, gravitons,

The electromagnetic energy that generate gamma rays (first basic force of nature), cause an interaction, which gives rise to the strong nuclear force, which serves to unite strongly the particles and the weak nuclear force, responsible for the instability of particles, such as decay, radioactivity etc.. These two forces are the 2nd and 3rd basic forces of nature, responsible for the creation of matter and gravity (the fourth basic force of nature). Are created there, cosmic rays, these atomic particles traveling at high speeds through the universe. This condition of the electric field, magnetic field, vacuum and high temperature (ESD), in my opinion could be one reason for the appearance of the Higgs boson, the field that gives rise to particles with mass.
We know that the particles have a rotary motion (spin) and this creates a centrifugal force and therefore gravity. The gravitational force would give mass to particles and this could be the "Higgs boson." Massless subatomic particles should not have rotation (spin).
Were three conditions that act as an energy field and cause mysteries. Are they: the gravitational force of the universe, an energy responsible for the illusion of dark matter (will be shown below). The gravitational energy of a galaxy that would be the black hole (apparently without massive mass) with their supposed gravitons. It would be a hollow center with a strong magnetic and gravitational force and the spin of a subatomic particle, which would be the higgs boson, an energy that would act as a gravitational force or electromagnetic quantum gravity that would give mass to particles. Gravitons, higgs boson, dark matter, black holes, would be the same thing in different scale sizes.

Higgs boson - Quantum Gravity
BLACK HOLE - Galactic Gravity
DARK MATTER - Gravity of the universe

 With the emergence of second and third basic forces of nature, matter and emerged carrying gravity.
Now yes, we have the primordial matter; MATTER WITHOUT Antimatter. There parity in this case. The universe was not born of the disintegration of an atom. This is what our universe is made; matter only, no use seeking antimatter in our universe because it does not exist normally. There is, in the center of black holes (in galaxies), where there are collisions between high-energy particles C ² = E / M (for high speed)
and this would generate "Antimatter" (not confirmed yet). The production of matter over antimatter is. This disappears on contact with matter in the universe, then that is produced and is issued in the form of jets of energy through the event horizon (no proof). They spoke a short time ago it was discovered a belt of antimatter around the planet (this nonsense still needs confirmation). Matter living with antimatter is impossible, only if antimatter is contained in a special environment. The Earth's magnetic field also houses space matter, do not understand how this is possible.
Created mass, gravity arises, the fourth and last basic force of nature. So, was responsible for the agglutination of newly formed particles in the universe. There was a superpower. With gravity came the stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, asteroids, comets, meteorites, rotary motion and thus the centrifugal force, responsible for modifying the shape of the universe round to elliptical (see Figure ).
Inside the Universe, a large part of these micro particles free teamed up to form particles increasing, until we get to quarks, which came together to form protons and neutrons, which are associated with electrons, giving rise to the first atoms. The proton joined the electron giving rise to the hydrogen atom, the true primeval atom, this atom is the most abundant in nature. From this point on we know the whole story, but it never hurts to remember. For this we will make a brief comment: the hydrogen atom is taken here as primeval atom because it is the simplest of atoms, with only one proton and one electron in its orbit, being one of the first atoms to be formed in nature and in large quantities. A cloud of these atoms, when acquires a certain volume, the gravitational force acts and the gas concentrates in a core which is heated to thousands of degrees centigrade and form stars. These suns fuse hydrogen nuclei within its first turning it into helium, carbon and then all atoms in nature and thus responsible for everything in the universe, including life (this is what the standard theory says ).



Stars form and attract, forming a star cluster. The stars of this cluster have rotation and translation, as a natural consequence of the laws of the universe. It can be compared to fish spinning, spherical forming a shoal. Stars form due to the concentration of gases and particles, even within galaxies.
The force of gravity of each star interacts with each other, and generally interfere in the sum, which is reflected in the center of the cluster, giving this a super massive appearance without mass. It's just an empty space called black hole with great gravity. The center of gravity of a body is the sum of the severities of all the particles that make up this body and a star cluster or a galaxy can be compared to a solid body in this regard. Both have plenty of space between the materials. Then come the questions: why does it turn? What is the rotation? All this is due to the gravitational force. We will not go into details. This does not have any interest at the time.
The force of gravity higher in the center, this center is rotating at a speed greater and drags the rest of the cluster. This rotation causes the cluster to flatten by centrifugal force, turning it into rotary motion and the galaxy, more intense in the center, raises a void due to centrifugal force. This center, fully hollow black hole is called, apparently without massive mass. This also generates a magnetic field that can influence the photon and cause the darkness of the black hole. It would be like sunspots (dark spots) that are caused by magnetic fields from the sun. The greater the magnetic force, the greater the dark spot and the greater the deviation of the light.
The centrifugal force pushes the raw edge of the hole against the black material in front (event horizon), causing a clash between materials that disintegrate and turn into a jet of gas and energy that is sent into space. Then yes there is parity. This is more intense while this star is still newly formed (a quasar) and is attenuated below. While the periphery of the black hole, not to achieve a balance, a correct speed in relation ace stars in the galaxy, the materials continue crashing, crumbling generating "Antimatter" and emitting jets of gas and energy into space (C ² = E / M ). Even in equilibrium emit a mist of gamma rays and X-rays (in the form of bubbles). Black holes grow with increasing speed of rotation of these holes, ie: mass increase or increases Galaxy (can be for shock galaxies). The force of gravity is an everlasting power that can turn a black hole indefinitely, making the galaxy, a perpetual motion, just as the electromagnetic energy creates matter infinitely.
If you fall into a black hole, it will be rotated at a speed too great and thrown by centrifugal force toward the event horizon and will be disintegrated.
 Such a black hole would be a galactic black hole. Another type of black hole would be formed by the heavenly bodies dead, as wandering planets, stars, neutral, etc.. It may even attract cosmic dust, gases, space debris, stars, etc and become a massive galaxy core. A third type of black hole is virtual. When two or more celestial bodies attract each other they can create a virtual center of gravity between them and rotate around this center. With this, not to say that the heavenly bodies revolving around an invisible point, are swirling around a black hole. It may be just a virtual center of gravity, created by them. Another example of a virtual center of gravity is the center of gravity of a ring-shaped body. Look on the Internet: NASA puts space probes orbiting "nowhere."
Another important point is to say that the density of a black hole tends to infinity (singularity). This contradicts the laws of physics and say that the time for inside is premature. Although it is assumed that a clash between galactic black holes, and cause an explosion that would cause a gravitational wave in the universe and that can be detected, as well as whether to detect the massive explosion of the big bang, just that so far no one could detect nothing. All this, in my opinion, is just speculation. The galactic black hole has no matter in it, has a strong gravitational pull and has a magnetic field perpendicular to the galaxy, just as the universe (I'm comparing the universe to a giant galaxy). Only galaxies are made of stars and the universe of galaxies.
 This magnetic field of the universe, could interfere with the starlight and make it look darker (red) and cause the illusion of dark energy and could still be too dark flow.
It is possible that a star that has a certain gravity, gravity increases this after becoming a black hole. It may happen that reduces the mass, but gravity remains the same. This would only be possible if you increase your speed.
This is more logical.

The black hole is another thing that suffers many interpretations and speculations. There are people who believe that every black hole is composed of a solid body, with a lot of dough. There are others who assume that one can form a wormhole and to be able to time travel and other universes, etc.. All this is just speculation, there is no proof of anything. We have to be very careful not to get carried away aside religious or supernatural, due to failure to understand the universe. An example of this is what it says physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Canada: "Inside a black hole time and space eventually." Smolin The idea, then, is that we are on the other side of a black hole existing in another universe (pure speculation, in my opinion). We inhabit a black hole that is the center of the universe. The oldest galaxies are at the center of the universe. This magnetic field could interfere with the light and also cause the illusion of dark energy.
When are remnants of supernova explosions, one supposes, now that was a burst of star, otherwise it was a black hole. Another phenomenon is correlated event observed in small metal rings, in which there is a small current continuously circulating inside it (perhaps induced by a magnetic field space). There is therefore a phenomenon observed in hollow centers of objects with mass.
Now compare this explanation presented here, on black holes and classical explanation on this same subject. To begin the explanation is made, using quantum mechanics. This explanation is very complicated, does not clarify anything, leaves many questions and is based on misinterpretation (Scientific American Special Edition # 41, p.61).
Headline Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler than possible.
All this is just my opinion and can be discarded, because almost everything is speculation in the universe, besides, much written here has not yet been proven. We have to have one thing in mind: nothing is final in the universe. Everything changes. What is said today may be different tomorrow. That's how cosmology evolves.
Currently is using quantum theory to try to explain secrets about the black hole, still not getting satisfactory results.
Not every primordial matter followed the normal development until the hydrogen atom. Many of these materials were still in various stages of this evolution, occupying the intergalactic space of the Universe, as well as many hydrogen atoms that have not become stars, dust and complex matters, released by exploding stars. This changes the density of space and cause interference with photon.
The process of creating the universe did not cease; keeps happening ESD (gamma rays) and produce various types of matter in the vicinity, indefinitely.
Galaxies grow by feeding gas into its periphery: this was posted on 14/10/2010, by newsletter@sciencedaily.com This is being attributed to the formation of dark matter.
The universe is also growing, absorbing materials newly formed at the periphery of the universe.
The ESD on the outskirts of the Universe produce a wide range of radiation of electromagnetic spectrum, such as "gamma rays" with super powerful discharges at random points of the universe, generating very intense magnetic fields, X-rays, radio waves, neutrinos, a huge amount of photons and these photons can generate particles and thus matter. The very raw energy generated by these discharges, such as magnetic (iron) are thrown violently by very strong magnetic fields and cosmic rays would be, some of them of very high energy. Cosmic rays form

heavy materials that supply the galaxies

periphery of the universe.

According to the physicist Gustavo Medina Tango, the Institute of Astronomy Atmospheric USP: it is believed that the very energetic particles could be accelerated by the action of very intense magnetic fields in large regions of space, but there are few known cosmic objects that fulfill such conditions (so far). Article taken from the magazine Galileo # 160 Nov. 2004 pg. 58. For more details, I suggest reading the magazine Scientific American Year 6, No. 68, January 2008. - EXTREME UNIVERSE, pg. 44.
These ESD (gamma rays) are responsible for the creation of matter and the background noise detected by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (coconut pigeon) and assigned wrongly, in my view, the echo of the Big Bang. This was just a coincidence. Sought by radiation and met another equally satisfactory, which deceived us for decades. This irradiation remains active today and forever. Look on the internet: Dark side of the universe is challenged by astronomers.
NASA is currently doing studies on this cosmic background radiation.
Look on the internet: "Clouds of cold dust surrounding our galaxy" and "Plank reveals first light of the universe".
I think it would be impossible to detect the echo of the big bang now. It would be like now detect the echo of the nuclear explosion occurred in Japan during World War II. This would only be possible today if the observer were about seventy light years away from earth. If an explosion occurs in a given region will no longer be possible to observe this explosion of this region at a future time, but only its effects left in place. The Milky Way is well located near the center of the universe, where would the supposed big bang occurred.
In an explosion such as the Big Bang, the core would be hotter than the periphery, which cools quickly and have no sign of this warming, the center of the universe, and if it is heated periphery, for well over "15 billion years, "can not be attributed to the echo of the Big Bang, but the remnants of ESD suggested here (it's all a matter of interpretation).
The universe continually grows by accretion of matter newly formed in the periphery, as in a continuous implosion, or as a galaxy. The older things are in the center, while the most recent are at the periphery, like galaxies (ie repetitive in the Universe). Black holes destroy matter, turning it into energy (perhaps dark energy), compensating for the creation of this material at the edges of the universe. With that, the universe is in constant creation and destruction. It is rotating and remains active indefinitely; eternal --- had a beginning and will never end --- is powered by electromagnetic energy infinite, from the space outside the universe, also infinite. There is therefore an eternal transformation of energy into matter (M = E / C ²). Everything that exists in the universe, was generated by electromagnetic energy, so we are not stardust, but from electromagnetic energy of space outside the universe (so far).
With this new thought, I believe that many cosmological questions are resolved, Sanei as apparently some of them and you can also make some corrections or add these new ideas and theories in other logics.
Headline Einstein: The only man who is free from mistakes, is the one who sticks hit.
The age of the universe have to be rethought.
Nothing precludes the existence of other universes.
As for the words highlighted as: matter and antimatter, COSMIC RAYS and Higgs boson, see magazine article suggest Galileo No. 160, Nov. 2004 pag. 57. These items remain unresolved until now (maybe).
The four basic forces of nature, it seems, have never been united into a single force (super strength), as the standard theory but were derived from the electromagnetic force, as exposed.
As this model theory is based on much speculation, I suggest discarding items that disagree and just concentrate on what is most important: "The creation of the universe."
Note: all this we have just read is only my opinion according to my interpretation of the facts. All this needs to be proven. Maybe it's just one of the theories presented, eg: String theory, steady state theory M and others. The important thing is to participate with new ideas in order to decipher this mystery as old as humanity.
If this proposal is demonstrated, we conclude that, under the initial particles to the formation of matter, it is not necessary to use the particle accelerator (LHC) but an electromagnetic discharge, where these particles are formed. The particles produced by the LHC, the same may not be generated by electromagnetic discharge because a comes from the disintegration of matter and the other is the creation of matter. The energy and dark matter, the exotic, the cosmological force, etc.., Might be abolished altogether. A lot can change. I'm not trying to prove anything, just to show another way to solve this mystery that is the universe.
The Problem of expansion or contraction of the universe, can only be correctly perceived by an observer outside the universe. If it is inside, which is our case, it will dual interpretation because not have a fixed point of reference. This is the case of two trains stopped at a station. If one of them start walking, you will not know what is going and what he stood; season after appearing as a source of reference, we will know the truth.
Einstein's phrase: "All our science, compared with reality, is primitive and childlike.'s, However, is the most precious thing we have."


Dark matter is a form of matter that only interacts gravitationally.
As noted above, the gravity of a body is the sum of all severities of the particles that make up this body. We can also see that the center of gravity of a galaxy (black hole) is roughly the sum of severities of all the stars that make up this galaxy. The same applies to the universe, ie the center of gravity of the universe is roughly the sum of the severity of all the galaxies that make up this universe. So we have a very strong gravitational field, which would act proportionately in all galaxies, influencing their slewing justify the severity of the total galaxy clusters and explain other phenomena correlated. That would be an extra gravity, interfering with the gravity of the galaxies. Thus, its effect would be like an extra mass, imaginary, called dark matter, which is nothing less than the force of gravity of the universe and for this reason can not be detected, because it is an energy. The force of gravity in the universe is concentrated in the center of the universe (as would be the center of a sack of potatoes) and this gravitational center attracts all galaxies to this point. Gravity is strongest in the center of the universe and less intense in the periphery. This is one reason that physical laws are different for each point of the universe.
This extra gravity (Dark Matter) can be used to perhaps try to explain the case for "Casemir Effect".
Now astronomers appear saying that dark matter may not exist. This was quoted in "e-newsletter in technological innovations", on 30/11/09, under the title: "The law of gravity can dispense reviewed dark matter."
I've said this a long time and maybe now is being confirmed.



As there is no expansion of the universe (galaxies do not depart to infinity), there is also no such dark energy. Dark energy, in my opinion, may be due to the effects of cosmic dust, as explained above, or a kind of subparticle, virtually invisible, generated during the formation of matter (eg neutrinos, axions, and other), which would increase the density of the universe, or magnetic effects, so undetectable and that is part of the cosmic dust that would filter and the blue and ultraviolet rays. As we can see, there is no dark energy and we have to find a way to prove that the redshift is an optical illusion.
Science Daily (Feb. 1, 2008) - at the University of St Andrews astronomers believed that the problem of dark matter and energy would be solved at the same time. This just happened here (I believe).

Headline Einstein: "Great souls have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Now everything seems very simple and no great mysteries.
Just adopt another theory of creation of the universe and a new interpretation of the facts and everything seems to resolve.
Am I right?
I do not expect to receive praise and harsh criticism, and yes, I'm contradicting many scientists, established theories and concepts standardized. It's like the introduction of heliocentrism, replacing geocentrism. Glad we're in the 21st century.
As with other authors, also will not see the end of this debate and I think that this theory also does not give anything. For this reason, dismissed mathematical calculations, making it as simple as possible to be abandoned in the case of this model be discarded theory. There are theories that took decades to be recognized and others that despite being proven mathematically were not accepted due to lack of observable evidence. This was only used a basic formula (E = MC ²) and many other interpretations with evidence.
I have made some mistakes, because I stretched in certain other matters. In the universe, nothing is final, everything can have multiple interpretations. Many mistakes have been made and are still happening. Must be some adjustments needed to improve this report.
My main intention is to show that there was a big bang and that the universe is not expanding. The rest are details to justify my proposal and can be discarded because it does not interfere with the main idea.
Headline Einstein: Who never missed, never tried anything new.
Does the universe really is simpler than you think? We have to think in a logical universe, simple, logical laws and not complex and indecipherable.
Why the big bang theory is the most widely accepted at the time?
Because she is the one that best meets the needs, although it can not solve all the mysteries of the cosmos and too complicated. Already theory exposed here is a well modified theory, which seems to solve these mysteries.


If you disagree with anything written here, you can discard it and follow what you think is logical, because it should not interfere with the main idea is that:
The universe had its origin in nothing. The absolute nothingness does not exist, because if there were, we would not be here. There is always something else to give. So nothing would be the lack of any tangible thing (matter). The absence has a definition: it is the existence of abstract things and missing such as: the lack of heat (would be the intense cold), pressure (vacuum) and light (darkness), beyond space, time, etc. . They are not tangible things that gave rise to electromagnetic energy. The universe can be defined as originating from non-existence, giving rise to its existence.
The lack of moisture causes an excess of ESD environment.
This concentrated energy in an infinite space, infinite for a while too, has generated a mutant of this energy (this is often the case in nature), which led to a spark (or an antimatter explosion), which in turn initiated a super strong electromagnetic implosion (gamma), transforming energy into matter (M = E / C ²). These discharges once started, have not ceased. Happen today and forever. It was as if the matter were formed the polar opposite of extra energy universe, attracting discharges of gamma rays, as the planet draws atmospheric rays formed in the clouds and giving the impression that these came out of nowhere.
 Thus began to emerge matter that filled the entire universe. This keeps happening until today and forever. Except that these discharges have become increasingly intermittent, the measure after a discharge, formed a space of rarefied energy that needed some time to compose himself (my assumption). Therefore, the universe was born from a spark that became a mega electromagnetic implosion (M = E / C ²). It created a ball of plasma that grew steadily and reached currently a huge size. Today these discharges, which were continuous (yet unproven) became pulse to an interval of approximately one second to discharge of gamma rays. There are about 30 million discharges per year. The universe would be like a star forming various materials inside. Would also like a copy of a galaxy. Its interior is cooled and the plasma was on the periphery, maintained by ESD (gamma rays) and is seen today as the cosmic microwave background or echo of the big bang (see photo provided by the WMAP satellite). Inside the newly formed micro particles were coalescing by gravity, forming mainly gases like hydrogen that originated the stars, which in turn gave rise to clusters of stars which became quazares and finally galaxies, characterizing the entropy of the universe and justifying all existing matter and its thermal equilibrium.

To say that the quantum vacuum is capable of generating

Matter is pure fantasy. The vacuum quantum not

has no power to light up an LED.

Nothing prevents the universe as there are other

ours, or even a multiverse or megaverso

(It would be a continuation upwardly system

of orbits).

In February 2007, I started this job that has undergone modifications to the current condition. The blog was launched in November 2009, was damaged in March 2010 and was recovered.
Einstein phrases: 1) "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
2) "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so much knowledge, too."
Both Einstein may have been a victim of this excess by little as I know.
This report is far from perfect, but it is an alert to the need to think differently and invite people to improve it. To avoid that this blog becomes mileage, I get comments on my e mail: acarvalhal@oi.com.br
It can happen to an e mail not being received. Insist!

After writing my blog, I was told by a physicist who has read it and told me about the blog: WWW.bigbangneverhappened.org. I was very happy because he would have found another author who had the same idea as me, with some differences.


Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário