The energy of terrestrial atmosphere and its use.
A paradigm (from the Greek. Παράδειγμα, «an example, the model, the model"):
The paradigm in the methodology of science - a set of values, methods, approaches, technical skills and tools adopted by the scientific community within an established tradition of research in a certain period of time.
Dear visitors of our site, from this day on this page we will tell the fascinating, from our point of view, the product of the "new paradigm" in a series of science and science fiction author L.C.Komarov. Tehnobum Company is the sponsor of this publication.
Courage and determination the author reveals the following questions:
The energy of the earth's atmosphere and the atmospheric engine
Newton - evil genius?
Can I sell vrazves in space?
Is the Earth a magnet?
What filled the universe?
Do galaxies fly apart?
And there was the Big Bang?
These mysterious "black holes" What is the "infinity"?
On the infinity of the universe.
The truth of the absolute and relative
The divine and scientific
A NEW PARADIGM (Excerpts from the book)
from the author
And Berdyaev wrote: “I carried out the Belier that the Highest Might saved me and didn't allow to lose live from ordeals which I nad to suffer.” “So,” - I turned over in my mind,- “God or the Highest does exist gor somebody however!
It is said in the Bible: “There was a World in the Beginning, and God had a World, and the World was God.”
Dekartes:”<...> general cause is God; he created matter together with motion and rest, and keeps the same general quantity of motion and rest in it.” N.I.Kobozev wrote in his work: “Degree of order and disorder, certainty and uncertainty, chaos and order are most general properties of activity embraced By the conception of entropy.
I read once that the most unexpected thoughts came into mind at night, at a moment when the Brain didn't sleep already, but it didn't awake finally yet. And it was explained with subconsciousness not burdened through mundane bustle and other hindrances. And then (at night as well) another revelation came to my mind, and namely: atmosphere of the Earth ie the air ocean surrounding us, is a gigantic inexhaustible and ecologically pure source of energy.
It is the most incomprehensible in this world that it is comprehensible.
Instead of preface
As in school years I heard the legend about an apple (oh, really this apple is fruit of knowledge!) which had fallen on the head of Newton, after that Newton discovered law of gravitation.
But not so long ago I ran into strange screpances which made me carry on an investigation. All began with Bernoulli's theorem P+pgh+p V2/2=const.
I said to me: “Suppose potential energy to be equal to kinetic one pgh=pV2/2 and called my formula balance equation.
First, it is to be seen once again whether “law of gravitation” is general with respect to Kepler's laws and, second, whether Newton's law is a law of nature generally.
Newton on whose head an apple fell with free fall acceleration g=9/8 м/с2 , was born after Torricelli and after Galiley. But he neglected this quantity and introduced another quantity “G” in his formula having called it “gravitatioal constant” which scientists began to determine, and as it is stated Henry Cavendish determined it by experiment in 1788. Alas! Cavendish was born 4 years later after Newton's death. The question arises: “How did Newton make his calculations without mumerical value of “G”!? There is much cunning in all this story.
|Diagrammatic representation of Galaxy with system of globe-shaped star-clusters (side/rib/view, position of the solar system is marked with a circle)||Spiral arms of Galaxy (diagrammatical representation of galaxy in a plane, flat view). The South Pole (clockwise rotation).|
In Solar system all celestial bodies revolve around the sun, planets do it in the same direction as the sun rotates around its axis, i.e. anti-clockwise if viewed from the north pole of system and are an equatorial plane of the sun with small relative deviations. Just so all bodies of galaxy revolving around its center are (rougly) in one plane perpendicular to axis of rotation of galaxy, tend to this plane in any case.
Lenghs of orbits of the revolution of celestial bodies are as so proportional to distances of these bodies from centres of revolutions as periods of their revelations;
Orbital and angular velocities of revelations of celestial bodies and free fall accelerations to the centres of revolutions are in functional dependence on angular velocities of the rotation of centres and on distances of celestial bodies from centres of revelations;
Orbital and angular velocities of the revelation of celestial bodies and free fall accelerations of these bodies to centres of revelations don't depend on masses of celestial bodies.
Geometry of the universe.
There is already a contradiction in this world combination itself for the world “geometry” translated from Greek means “land-surveying”: “geo” is” the earth”,” metry” is ”to measure”. It is perfectly evident that the earth as a solid (or a rigid body) and space of the universe aren't anyhow to measure by the same ways.
Practice of carry of terrestrial measures into the universe led to a whole row of errors, illusions, to distortion of a real picture of the world sphere is the most ideal form of the body, the most “economical” one of all figures having the least surface area S=4πR2 and the same volume as other figures.
And now let us pass to physics from geometry.
When moving in space a spherical bode gains the most stable positron when rotating around its axis. This principle is in such a device as a horoscope which is used in fleet, in aviation and in cosmonautics.
Let's call any physical body in the universe a material point (particle)
One very important circumstance in addition: when the material point moves in a circle uniromly it undergoes a centripetal acceleration the value of which can be calculated according to following formulae:
where R- circumference's radius, γ – revolution velicity, T – period of revelation
However very many tried to recalculate the value of π. But Russian mathematician N.I.Lobachevski (1792-1856) proved parallel with other scientists that quantity π wasn't the ratio of circumference length to diameter and wash’s a constant quantity. New geometry was created which was called “non-Euclidean”. And they began to say that quantity π was irrational, i.e. unconceivable with mind and transcendental, i.e. being beyond consciousness and cognition.
N.I.Lobachevski wrote: “There aren't either straight or curved lines, planes and curved surfaces in nature, we find only bodies in it, so all the other is created with our imagination, exists only in theory. They witness that Gauss implored Lobachevski to share great discovery with mankind forewarning this would bring him nothing except misfortune.
Outstanding German mathematician H.Rieman (1826-1866) was the first who put the question: “What do we know about physical space for certain?” In contrast to Euclide Rieman chose not an “axiomatic” But analytical approach. Rieman offered a perfectly new approach to theory of non-Euclidean spaces in his lecture read on the 10-th of June, 1854. As Gauss he constructed internal geometry of a arbitrary surface without a surface itself in outline and moreover not only in two-dimensional but in multi-dimensional case! This geometry is called Riemannian in modern literature.
Rieman suggested that nature of physical space must reflect occurring in it physical phenomena somehow.
Return to quantity π and dare to give some thought what kind of quantity it is which is in most other “often met constants”
It is know that a flat circle can be divided by 360°, each degree is equal to 60 minutes of arc, each minute of arc is equal to 60 seconds of arc. So a circle has 1 269 000 seconds of arc.
If we begin to rotate a circle around its centre so a new conception comes into force, that is “time” measured at first in seconds, in minutes too and then not in degrees but in hours, in days ans so on. There a direct relation between angular values and time values: motion, rotation but only angular quantities (values) are always constant and time is not only alternative but relative.
Quantity π allows to relate space and time and unite them in a single whole space-time.
Thus, quantity π binds all motions of material points in the Universe with time, i.e. quantity π belongs to space-time continuum: “gravitation, time and matter equally with space Became components of the geometrical structure of 4-dimensional space-time”.
It avokes an impressional that the Absolute Truth, the law of arrangement of the Universe is Based on π and √2. But apparently mankind isn't fated to understand it because the Absolute Truth is beyond understanding.
However it is safe to say that π and √2 are Bound not only with sphere but with motion and not only with rotation and revolution in general but with the revolution of any material points around the definite centres.
“Weight” and “mass”
There is concept “mass” in physics. So, losing their weight bodies conserve their mass. It is only impossible to understand why both weight and mass are measured by kilograms?
Since 1883 a small cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy kept under two glass caps at the international bureau of measures and weights in sevre (france) serves as an international standart og the unit of mass-kiligram. This kilogram is so carefully preserved that it was taken from under the caps only three times in the going century. Precautions of preservation of meter standard aren't less still but it is only a tradition; now one meter is determined as a distance passed by light for about one three-millionth fraction of a second (1/3 000 000s), and a second, in its turn, as time for which cesium atom makes the definite amount of oscillations<...>
What is “mass” and what does it depend on?
In Einstein theory of relativity mass depends on(speed) velocity of movement of a material point in space and it is called there relativistic mass. Relativism means relativity.
In Newtonian classical mechanics body's mass is equal to the sum of masses of all the parts of a body and doesn't on movement speed of a body.
Are Newtonian mass and Einsteinian mass different, aren't they? Such an answer can be given: “In Newtonian mechanics the question is about a quantity of substance and in relativistic physics the question is about energy quantity, i.e. about momentum, for there is no energy without motion:М=Е/с2.
And another question: “Is the Earth a magnet?”
“<...> inspite of efforts of many outstanding physicists, astrophysicists and geophysicists it didn't work still to explain the origin of magnetism of the earth. There are many hypotheses but none of them is universally recognized.
We say “terrestrial attraction” and think that it occurs as with a magnet having two poles: : “plus” and “minus” because the earth has also two poles: the north pole and the south pole.
That is true, but not so! First of all, a magnet attracts only iron things and the earth “attracts” all that finds itself in the atmosphere of the earth and heavier that air which we breathe. And we don't “faster” an air balloon or an aerostat filled with light gas they will fly away to the heaven.
It was said earlier “terrestrial attraction acceleration” and it is written in all reference books now “free fall acceleration” because concept “weight” isn't scientific, physical but sooner merchant. There is concept “gravity” or “gravitation”.
To tear away a material body from satellite's orbit, i.e. to remove from the gravitational field of the earth this material body is to be provided with so called critical velocity or escape velocity equal to 11.18m/s for the earth. This velocity is also called “liberation velocity” and it is equal to circular velocity multiplied √2=1,41. Uk=U2=U1*1,41.
For example: velocity of liberation from gravitation of the sun is equal to 619.4km/s by free fall acceleration equal to 274 rn/s2 near “the surface” of the sun.
What is the Earth filled with?
However “orthodox atheists” think of my arguments i shall begin my reflections with the old testament.
Moses says in the first chapter of the book “Genesis” opening the bible: “In the beginning God created the sky and the earth”. But he says nothing that God created stars and the sun and planets, and above all, Moses says nothing that God put all the created in motion, i.e. filled with energy.
And all the same, assume ether to be substance moving and carrying definite energy at the same time. And return to the discarded with modern physics definition of enter as a medium being the carrier of electromagnetic and gravitational fields. In other worlds enter is a substance and a field at the same time.
The atom of hydrogen and its energetics.
There is concept “matter” and there is concept “substance”. Matter is thought to be all from which the Universe is built beginning with elementary particles which have been enough discovered by scientists already (did you imagine it?) and it isn't know when this process of discoveries stops.
And substance is known to begin with atom of hydrogen in Mendeleev's periodic system.
And the atom of hydrogen is a primary planet system. And so it is to say: primary mattern must become a primary system to be changed into substance.
According to Rutherford-Bohr model the atom of hydrogen is so: there is a positively charged nucleus-proton in which almost all mass of the atom is concentrated in the centre of the atom and one negatively charged electron revolves around the nucleus-proton. Its mass is negligible and it is “Einsteinian mass” while “Newtonian mass” is in the nucleus-proton, i.e. it is the nucleus that holds substance.
...Bohr's theory didn't explain why electron didn't radiate(emit) and did not fall to the nucleus. It turned out that efforts were necessary not “to keep” electron from a fall to the nucleus but quite the reverse: “to make” electron to keep in orbit. As if electron seeks to get free from fetters of the nucleus.
As 1815 W.Prote suggested a hypothesis that all atoms were built of hydrogen atoms. This hypothesis was a forerunner of Periodic law...
The world “proton” means “first, former, original, first-born” from Greek “protos” but Rutherfod wanted very much that that new world calling hydrogen nucleus “reminded people of Prote”.
Remembering that any physical theory “is a free invention” of human mind” (Einstein) let us try to “invent” our theory as well. We take following as a Base: the nucleus-proton rotates around its axis creating an intratomic magnetic field in the atom of hydrogen. The electron (a spherical charge), as a “bubble” always striving for getting free from fetters of the nucleus which has also its “spin”, something similar to intrinsic moment of momentum, as scientists think. As if the electron like a top rotates around its own “axis”. However this rotation is rather unusual-it is impossible to wipe, either to stop or to accelerate it...”
And so, the electron will revolve around the nucleus at a definite angular velocity in definite orbit until magnetic field balances. Bat once balance is disturbed i.e. the proton changes its angular velocity of rotation the electron will transfer to another orbit and if the proton's angular velocity continues decreasing then the electron “will tear oneself to freedom”. And what will happen to the proton which lost its spin? I think it will not come to “solitude” of the proton: it will unite with another proton.
Gas as a system
The universes's space is filled with hydrogen for the most part, with a mixture of gases called atmosphere near rotating material points(particles). To understand interation of material points with gaseous medium of the universe's space consider gas as a system. And here a reader must be referred to J.Maxwel's kinetic theory of gases.
… Classical statistical physics show that the integrity of systems of gaseous type forms not as a result of some always acting interrelations(interconnections) between particles but thanks to the availability of conditions of the existence of such systems. In theoretical constructions gas is always considered as closed in some vessel (i.e. a closed system) sizes of which can be rather arbitrary...
If the universe is considered as a system of unclosed gaseous systems so it gets clear immediately that “all depends on all” i.e. correlation of systems is available. And then all talks about paradoxes are out of the question.
It is to be noted that the word “gas” comes from the same root as the word “chaos”. The conception of chaos characterizes a structure of systems first of all where elements are internally dynamic but their Behaviours don't conform mutually and the action feedback is absent.
Ancient people considered chaos as one of original potencies of the world. Chaos is a necessary component of evolutional changes and its basic “purpose” consists in it. According to it they say even that chaos is a part of the beauty of nature.
The question arises: “How is independence possible in the world where the origin itself and existence of every object and phenomenon are unthinkable beyond their interactions and relationships to material surroundings? How is it possible to substantiate independence it the world where everything is pierced through with relationships and interaction, for example, with gravitational interactions which know no bounds practically?
Otto fon Hericque demonstrated vacuum on one hand and force of atmospheric pressure on another hand in Magdeburg very visually. He made a hollow sphere from 2 halves and having jointed both half-spheres he evacuated air from the hollow.
D.Maxwell wrote in May of 1876: “I was sent to London to explain to the queen why Otto fon Herique devoted himself to discovery of “nothing” and to show her 2 half-spheres in which he kept this “nothing” and drawings depicting 16 horses which couldn't tear off the half-spheres rfom each other and how V.Croox approched to “nothing” much more nearly 200 years later and sealed it up into a glass ball for public survey.
And you know, the expression “nature doesn't endure vacuum” comes from Aristotel's times; did the revelation of the Creator condenscent yo him?...
That what the Universe was filled with was called World ether. But ether is not the same anywhere. At different points of the Universe it has different density, i.e. different degree of vacuum.
Thus, we can use vacuum(rarefaction) for the creation of pressure difference, potential difference for production of energy entirely. Since vacuum is a differentiated on concentration substance in space and, consequently, a differentiated field from zero to maximum, maximum being equal to 1. It isn't a substance in general but it is concentration of gaseous substance at various points of the universe's space, i.e. in unclosed systems, because vacuum shows in unclosed(open) and closed volumes of space differently. Closed volume would be understood as a part of space bound with a firm shell excluding spontaneous flow of gaseous or liquid substance. For example: the Universe is an open space; a space ship in the cosmos is a closed volume of space.
Vacuum is quantity showing the amount of a gaseous substance at the certain point of space in the ratio of min/max practically.
Therefore we can (we must!) create (using the atmospheric engine under condition of terrestrial atmosphere) potential difference inside of the engine relative to outer (external) atmospheric one(if the atmospheric engine is on the earth) and potential differences of different volumes if the atmospheric engine is in outer space. In short, if we begin to create rarefaction in a closed volume so potential energy of external pressure begins to increase in proportion to a value of pressure difference.
Both the Atom and the Universe.
Kepler noticed much in motion of planets of Solar system but he did not say (did he not know it?) that all planets revolved around the sun same direction as our luminary rotated around its axis and that orbits of planets “pressed themselves” to an equatorial “plane” of the sun; all “sleeves” of our Galaxy revolve around the centre of the Galaxy in “equatorial plane” of the Galaxy just so.
If a material point in the Universe revolves around the rotation centre in orbit close to polar one (for example, a comet) it will seek to go in a orbit close to equatorial one and to gain not a stretched elliptical orbit but a circular one. It can take not one million years.
Material points revolving around the same centre of revolution in approximately identical planes(planets; asteroids) cannot collide for each will revolve in its allowed orbit, not crossing other ones. Collisions of asteroids or planets with comets having orbits close to polar ones, elliptically stretched, are possible in the Universe. We use the concept “a plane” conditionally as an instantaneous value of location (position) of a material point; knowing that orbits are spiral.
Why does all this occur? What makes material points move so but not otherwise?
What is in the base of harmony of the world? What does “gravitation” of heavenly bodies to the centres of revolution depend on? What is gravitation?
“It is know from modern physics” - I.S.Shklovski writes,- “that all relationships of the world are controlled with 4 types of interaction: 1) electromagnetic, 2)gravitational, 3)weak and 4) strong it is quite possible that in the future (perhaps, not so far) interactions will either fully united or they will be less (this means that some relation can be between constants of interections)”.
Researches of last decades allowed to conclude that stars rotated around their axes. It proved that stars of different spectral lines rotated at different velocity. (At different angular velocity – L.K.) Availability of powerful magnetic fields was found in the atmosphere of some stars. Intersity of these fields reaches 10 oersteds in individual cases, i.e. 20 000 times more that one of magnetic field of the earth. As it proved last years magnetic phenomena played an important role in physical (and chemical-L.K.) processes occuring in solar atmosphere”.
According to modern notions stars are of formed through condensation of a rather rerefied interstellar gaseous and dusty medium. We have a right to consider interstellar gas as a solid compressible medium and to apply laws of gas dynamics to this medium.
What is gravitation?
The main part stars in Galaxy is in a gigantic disc a diameter of which is about 100 000 light and a thickness of which is about 1500 light years.
The distance from the sun to the nucleus of Galaxy (or its centre) is about 30 000 light years.
Stars and nebulae within Galaxy move rather in a complex way. First of all they take part un the rotation of Galaxy around the axis perpendicular to its equatorial plane. This rotation isn't as so as a solid: different sections of Galaxy have different rotation periods.
Most “red dwarves” (faint-shining stars temperature of which is much lower than one of the sun) rotate around their own axis at high velocity in their youth, as a result it creates a powerful magnetic field. Electrons blown on lines of force of a magnetic field of a red dwarf radiate energy in the radio range intensively.
Data of magnetic measurements received from board the “Ullis” are of great interest. It is stated that the magnetosphere of the Jupiter has a complex structure differing from the earthen one essentially. If our planet's magnetosphere is like a drop of water by form so the Jupiter's one is flattened.
Now is question about energy sources in the Universe is one of the most actual ones. It arose particularly keenly when, perhaps, more sensational object of the Universe (quazi star sources, or quazars) were discovered. Observed through telescopes quazars look like weak stars. It fact luminous emittance of each of these stars is more than one of whole galaxy consisting of 100 mlrds of stars. Simply the fact is that quazars are from us at distances if milliards of light years, at the very rand of the visible through telescopes part of the Universe.
What kind of object is it? Where does energy for such powerful radiation origine from? Most phantastical hypotheses were offered. Last time astrophysicists tend to think that “fuel” feeding radiation of quazars is gravitational energy.(Underlined by L.K.) We got accustomed to the thought that nuclear energy was most powerful. It is a simple illusion born by a shock of nuclear explosions. Gravitational energy can play a much greater role in the Universe.
Try to formulate the concept “gravitation”.
Gravitation(gravity) is a centripetal acceleration of a material point revolving in orbit around the centre rotating around its axis.
Any material point in the Universe rotating around its axis is a dipole and owing a magnetic moment it creates a magnetic gravitational field. This field will be so much the more powerful the more the surface and angular velocity of a rotating material point (a star, a planet and so on) are.
Powerful magnetic gravitational fields are also created by so called black hole owing very great, maximal angular velocities. For example, our Galaxy (the milky way) in the centre of which the black hole is supposed to be makes huge star-clusters, star system etc rotate around its centre.
A rotating material point-centre and a revolving material point-satellite form a solitary system. Any smaller system is contained in a greater one. For example, system the earth-the Moon is contained in the solar sysytem which, in its turn, is contained in the Galaxy and so on.
Thus, the Universe is a system of systems of rotating and revolving material points.
The atom of hydrogen can be taken as a primary system: a proton-a magnetic moment 1,4106 х 10-26 Дж/Тл – and a revolving around it electron. This value is inherent in all the planets asteroids of Solar system as a moment of advance of the gravitational field of the sun... thus, the value or free fall acceleration can serve as an index of gravitation level.
The energy of terrestrial atmosphere and its use.
Since the invention of a steam engine hydrocarbon raw resources are main energy carriers. Their reserves aren't unbounded, and the problem of power supply became global in the leaving 20-th century. And the problem of ecology of the environment inhabited by mankind grew into a gigantic one owing to the increase of raw burning rate.
Experiencing an energetic crisis and ecological distresses mankind does intensive quest for untraditional ecologically pure energy sources for some time past. Wind, solar, geothermal and high tide energies are referred to in the popular-scientific literature most frequently.
And such a gigantic and practically inexhaustible, ecologically pure energy source as standard atmosphere isn't referred to!
We think of might of this energy though just when we learn bad new of enormous natural calamities and incalculable materiel losses-caused by a hurricane swept over the littoral of the pacific ocean or somewhere in the Caribbean sea-from the weather reports of the Hydro meteorological center. Hurricane wind velocity can reach 70 m/sec.
And now imagine that hurricane wind (as air flow) rushes at a velocity of 70 m/sec through a tube of cross-section 1m2, and it means that 70m3 of air will run through the tube for each(one) second. The power of this flow will be equal to 200kw. It is a “free of charge” and ecologically pure energy, i.e. it doesn't require coal, oil or gas consumption. We shall both save hydrocarbon raw for chemical industry and not pollute atmosphere with bad effluents. It is to be noted moreover that kinetic energy of air flow will grow geometrical progression with the increase of flow velocity. And flow velocity will grow with the increase of the increase of atmospheric pressure differential in the zone of cyclone and anticyclone. Hurricane wind arises by pressure differential from 104 Pa, i. e. 0,1 atm. It is also to be noted that a usual domestic electrical vacuum cleaner is able to create such an atmospherical pressure differential. But it creates not great air flow only: from 10 L/sec. to 30 L/sec.
An atmospheric engine will assist to use the inexhaustable ecologically pure energy of terrestrial atmosphere, the energy of its continuous oressure.
The atmospheric engine(AE) is a module in which a turbine is placed in a hermetically sealed body with a nozzle block and a branch pipe for connection to a vacuum source. Shaft torque can be transmitted directly or through a reductor and used in various equipment and energetic
installations and in domestic devices as well. The vacuum source of 103 Pa or 0,01 atm is sufficient to put the atmospheric engine in action.
The use of rarefaction instead of air compression will effect a huge saving. It is time to get on to feet from headstand!
There are various sources suitable for the creation of rarefaction in atmospheric engines: fans (including air suction aggregates for vacuum cleaners), compressors, vacuum pumps and(in conclusion) draught (vent) tubes(stations).
And finally, a draft tube (station) made of light structure materials of sufficient strength (assume its diameter to be equal to l m, its cross-sectional area to be equal to 0,78 m2 and its height to be equal to 100m) will ensure air pass of 30 m3 and will create rarefaction, i. e. pressure differential of 0,01 atm. It will be sufficient that one or several atmospheric engines should produce a useful power of about 30 kW. For example, a sufficiently large laundry not requiring network electric energy at all might be placed in the basement of a 30-storey Building with the draft tube built in the framework.
Another one very effective use of the AE is in buildings with vacuum systems. Vacuum cleaners aren't used at world best hotels nowadays, but couplings of suction system are mounted in panels simply, and chamber maids use the set of fittings with a hose only. It is economical and absolutely fire-safe.
Let's apply to aviation let's ascend to earth troposphere, to those layers of atmosphere where modern jet airliners flight. Pressure outside the plane at a height of 10km from the surface of the earth will be 26935 Pa (0,27 atm), i.e. pressure differential will be 0,74 atm. If we drilled a hole with a diameter of 1 mm in the side of the plane air should begin to flow out of the cabin of the plane at a velocity of 443 m/sec. A little air passed through the nozzle block of the atmospheric engine at such a velocity would allow to put some mechanism in action in a moment. It is especially important in case of failure of the electric system on board.
Let's be carried away to outer space. Pressure differential is maximum here.
It is know that atmospheric pressure on board space ship is maintained normal for vital activity of a man. And there is a vacuum outside the space ship. Before cosmonauts (having been got in space suuts) open a man hole of a compartment for going out into outer space air is evacuated from the compartment, air beingby let out no means. Evacuation process requires energy consumption, energy being scarce on board. If an energy installation with the atmospheric engine is mounted on the way of air evacuated part of energy consumpted may be recuperated. The AE is used more efficiently when (after the cosmonauts have returned from outer space and the man-hole has been closed) pressure balancing begins on board, i.e. return of air into the compartment not inflated earlier. The atmospheric engine will give additional energy in this case.
It is very difficult nowadays to predict all cases of the use of atmospheric engines in vital activity of a man, but to predict their great future is quite possible.
How does the atmosphere form?
Stars have an atmosphere, for example, the sun. Planets (but not all), only those ones which have an enough great angular velocity of rotation about their axes have it: the earth has it, the Mercury has (or almost) not it.
“The investigation of nearlunar space with the apparatus”Luna-2” showed that the magnetic field of the Moon (if it exists) didn't exceed a value of 50 gammas. Variations(changes) of magnetic intensity of about 4-12 gammas (gamma is a unit of measurement of magnetic intensity) are registered far from the earth,a slow change of the size of the magnetic field day to day is connected, perhaps, with change of the moon's position relative to a line the sun-the earth.
It is well known that the moon hasn't dense atmosphere, but the existence of the moon's very rarefied atmosphere isn't excluded.
If one analyses astrophysical data of all the planets of solar system so one can notice easy that the planets which, firstly, rotate around their axes faster (ɷr) and, secondly, have greater geometrical parameters (r) have atmospheres and gravitational fields of greater sizes.
An exception is the Venus rotating around its axis although slowly but having a great gravitational field and a rather dense atmosphere. It can be explained by a peculiarity of the gravitational-magnetic field of the Venus rotating in the Sun's gravitational field in an “inverse” direction: the Venus “is inversed” almost by 1800, and like a disc of the electrometer in your house it rotates about its axis very slowly in the “opposite” direction; if the terminals of the electrometer are exchanged (phases are inversed) so the disc of the electrometer begins to rotate fast in the opposite direction. If it succeeded to inverse the Venus by 1800 then it could rotate fast in the same direction in which all the planets rotate. It must be said as well that only those planets which rotate around their axes fast and, consequently, own a powerful gravitational field have planets-satellites.
The Mars's mass is approximately 10 times smaller than one of the earth and the Mars's radius is 2 times shorter that one of the Earth (and is equal to about 3380km). Acceleration of free fall near the surface of the planet is approximately 2,5 times less that one near the surface of the earth. The Mars's period of rotation around its axis is close to one of the earth: 24 hours 37 minutes 22,62 seconds. And the slope of the equator to the plane of orbit is also close to one of the earth: 23057'. Therefore change of the seasons of the year occurs on the Mars as so as on the Earth. Differences are caused with the Mars's orbit stretched more that one of the earth. The South pole is inclined to the Sun when the planet is at a minimal distance from it (in perihelion); there fore summer in Southern hemisphere is hotel and shorter that one in Northern hemisphere. A mean distance from the Mars to the Sun is 2 times longer than one from the Earth. Therefore the Mars gets heat 2 times less that our planet.
The Mars makes one revolution around the sun for 687 days, i.e. Marsian year is almost 2 times longer than one of the Earth.
A main component of the Mars's atmosphere is carbon dioxide. Its content is valued within 50%-100%. As to oxygen it can speak of an upper limit of its content with confidence that it is 3000 times less than one on the Earth.
Impact atmospheric pressure seemed to be very small, approximately 100-200 times smaller than of the Earth. This value obtained a spectroscopic method initially was confirmed with the measurements of radio waves' refraction in the Mars's atmosphere.
So, how does the atmosphere form?
The atoms of helium, the second chemical element of Periodic system, begin to form from atoms of hydrogen in moving enter at the definite distance from a rotating material macroscopic point (it is paradoxical, isn't it?!) i.e. on the definite level of a gravitational field. The atmosphere begins from this level. And the closer to the surface of a material point, particularly, a planet, the higher, more intensive a gravitational field is the more “heavy” elements are: the synthesis of a new gaseous substance occurs.
How did the universe originate and how is it arranged?
A following hypothesis of the origin of the Universe predominates among scientists: a Great explosion of nuclear character (as it is thought) occurred in the beginning True, nobody explains where this clot of energy came from in the very beginning of the creator of the world. However, it is thought that the Great explosion occurred on the first of January at nought o'clock, nought minutes seconds, i.e. in the beginning of times. And then galaxies began supposedly to scatter from the centre of the explosion in different directions. Galaxies' scattering was proved through red shift.
So many questions arise that any head can can be a whirl.
The main questions are following:
a) Where did that “originally enough rarefied gaseous cloud (from which a galaxies' cluster was formed later) come from?
b) “Is the Universe finite or infinite and what geometry does it have?”
Comparatively not so long ago, in 1986 one our scientist, astrophysicist supposed “the creation of matter to come from vacuum owning superdensity in the greater part of the volume of the Universe.”
It sounds a little strangely, doesn't it? “A vacuum of superdensity”? This is some nonsense!
The astrophysicist think “the process of the creation” of matter to occur in the form of birth of expanding bubbles of an usual substance in on of which we live.”
Firstly, it isn't clear what “usual substance” is? Secondly, if the question is about “bubbles so they must have a shell. And as we suspect there is no shell of a firm substance both around the Earth and around solar system and around the Galaxy. But there are different “shells”: electromagnetic ones having a certain modulus on the certain level in each system.
A report on the theme “experimental illustrations against cosmology of the Great explosion” was reed at the academician P.L.Kapitsa-Institute of physical problems in November of 1994. The author of the report V.S.Troitski said: “Independence of mean values of luminous emittance, dimensions, the form of spectra of galaxies and quazars and dispersion of pointed valus as well from the place of objects in space of the Matagalaxy accords to a know perfect cosmologic principle principle of homogeneity and isotropism of the universe in space and in the time stated relative to a mean volume density of substance. Of course, constancy of pointed mean values doesn't exclude the evolution of luminous emittance and dimensions of concrete galaxies. Analogy with the mean force of people of all planet which is unchangeable in time although each man undergoes the evolution of the force is appropriate here. Statistic uniformity of characteristics of galaxies in the Universe's space testifies to its considerable age which must be by an order higher than the age of galaxies at least valued as 15-20 mlrds years.”
Considering the nature of red shift the author says: “The obtained experimental relation” Z=R2/R20 makes a range of hypotheses for the explanation of red shift essentially more narrow. This range becomes still more narrow if required that a new interpretation of the nature of red shift would correspond to known and studied in physics processes. The known gravitational shift satisfy these conditions”.
When it is said about red shift it is associated for some reason with a scatter of galaxies from the centre of the Great explosion which (it is to think) didn't occur at all; there is a movement of galaxies relative to each other, a movement of systems of material points relative to each other and it doesn't mean a scatter at all. Motion of material points occurs in spiral within the certain system.
If the Universe is considered as a system of revolving material points around the rotating centres so all the now existing contradictions in science can be eliminated. Certainly, new questions, contradictions will arise immediately, but nature dialectic is so.
And how did the universe originate still?
If the Great explosion of nuclear energy contradicts all logic and Mendeleev's periodic law and the scientific statement that nuclear decay can be connected only with heavy nuclei so a following hypothesis can be considered: initially the universe or “the super universe” was a suspended homogenous medium of the prime substance i.e. hydrogen atoms in “physical vacuum” at a temperature of 30 K. And all occurred according to stochastic law further.
The hypothesis about the initially homogenous universe wasn't suggest today. It is in hot debat. But recent investigations corroborate: this hypothesis “remains valid”
But the new and, perhaps, the chiefest question arises here: “And where did the atoms of primary hydrogen come from? Probably it is the Absolute truth which is impossible to understand with human wit. But it is a modern mentality common to all mankind that is vigorous enough and is able to eliminate existing contradictions between different theories, but a new paradigma is necessary for it.
About the absolute and relative truth.
The world surrounding us is a system of intercommunicated and interdepended (correlation) self-regulating system (with feedback). The question is not only about systems of heavenly bodies (stars, planet and other) But about all generally including biological ones the highest of which is man.
Trying to explain Einstein's relativistic ideas interpreters of theory of relativity introduced much mishmash and into the considered problem. For example, it is stated a cosmonaut moving in the space of the universe at a velocity of light “Becomes younger and will return to the Earth when an entirely other century will come and new generations will live there”. To say the last this statement is a fantastic delusion.
It must not be forgotten that any biological system (and such ones are found only on the Earth) can initiate and develop under certain conditions: temperature, pressure, chemical composition of a surrounding medium similar to terrestrial one. For example, water as an indispensable condition of the development of a living organism. Is in liquid state only on the Earth. We call all this an ecological environment of dwelling. Biological systems perish in all other cases of great deviations of norms.
A cosmonaut in the hermetically closed space ship in space Beign a closed system. And a man himself Beign also a closed biological system inside the space ship obeys bio logical time, biological hours which are autonomous from physical time and hours, i.e. relativistic ones. Biological time will go equally both on the Earth and in the space ship at whatever external velocity the space ship would move in outer space.
A man as a self-regulating biological system consists of a whole row of entering in it subsystems (one of digestion, one of circulation of the blood, one of breathing and so on) which are united controlled by the central nervous system. If a general biological system failure occurs for some reason (i.e. that of an organism) so this failure show itself in the form of an illness of some one of subsystems in the best case, but it doesn't mean that the rest of subsystems don't take part in aspiration to eliminate the failure: all the organism takes part in the restoration of conformed action of all the subsystems. If an error is considerable then the aid is required from without (one of a doctor). Therefore it is said lately truly that a doctor must treat not for a disease but a patient, i.e. he must find reason of the failure in action of the organism, eliminated errors until all the organism, all the biosystem begins to function normally man being a biosystem forms a biopole. And this biopole comes into interaction and interrelationship (correlation) with surrounding system.
Iconic images of Holies are shown in the background of a golden aureole symbolizing radiance around the head. If one renounces religion and considers the question scientifivally so the head personifies the centre of a self-regulating biosystem radiating a biofield. The more energy power the biosystem has the more powerful the biofield radiated by the biosystem is (a radiance around the head).
Wonder-working forces able to cure are attributed to holies. And today we don't wonder at ability of private people to influence on people suffering from that or another ailment with their biopole beneficially.
When we read in the bible that god created man after his likeness so one mustn't understand literally that god like man has hands, legs, a head and so on. You know, god is “logos”, an absolute idea, and biblical expression “There was a world in the beginning, and God had a Word, and the Word was God” must ring in modern English so: “There was an Absolute idea in the beginning, and God had Absolute idea, and the Absolute idea was God”.
“All the best and perfect of the visible world is concentrated in the body of man, thous it is indeed a small in the great God's world”.
The divine and the scientific
In very ancient prehistoric times when man realized “himself”, his exclusiveness in comparison with animals around him, when he began to comprehend surroundings but had not a written language yet, there was neither science nor religion, and knowledge existed as a single whole with all superstitions and prejudices. Later when a written language appeared and man began to fix his observations (i.e. sufficiently durable carriers of information appeared), he began to attribute all the explainable to scientific knowledge and all the incomprehensible to divine origin. But the divine must be also interpreted somehow religion began engaging therin. At first science and religion lived in harmony, moreover, first discoveries were made by intellectual monaks. But with the greater and greater development of predatory instinets of the human the time of antagonism between science and religion (the church) came: nobody wanted to let have the right to own and to interpret truth. The church proved to be more aggressive, began to proclaim all the people of a different trend of thought eretics and to burn recalcitrants to death. It tried to keep flock in awe and obedience. But it was impossible “to kill” aspiration of a man to comprehend truth, science went on developing. And at the close of the twentieth centure time came when science and religion came to “consensus”, to “peaceful coexistence” as they like now to say. But however science goes on to develop successfully the unknown, the inexplicable, “the divine” for the absolute truth is bevond human
Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Alexey the Second: “...I share neither opinions of contradictoriness of religion and science nor efforts to unify them in any vague community. Both science and church serve the neighbour, serve the people.<...> We can co-operate for the creation of a society living in inner concord and harmony with surrounding nature founded on priority of morals in all actions, words and thoughts .”
Academician B.V. Rauschenbach: “Science and religion are ofter considered to be opposite, science is thought to be incompatible with religion and so forth. By the way, they don't contradict but supplement each other.<...> Therefore, preached for many years “scientific world outlook” was actually inferior and one-sided<...>”.
Nothing is said about a scheme of the universe, it is stated nowhere that the Earth is spherical, the sun and planet move around it in concentric spheres and so forth: either in Holy Writ or other authoritative sources which are the Basis of Christian religion.<...> And today scientists must be busy with their Business, i.e. they must the structure and the evolution of the Universe and the church must use achievements of science in those cases when it needs this but it mustn't meddle with a scientific aspect of the question essentially”
Summing up i should like to emphasize following relative truths in today's world outlook:
There is no rest in the Universe: everything is in motion;
there is no straight-line uniform motion in the Universe;
there are no planes, no straight lines in the Universe;
the ideal form of the material body is a sphere;
when moving a body gets the most stable position when it rotates around its axis;
motion of material points in the universe occurs iside of systems;
momentum of a material point inside of the nearest separately taken system is formed of the rotation of this point around its axis and he revolution of it around the rotating centre of the centre of the system;
every system of rotation and revolving material points enters in the greater system;
time is relative: a time second and a second of arc which is constant are interrelated;
all the mathematical body of physics of the Universe is based on 2 fundamentall quantites: π=3,1416... и √2=1,41...;
infinity(∞) is a movement of a material point in orbit the rotating centre moving on a spiral path;
the universe is unbounded...
Instead of afterword
«Common sense and the Universe» is the title of the essay of the known Canadian humorist and learned economist Stiven Leacock (1869 – 1944) who worked with Rutherford at the Mare Gill University. Let us quote extracts from this essay written in the book “Physicists go on joking” (M.,1968)
“Speaking at the annual meeting of the American association of assistance of the development of science in December, 1941 <...> the professor of the observatory Mount Willson (California) Edwin Hubble declared with satisfied look that the Universe didn't dilate it was really a god piece of news if not public at large which had no reason to suspect that the Universe didn't dilate at all so for those of us at least who humbly” to keep an eye on the development of science” <...>
<...> But joy given us by the professor Hubble becomes moderate because of some – doubts and thoughts... We dilate today, we contract tomorrow ; at first we feel unhappy in non-Euclidean, closed space, then this noose is loosened and loosened entirely <...> So we have a right to ask: “Whatever, is the matter? Where are we? ” And Einstein answers this question: “Nowhere, because there in no place at all where we could be.”
<...> Let us take a story about the famous second law of thermodynamics, this damnation of inexorable fate which dooms all the Universe (or all life in the Universe at least) to death from cold.
This famous prediction was done by the French physicist Nicolo Karno first in 1821.
He proved all the bodies on the Universe to change their temperature, hot bodies to get cold, and cold bodies to get hot. So they equalize their temperature. It is all the same that one divides a rich inheritance into equal parts between all poor relatives; general destitution will be as a result. World space cold must cover us in the end as well.
True, a ray of hope appeared when Ernst Rutherford and other scientists discovered radio-activity...
Some small vaguenesses are left, for example the question of what space and matter, time and life are in fact.
And moreover, there was something strange mysterical in electricity which was neither simply nor a fable. There was else a strange riddle about “an action at a distance” and electricity redoubled it only. How does gravity only reach sun form the Earth? If there is nothing in space so how does the light fly to us from the sun for 8 minutes and even from Sirius for 8 years? Even discovery of “ether”, such universal jelly on which there are waves, ripples and trembling didn't save science from some unconvincing arguments.
And all the building began falling to the ground just on the threshold of the 20-th century.
(And the same picture is today, on the threshold of the 21-st century.-L.K.)
Works on nuclear physics by Rutherford mustn't be confused with theory of space and time which Einstein created. Rutherford referred to Einstein never in life.
One day (it was in 1923, Einstein's world-wide glory was in the heyday) I asked Rutherford what he thought of theory of relativity. “Ah, nonsense!” - he answered- “It isn't necessary for our work!”
The brilliant scientists, sir Arthur Eddington who treated space and time like a poet (even his thoughts of gravitation are pierced with humour: he says that a man falling in the lift down from 20-th floor has an ideal opportunity to study gravity), sir Arthur Eddington applauded most loudly of all. According to him it's impossible at all to come to know the particulars without this curvature in space. We creed through our space like a fly through a globe, the fly thinking the globe to be plane. The secrets of gravitation perplex us (I don't mean those few lucky men whom opportunity was offered) to fall with the lift down from the 20-th floor. But the revelation condescended also to them too late, and the revelation is following: we don't fall down at all but curse simply)<...> Sir Isaac Newton would say yawning: “Ah, you are talking about that apple, and perhaps, it didn't fall down at all, did it?”
The physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951) thought the idea of attribution of nature laws to human wit to be a crying example of human arrogance. As if nature laws begin existing only after “discovery” of that or another law by some scientist. There were many cases in history of science when already discovered “law” was to be closed down, for example just that Ptolomeus's geocentrical system.
When the young lines “by Sommefeld expressed the venerable scientist his enthusiastic impression about this work sommerfeld answered: “Physics studied by you is a subject of the past. It has changed entirely for 5 years since my book was written.”
Sommerfeld explained that “preceding laws” proved to be unsatisfactory. They weren't logically associated with each other and with other physical and were no more than a set of unaesthetic empirical rules of calculation.
People's liking for “confering” Nature's laws (the creator's laws!) proper names (“Coulomb's law”, “Newton'law”) is ineradicable, unfortunately.
Quite another matter is benefit laws of Nature.
When Britain's premier asked Michael Pharaday how it was possible to use his discoveries in electricity and magnetism the latter answered he didn't know but he was sure that on one fine day that would be taxed.
When E.Rutherford was asked about Benefit of discovery of the atomic nucleus he answered: “What Benefit is form a wen-Born child?”
When Paul Deerac wrote his equation which predicted the existence of the positron he suspected nohow in 1929 that hospitals of all the world would spend huge sums to by positron scanning homographs.