THE EARTH'S CORE IS OVERHEATED EMPTINESS

The Sun-like object, M = 1M_Sun; R = 1R_Sun; m_particle = 1.5 a.u.m.

Our model	Standard model
Tcenter = 7.66 millions K. Total pressure pmax =8.4*108atm at r=0.56R Density rmax=2.5 t/m3 at r=0.632R	Tmax=18 millions K. pmax =7.96*109atm at center. rmax=7.8t/m3

Green - concentration of particles; red - gas pressure; yellow - radiation pressure; orange - total pressure; white - temperature; blue - acceleration g. Graphs were normalized to the scale of window and surface gravity acceleration in both cases are equal.

---

Object with M = 10M_Sun; R = 50R_Sun; m_particle = 1.5 a.u.m.

Our model	Standard model ruined
Tcenter = 1.2 millions K. pmax =1.2*104atm at r=0,6R. rmax=0,19 kg/m3 at r=0,717R	Tmax=1.77 millions K. pmax =31519atm at center. rmax=0,2kg/m3 at r=0,617R

As we can see the radiation had naked the center in both cases. The pressure and particles concentration is not sufficient for nuclear fusion in such stars. Mainstream astrophysicists slander us. Or try to hide the radiation pressure under their carpets.

---

Object with M = 70M_Sun; R = 500R_Sun; m_particle = 1.5 a.u.m.

Our model	Standard model become as ours
Tcenter = 363 thousands K. pmax =45atm at r=0.74R. rmax=1.86 g/m^3 at r=0.88R.	Tcenter = 391 thousands K. pmax = 58atm at center. rmax=1.81 g/m3 at r=0,87R.

Pay attention at the values. Nuclear reactions are impossible for giant stars.

Let's diminish the radius, for example at ten times (object with M = 70M_Sun; R = 50R_Sun; m_particle=1.5 a.u.m.). We'll have almost the same graphs but the temperature will rise ten times, common pressure will rise in 10⁴ times, because it now dependent mostly of radiation. And the density will rise in 10³ times. That is also insufficient. Energy sources of standard astronomy disappeared.

But we have no need to take that to heart. We know the other sources of star's energy. And we need to know the real non-falsified internal structure of stars. Let’s now look at the objects, smaller then our Sun.

---

White dwarf, Object with M = 1M_Sun; R = 0.01R_Sun; m_particle = 2a.u.m. Density of condensation of gas into liquid (degenerated gas) = 2*10⁹ kg/m³.

Tcenter = 920 millions K. pmax = 6.9*1016atm r=0,581R. The liquid state with rmax=2*109 kg/m3 stretches from 0.83R to 0.52R.	Tcenter = 1249 millions K. pmax =2.1*1017atm at center. The liquid state with rmax=2*109 kg/m3 stretches from r=0,81R to center.

Pay attention on the temperatures! But this is not so extraordinary if we mention that surface temperatures of some white dwarfs are 10000 K, 60000 K, and higher. (The difference in heights of green graphs is the result of program normalization. In fact we have launched the same density of condensation of gas into liquid.)

---

Jupiter-like object: M=0.00095M_Sun; R = 0.1025R_Sun;
m_particle = 4a.u.m. - was taken arbitrarily.

Let's take arbitrarily the density of condensation of gas into liquid equal to 2000 kg/m³ for our equations, and 6000 kg/m³ for standard model.

Tcenter = 183 thousands K. pmax = 6.4*106atm at r=0.57R. The liquid state with rmax=2000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.76R to 0.54R.	Tcenter = 444 thousands K. pmax = 6.4*107atm at center. The liquid state with rmax=6000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.25R to center.

 

---

The Earth-like object: M = M_Earth; R = R_Earth; m_particle = 20a.u.m. - was taken arbitrarily.

Tcenter = 25 thousands K. pmax = 6.6*105atm at r=0.62R. The liquid/solid state with rmax=6000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.97R to 0.47R.	Tcenter = 33 thousands K. pmax = 1.9*106atm at center. The liquid/solid state with rmax=6000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.95R to center.

The difference in heights of green graphs is the result of program normalization. In fact we have launched the same density of condensation of gas into liquid/solid, r=6000 kg/m³.

The received values of temperature surpass the values, proposed in literature, somewhere about 5 times. The central temperature can be decreased by decreasing of the coefficient of temperature gradient. In all upper cases we have used the coefficient 2/5, which is reasonable for gaseous medium, but is controversial for liquid/solid medium. Let's diminish it to 1/10 and try again.

Tcenter = 7.9 thousands K. pmax = 7*105atm at r=0.59R. The liquid/solid state with rmax=6000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.97R to 0.17R.	Tcenter = 8.2 thousands K. pmax = 1.9*106atm at center. The liquid/solid state with rmax=6000 kg/m3 stretches from 0.97R to center.

Let's analyze the graphs in our model. The drop of pressure begins approximately at r=0.6R, but the temperature is already quite high there. That means that there must exist the point of transition of substance from solid state into liquid. It is known from seismology that the border between the core and mantle is situated at r=0.54R. That border strongly reflects P and S waves and refracts the P-waves. Our graphs of pressure and temperature allow us to divide the horizontal graph of density on two regions: solid and liquid. But standard model graphs do not obey us to do that, - the continuing growth of pressure rises the temperature of melting. At last, lets analyze the point of transition from liquid state into gas. It is the boundary between the external and internal core. Standard geology says that external core is liquid and internal core is solid. We say: the external core is liquid; the internal core is gaseous. We can see there the crack at the density graph. But it is known from the thermodynamics that at high temperature there is no distinct boundary between liquid and gas. There must be a smooth transition. Consequently, I'll paint by hand the region of liquid phase in dark-blue color. I'll smooth the crack and paint the gas phase into yellow color.

The external core (dark-blue) is liquid and keeps the S-waves out; the internal core (yellow) is gaseous and keeps both waves out.

Used equations.

If we do not account the light's pressure and mass the following systems is valid.

With Arc Effect.	Standard-like equations.
dp/dr = - gr + 2p/r. dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k. dM/dr = 4pr2r. g = GM/r2. p=nkT. r=nm.	dp/dr = - gr. dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k. dM/dr = 4pr2r. g = GM/r2. p=nkT. r=nm.

---

If we account the light's pressure and mass the following systems is valid.

With Arc Effect.	Standard-like equations.
d(p+p')/dr = - g(r+r')+2p/r. dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k. dM/dr = 4pr2(r+r'). g = GM/r2. p=nkT. r=nm. r'=u/c2. u=3p'. u= 4sT4/c.	d(p+p')/dr = - g(r+r'). dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k. dM/dr = 4pr2(r+r'). g = GM/r2. p=nkT. r=nm. r'=u/c2. u=3p'. u= 4sT4/c.

If we take into account the density of condensation of gas into liquid/solid, the p=nkT or n=p/(kT) is changed into:

n = p/(kT)	if p/(kT) smaller than nmax.
n = nmax.	if p/(kT) biger than nmax.

---

The temperature gradient equation.

In the case of Earth we tried two variants for temperature gradient:
dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k and dT/dr = - (1/10)mg/k.
In fact this equation is approximate, - it does not contain the radiation part. The computer modeling had showed me that inclusion of radiative part into the temperature gradient equation almost does not change the graphs. From my point of view the coefficient 2/5 is valid for the ideal gas object in thermodynamical equilibrium. I would name the equation dT/dr = - (2/5)mg/k as the equation of gravitational temperature gradient. This gradient is intrinsic and does not lead to heat transfer from hotter region to cooler region. The heat transfer will begin in the case dT/dr = - ((2/5)+a)mg/k, where a is a coefficient of temperature gradient, responsible for heat transfer, and which value is determined by the thermal conductivity of the gas. I would name the last equation as the equation of total temperature gradient. The computer modeling had showed me that decreasing of the coefficient 2/5 leads to inclination of graphs to the center of the object, but the increasing of the coefficient leads to inclination of graphs out from the center. If the coefficient becomes very small or equal to zero, the system can not be integrated. But when we launch the condensation with some arbitrary n_max, the system becomes integrable again. The cause is clear, - the condensation closes the exponential precipice, appearing at the center of the object in the isothermal case.

The pressure gradient equation.

I saw two types of equation of hydrostatic equilibrium.

dp/dr = - gr, for ideal gas object.
d(p+p')/dr = - g(r+r'), for ideal gas object filled with radiation.

From my point of view these equations lead to errors because they do not account the Arc Effect. These equations are correct for the object filled with non-colliding particles, for example, for star congestions filled be stars, for photon gas enclosed in some vessel, for very rarefied gaseous object with particles having the length of free pass, greater than the object's radius.

If we account the collisions between particles, we'll have the following equations:

dp/dr = - gr + 2p/r, for ideal gas object.
dp/dr = - gr + 2(p-p₀)/r, for ideal gas object, enclosed by the shell with pressure p₀.
d(p+p')/dr = - g(r+r') + 2p/r, for ideal gas object filled with radiation.
d(p+p')/dr = - g(r+r') + 2(p-p₀)/r, for ideal gas object filled with radiation, enclosed by the shell with pressure p₀.

Pay attention that the last item in these equations does not contain the radiative part of pressure, p'. The cause is clear, - the light does not obey the Arc Effect, because the light beam do not change the direction of another light beam at their cross-point; the photons can exert pressure upon matter screen, but photons do not exert pressure upon other photons.

The computer modeling had showed me, that the usage of the symmetrical equation, containing p' in the last item, leads to appearing of a hole in the center of the object. The more the temperature of the object is the more the hole.

You can try my computer program Arc Effect - 2007. It is uploaded at "narod/ru" and at "webcenter", exe-files, 70kb.

March, 2007.

---

Text from May 2000.

Notes from March 2007 I'll paint in yellow.

Any massive object: the Sun, the Earth, a star, a planet, a nuclei of galaxies and quasars are empty inside. This emptiness is filled with rarefied gas and radiation at high temperatures. In average, at constant radius, the more massive object is, the more temperature is inside of its depths...(cut). On the other hand, the further a star on a scale of evolution, is the thinner its shell. The rupture of a star shell leads to the explosion of nova or supernova. (...) To understand these paradoxical conclusions let's try to analyze the dependence of a pressure from the distance to the center of an object.

Let’s assume at first, that the massive object is a giant gas ball. (...) Let’s break a star into a series of concentric layers. The gravity force pulls each layer to the center of the object; and its weight dP is transferred to a bottom layer. Having divided the weight by the area of sphere between these spherical layers we shall receive an increment of a pressure, which is added to the whole pressure, transmitted from the top layer to bottom: dp = dP / S. In order that the object be in balance it is necessary, that the pressure of gas and radiation in the bottom layer be greater than the pressure of gas and radiation in the top layer by the quantity: dp = p_i+1 - p_i. The expression dp = dP / S is the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium. It can be rewritten in the form:

dp = dm * g / (4pr²) = -r * g * dr,
or shortly: dp/dr = -rg. (1)

where: r is a density on a distance r from the center of an object; g is an acceleration of free fall for given r; dm is a mass of a layer.

dm = - r * S * dr, (2)

(When we move from outside to the center, dr is negative, consequently, dm and dp are positive.)

Alas, the equation (1) is only fair for a homogeneous gravitational field, and for the object with non-colliding particles. It is not applicable to a spherically symmetric gravitating object. This mistake leads to a grandiose growth of pressure and density inside of planets and stars. So as the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium for spherically symmetric objects does not exist, or I did not met it earlier, it is necessary to deduce it here, proceeding from elementary principles. (That was my first proof of Ark Effect, logical proof. Several years later I have found another proves: analytical, mathematical, historical, computer modeling). So, on page the description with the help of figures 2-6 it was shown, that the formula (1) should not include the acceleration of a free fall g, but it must include the value v₀²/r - v_t²/r. Thermal velocity v_t coincides with the most probable velocity v_pr. If we use the average squared velocity v, than: v₀²/r - v_t²/r = v₀²/r - (2/3)v²/r. Let's name this value the absolute (or internal) acceleration of free fall, g_a.

g_a = v₀²/r - v_t²/r = g₀ - g_t, (3)

where: v₀ – orbital velocity of a particle for a given r; v_t – average thermal velocity of a particle; g₀ - Newtonian acceleration of free fall, or external acceleration of free fall, acceleration of free fall in vacuum. For Newtonian acceleration of free fall we can write:

g₀ = g₀M/r², (4)

where: g₀ - gravitational constant, renamed here as external gravitational constant, or gravitational constant in vacuum. The similar expression can be written down for absolute (internal) acceleration of free fall, acceleration of free fall in medium, without friction:

g_a = g_aM/r² = g₀ - g_t = g₀M/r² - g_t, (5)

Having divided (5) on M/r² we shell receive:

g_a = (g₀ - g_t )/(M/r²) = g₀ - g_tr²/M, (6)

Let's take the ratio of g_a to g₀:

g = g_a / g₀ = (g₀ - g_tr²/M) / g₀ = 1 - g_tr²/(Mg₀) = 1 - g_t/g₀ = 1 - (v_t/v₀)², (7)

Outside of the object, or far from the object, or in the vacuum cavity inside the object, the probe body will be drawn to the object with the force:

F = g₀Mm/r², (8)

The element of the object itself with the same regional density, which has the same temperature as the object, will be drawn to a part of the object, situated under a probe body, with the force:

F = g_aMm/r² = gg₀Mm/r², (9)

Let's compare expressions (8) and (9) to the Coulomb law for vacuum (10) and for medium (11):

F = (1/(4pe₀)) * Qq/r², (10)

F = (1/(4pee₀)) * Qq/r² = (1/(4pe_a)) * Qq/r². (11)

As we can see, the role of permeability of vacuum, or the role of the electrical constant e₀ plays the factor g₀; the role of relative permeability e plays the factor g, the role absolute permeability of medium e_a plays g_a.

To these strange analogies it is possible to add the following ones from electrodynamics:

em = (c/v)²; or if m = 1, then: e = (c/v)², (12)

And its analogue, the equation (7):

g = g_a / g₀ = 1 - (v_t/v₀)².

Consequently, g_a is a gravitational constant, applicable to a body, situated in a spherical layer of object, where the molecules of the layer have the average thermal velocity v_t, and with the same regional density. The average squared velocity can be defined from the equation: mv²/2 = 3/2*kT where: m - weight of a molecule of air; T - the temperature of gas (...). The value v_t can be find from equation v_t² = (2/3)v².

And g₀ is the gravitational constant in vacuum, which is applicable to a probe body far outside of attracting object.

At last, g is a relative gravitational permeability of a medium.

The equation g = g_a / g₀ = 1 - (v_t/v₀)² for the object with density, which is not equal to the regional density of the object, will have the coefficient r_object/r_probe. But main profit of this approach is in the demonstration of symmetries between the Newton and Coulomb laws. In fact such record of the formulae unites the attraction force in vacuum and repulsion force of Archimedes.

---

Stop correcting.

I don't correct the further 2000-text. I did not solve the riddle of my excellent formula G' = 1/exp(a + 1/a) yet.

Let's now return to a fine structure constant a, which is the running constant of the electromagnetic interactions, and to the early received gravitational constant, which in the normalized units is dimensionless, denoted there by G'; and it is the gravity fine structure constant:

G' = 1/exp(a + 1/a), (13)

The transition to SI units can be carried out under the formula:

G = (G'e³/(4sqr(a)e₀^3/2m_elm_pr²))^2/3. (13 a)

From this formula G is equal to 6.671479888E-11 N*m²/kg², that is in the perfect consent with the experimental value of G. According to CODATA-1999 the experimental value of G lays between 6.663E-11 and 6.683E-11 in SI units. According to CODATA before 1999 the experimental value of G was: (6.67259E-11 + /- 0.00085E-11) N*m²/kg². There is a question, why the accuracy of G has fallen? There is the second question, why for normalized units the formula 1/G ' = exp(a + 1/a) works, instead of, for example, the easier one: 1/G ' = exp(1/a)?

The answer consists in the following:
The quantity a can be regarded as the velocity of an electron in an atom of hydrogen, measured in the shares of the velocity of light.
The quantity (1 - a²) – is the relativistic amendment, which can be represented as (1-(v/c)²).
The ratio of quantities exp(1/a) and exp(a + 1/a) with good accuracy is equal to (1- a²) or to (1-(v/c)²).

Electron can be represented as a cloud, as an atmosphere of an atom, for which the gravigeometrical paradox works too.

That is why, the quantity G in old denotation, or g_? in new denotation is also the running constant. The expressions exp(1/a) and exp(a+1/a) just also must give 1/g_a' and 1/g₀'. But what correspondences between them are? Preliminary and, while what not the final analysis, gives:

It is obvious, that g₀ should be greater than g_a.

Hence, g₀' should be greater, than g_a'.

Hence, 1/g₀'should be less, than 1/g_a'.

(1/a) is less, than (a+1/a), and they both are more than 1.

Consequently: exp(1/a) is less, than exp(a+1/a).

At last we conclude, that:

1/g₀' = exp(1/a), or g₀' = 1/exp(1/a), (14)

1/g_a' = exp(a+1/a), or g_a' = 1/exp(a+1/a), (15)

Let’s try these results in SI units:

g₀= (g₀'e³/(4sqr(a)e₀^3/2m_elm_pr²))^2/3 = (e³/(4sqr(a)e₀^3/2m_elm_pr²))^2/3*(exp(1/a))^-2/3, (16)
g_a = (g_a'e³/(4sqr(a)e₀^3/2m_elm_pr²))^2/3 = (e³/(4sqr(a)e₀^3/2m_elm_pr²))^2/3*(exp(a+1/a))^-2/3, (17)
g = g₀/g_a = (exp(a+1/a))^-2/3/ (exp(1/a))^-2/3 = 1/exp(2a/3) = 0.995146913, (18)

g₀ = 6.704015058E-11 N*m²/kg²,
g_a = 6.671479888E-11 N*m²/kg².

In the expression (18) the relative gravitational permeability of a medium can be received through a constant a with good precision. On the other hand, we can check up this result applying the formula (7): g=1-(v_t/v₀)². In order to do this we must know the value of the orbital velocity: v₀=Sqr(g₀M/r) and the value of average thermal velocity of molecules of the air near the surface of the Earth v_t = Sqr(3kT/(29*a.u.m.)), where a.u.m.  – atomic unit of mass, 29 - molar weight of the air; and let T be equal to 300 K. Then:

v₀=7910 m/s; v_t = 508 m/s; G = 0.995876

This result does not absolutely coincide with the result of the formula (18) for several reasons:

1. The temperature 300 K is not very much approached to the real value of temperature. The check has shown, that for planets and stars we can receive rather good results.

2. The reason of discrepancy is contained also in that, that the sole value G, used in physics and astronomy now, actually in one cases "works" as g_a, and in the others - as g₀. So, between planets and stars the value g₀ works, but in the ground laboratories at pumped out air the value g₀ works, and at presence of the air the value g_a works. Last two items are correct, if we measure the force between the Earth and the probe body. But actually, the mass of the Earth is unknown, and we measure G between two probe bodies, between which the additive item g₀ works. All this confuses a situation at all.

Despite of these difficulties, it is necessary to move forward in the study of gravitation. This will unite the gravitation with electromagnetism. It, at the end, will simplify the understanding of gravitation. The experiment with the Gravity-Thermal Coil is extremely necessary. This experiment will show us the structure of the depths of planets and stars. This experiment will allow us to solve many energetic, ecological and technical problems.

The Arc Effect.

Russian Toroidal Matryoshka and press-nuclear reactions,

Program Arc Effect is uploaded at "narod/ru" , 70kb.

To the index of Space Genetics

My Curriculum Vitae.

Ivan Gorelik.

Extremely urgent note, 2009.

Attention! Magnetic trap of Devil!

There is a very big probability that magnetic trap will kill us all, if we will not stop powerful colliders.

Magnetic trap is an object, unifying hypothetical objects, connected primarily by magnetic forces: neutron drop/liquid; neutron hole; magnetic hole ...

It is probable that the microscopic magnetic trap can be created at the collider. Magnetic trap will grow capturing the normal substance. As a result, magnetic trap can destroy the Earth.

Magnetic hole is a magnetic analog of the black hole. The black hole is bounded by gravitational forces, and the magnetic hole is bounded by magnetic forces, which are many-many times stronger than gravity forces.

Magnetic hole is a magnetic dipole, in the form of a circle, where there is the critical magnetic field. The lines of magnetic induction are directed perpendicular to the plane of the circle. Nucleons are microscopic magnets, and they can be easily captured by the critical field of the hole. As a result the hole is growing.

The approximate computation shows that the minimal possible magnetic hole, which can capture a nucleon, has a mass slightly more than one thousand masses of nucleons. The Tevatron collider is now working near this region. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be able to create the particles with the rest mass, which are seven times more that the minimal possible mass of magnetic hole.

According to publications, LHC will create microscopic black holes. Most theorists suggest that these black holes will disappear, because of the Hawking evaporation. However, we know that there are several theories of gravity. Some theories did not even admit the existence of black holes. In addition, there are several theories of black holes. Therefore, confidence in the classical theory of black holes and in a process of evaporation of black holes is very poor.

For several years, some scientists argue and demand to ban the construction of powerful colliders. Among the known dangerous objects that may lead to global catastrophe are the following: microscopic black holes, strangelets, magnetic monopoles, vacuum bubbles. I learned about these disputes and concerns only in early September 2008. And then I immediately noticed that the objects, bounded by magnetic forces, were almost not analyzed.

In early September, I assumed that the probability of a global catastrophe is less than 0.000001. However, after three months of analysis of the objects, bounded by magnetic forces, and after the analysis of space observations, my assessment of the global disaster has surpassed dozens of percents.

Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the LHC. Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We know that the most of particles have their corresponding antiparticles. So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a particle of Devil. Two colliding particles can give two more massive particles, - the particle and its antiparticle, for example, an electron and positron. By adding the colliding energy, we can get the God particle and its anti-particle, the magnetic trap of Devil. Particles and antiparticles have diametrically opposed properties. Indeed, the Higgs boson causes the ordinary matter to have a mass. But the magnetic hole captures the substance and transforms its rest mass-energy into another form of matter, - the magnetic field of the Devil's trap. Say me now, are we have the right to touch the particle of God?

Microscopic magnetic holes created at the collider, will move to the center of the Earth, absorbing the matter in their path. Eventually they will merge together into a single and much stronger magnetic hole. The thin shell of the Earth, together with us, will be ejected into cosmic space, but the rest of the Earth will turn into an electric current loop of several meters radius. For comparison, the radius of a black hole of the same mass is 9 millimeters. Part of Earth’s mass will be transformed into magnetic field of neutron hole, and another part will be transformed into radiation and kinetic energy of the released shell.

Magnetic hole will not decay if it was born in such cold place, as the collider, where the temperature is close to 0 K. If the magnetic hole is born in a collision of space particle with atmospheric particle, it has a speed, which is close to the speed of light. As a result, such magnetic hole will evaporate almost immediately as a result of energetic collisions with atmospheric particles. Such evaporating magnetic hole will form a cosmic-ray particle shower. Such showers are observable.

Huge magnetic holes are also observable is cosmos.

In the remnants of supernova SN 1987A we can see a system of rings, which remind us the magnetic hole. It is possible that this magnetic hole is decaying now.

It seems as if these rings embrace a hyperboloid. And now look at the electron, moving along two hyperboles in coordinates x, ict, in my electron model program. Each electron crosses the entire Universe in a period of time, which is equal to the classical period of the electron. This paradoxical conclusion is the consequence of the Special Relativity Theory. The ring structure of SN 1987A and our electron model have common visible properties. The Earth and the Sun can be turned into the same ring structure.

Magnetic collapse is much more rapid than the gravity collapse. At the process of magnetic collapse the nucleon turns such, that its magnetic dipole moment becomes parallel to the magnetic dipole moment of a trap. Gravity collapse needs displacing of a matter inside the Schwarzschild radius. The time interval of neutrino registration at neutrino observatories had proved the reality of magnetic collapse of dying stars.

Particle's collision energies and bombs:

Several eV - chemical bomb;
Several MeV - nuclear bomb;
Several TeV - hyper bomb.

Chemical bomb is accompanied by the change of chemical structure of matter.
Nuclear bomb is accompanied by the change of nuclear structure of matter.
Hyper bomb is accompanied by the transformation of solid matter into a field.

Scientific crime.

Only crazy people can try to create the particles with the rest mass, more than 1000 nucleon masses. It is very possible that in the region from 1000 to 7000 aum, hundreds types of particles and resonances can be created. It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of them will grow, capturing the ordinary matter.

Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in the strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron stars can have any masses. My approximate computation also shows that the minimal possible neutron star can have a mass, about one thousand of nucleon masses. Such embryos of neutron star can by made in collider.

Not long ago the new strange unexpected particle was discovered at the Tevatron collider. It decays at several muons, up to eight units. Somebody had already named it the Halloween particle. I named it the muon hole. What will be made the next? The magnetic trap of Devil?

Majority of contemporary physicists imagine quark-gluon plasma as a suck with peas. That is a very dangerous imagination. Particles are not points with labels, where their quantum properties were written. Particles are not the material essences, independent of space-time; they are just space-time elements, strings. 

Dear reader, the situation is extremely serious. The physics now is in the deep crisis. Theorists, in order to save their religious Big Bang theory, invented “the dark energy" as a new either. They want now to test their wretched theories at the powerful Large Hadron Collider.

Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry about the safety of LHC, had already made a crime now. The LHC was launched despite the fact that there were court trials. The Earth could be exploded the 21 of September 2008, but the accident, which had happened two days earlier, had saved us. Scientists-criminals continue to lie about the safety of the LHC, and are preparing the global terrorist crime now.

Dear reader! Big Bang adherents can lead the Earth to the utter destruction. Particle collisions with the energy more then 1 TeV must be prohibited by the international law. The science must be cleared from the Big Bang delusion. Big-bangers want to touch the particle of God, but thus, they lead us into the magnetic trap of Devil. People, will you silently endure the massacre?

Some documents and links.

In November 2008, I arrived to Moscow in order to file a lawsuit against the Russian Academy of Sciences and against the most active propagandists/promoters of the LHC launch. Unfortunately, for the lack of funds, I could not did it then.

In late November at the "meeting of four" there was decided to hear my report "What will LHC give us, the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?" at a workshop in one of the leading institutions of Moscow. But later, I received a "retreat" from this institution.

In December, I sent the Letter to the President of Russia. In January, I received an answer in which it was stated that my letter was forwarded to the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In December, I sent the Letters to the Prosecutors Office of the Russian Federation. Soon after, I received the answer stating that my letter "was sent for review in the prescribed manner".

In the end of January I returned to Feodosia (Ukraine) and continued to inform about the risks of the global catastrophe. You can read some letters, which were send to the Google groups, - just click my Google-profile.

Reproduction of biospheres and civilizations. Who are you, dear reader: "a cell of good reason", "a curiosity cell", or "thoughtless muscular cell"?

Magnetic trap of Devil. Recent calculations show that it is not excluded that microscopic magnetic traps were already created, and they are growing now somewhere inside the Earth.

Arguments, proving that "The LHC will lead to global catastrophe"; "Magnetic holes exist"; "We will not be able to prevent the LHC launch and the following global catastrophe". Religious and mystic arguments.

Magnetic Hole. Pictures.

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