Below I give a short excerpt from the future novel, which tells about the different ways and at what cost the characters come to understand the true state of things in our world and what they decide to do next with this understanding. The excerpt was written on behalf of one of the two main characters - an Italian of Irish descent, who serves as a courier for an influential "mafioso" and just because of the urgency of "delivery" made his way from Rome to Sydney and back in a matter of minutes inside a vessel, which he takes for "Flying saucer". When he asks the boss, he only smiles: “Technology is not for everyone. I have no idea what they are using there. Something magnetic, it seems. Commoners call these aircraft UFOs. An expensive pleasure so far, but you could see for yourself how effective, if necessary. And the best part is that there are no aliens. "This out of the ordinary event "launches" a series of reflections of the hero about technology as such and leads to the following:
You've probably noticed that like is attracted to like in our life: it is worth thinking about something hard, as if from nowhere - or from everywhere - we begin to receive additional information. It seems that there is even such a proverb: ask a question and get an answer. Here is the Bible about the same: “seek and find”. After the story with the flying saucer, I began to think about the technologies known and unknown to us, which led me first to the question "What do we actually know?", Which in turn led to the question "How do we know what we know?" … An uncomplicated thought process led me to the conclusion that most of our "knowledge" we get not so much through our own experience as from books, films, news and, of course, textbooks. This knowledge is given to us in the full sense of the word. It remains to find out what kind of knowledge this is and whether it is possible to rely on it. I have already spoken about the historical tale with the passage of elephants through the Alps. Now an even more obvious heresy has turned up. Once I was sitting in a hotel room, out of habit, waiting for something, and out of nothing to do, I watched TV. The news was about the upcoming total solar eclipse. They discussed, discussed, and in the end a certain professor with a clever air clarified that not all inhabitants of the Earth will be able to see it: the shadow from the Moon will pass in a narrow strip 205 kilometers wide across the Pacific Ocean, cross the United States diagonally and end in the middle of the Atlantic. The news presenter was upset for all the inhabitants of Europe, and the professor only threw up his hands - nature has its own laws. His mention of the laws stunned me. If he had not said about them, I, together with millions of TV viewers, would have taken what was said into consideration and, perhaps, would have been upset no less than the presenter. But he said. It was evening and several lamps were on in my room. I unscrewed the cap from the bottle, turned off all lights except for the lampshade on the ceiling and brought the cap to the wall. A round shadow was clearly visible on the wallpaper. I began to move the lid further away from the wall, and the shadow began to grow in size and fade. I got a shadow equal in size to the cover only when I almost pressed it against the wallpaper. I didn't manage to get a shadow smaller than the lid. But the Moon has only one radius equal to 1,737 kilometers. That is, the area of this natural "cover" must be no less than 1,737 x 2 = 3,474 kilometers. This is 17 times more than the 205 kilometers wide of the shadow mentioned in the news. But if science should be confirmed by experiments, then where is the experiment that could provethat from a two-centimeter cover on the wall you can get a shadow 12 millimeters wide? This question turned me on so much that I was not too lazy to go to the local library in the morning and rummage through astronomical reference books with beautiful, and most importantly, simple drawings. We managed to find out the following. It turns out that scientists explained the small size of the moon's shadow by the fact that they drew a large Sun next to it and sent rays from its edges, resulting in a cone with a top on the Earth's round belly. What?! Is it when these rays of light go in a conical shape and come together? Literally on the next page of the reference book there was a visual drawing with the experience of the legendary Eratosthenes, who, they say, was the first to measure the size of the Earth, and there the rays of the Sun fell on his sticks perfectly parallel. Actually, the rays of light in all diagrams are depicted in parallel. This is probably correct. True,if you look at the light from the lantern in the evening, you can see that the rays do not gather in a cone, do not run in parallel, but actually diverge in different directions, like a fan. By the way, if I am a complete idiot, and "science" is right, then how can scientists explain that the law of their cone-shaped rays does not work in the case of the shadow of the Earth? Well, judge for yourself: when we observe a total lunar eclipse, the surface of the Moon is completely covered by the shadow of the Earth. Completely! But if they are right with the shadow of the Moon on the Earth, which is only 205 kilometers wide, then simple mathematics should be puzzling to them: the Earth is only four times larger than the Moon, which means that its shadow should be 205 x 4 = 820 kilometers wide, then there is a large, but a speck on the silvery lunar side. However, this is not observed, and scientists do not explain this oddity in any way. Probably,because no one just asks them properly …
I left the library that day as a different person. In the example, considered above, a generally simple example, the whole depth of lies was revealed to me, into which what is called "science" immerses us and that is designed to lead to the light, and not doom to live in the darkness of stupidity. Although, if you look at it, then everything is completely correct and incomprehensible only to those who do not know how to bring disparate points of information into a single meaningful picture. After all, who brings knowledge to humanity, who brings light? Lightbringer. That is Lucifer [1]. He's Satan. He's the devil. And if so, then the price and nature of the knowledge brought by him are obvious: they only throw a fog on real things and help us not to find the right path, but to get lost.
Struck by such an obvious discovery, I looked into the sections of "science" that seemed familiar to me from school and found there all the same, to put it mildly, double standards. For example, the theory of universal gravitation was just so called - a theory, but in fact, all celestial mechanics were substituted for it, explaining, in particular, why the Moon is held near the Earth, the Earth - near the Sun, etc. However, it was worth asking the question “why the Sun, being much larger than the Earth, does not“tear off”the Moon from it and does not attract to itself,” formulas immediately appeared explaining to us, the laymen, that in fact everything is not at all so. Here's a quote from a popular astronomy magazine, not to go far:
“You might be surprised, but the sun attracts the moon 2.5 times more than the earth. And this fact can be confirmed by a simple calculation available to the student. Why, then, does the sun not pull the moon off the earth? In theoretical astronautics, the concept of the sphere of action of the body M1 relative to the body M2 is used. This is an area of space around the body M1, in which the third body m moves freely in accordance with the task of two bodies, and the body M2 has only a disturbing effect on this movement. It is expressed in the fact that the body M2 tends to break the gravitational connection between the bodies m and M1, giving them different accelerations - corresponding to their distances to M2. Inside the sphere of action of body M1, the difference between the accelerations of bodies m and M1, imparted to them by body M2, is less than the acceleration of body m in the gravitational field of body M1. Therefore, the body M2 cannot tear the body m away from the body M1. Let the body M1 be the Earth,body M2 is the Sun, and body m is the Moon. Simple calculations show that the maximum DIFFERENCE between the accelerations of the Moon and the Earth created by the Sun is 90 times less than the average acceleration of the Moon relative to the Earth. The diameter of the sphere of action of the Earth is only 1 million kilometers, but the distance of the Moon from the Earth is even less - 0.38 million kilometers, i.e. The moon is within the sphere of action of the earth relative to the sun. Therefore, the Sun does not detach the Moon from the Earth, but only deforms its orbit. "Therefore, the Sun does not detach the Moon from the Earth, but only deforms its orbit. "Therefore, the Sun does not detach the Moon from the Earth, but only deforms its orbit."
That is, in fact, in theory, it attracts two and a half times more, but the Moon does not fly away from us, so here's another theoretical reasoning that you hardly understand, because you did not graduate from special institutes, but we graduated, trust us and don't worry. And why, by the way, does the Earth attract anything at all? Is the mass large? Yes, that's what Newton said. Good. There is a skyscraper nearby, large and massive. What does he attract to him? Nothing. If you drop a feather from its roof, for some reason it will not stick to the wall. But the Earth has such a powerful attraction that it simultaneously holds trillions of tons [2] of the world's oceans and the lightest layers of the atmosphere. But if so,then why does she simultaneously refuse to hold a balloon filled with helium or a whole balloon? Because helium or hot air is lighter? Easier than what? Lighter than denser layers of the atmosphere? But then the question is not about attraction, but only about density. At the same time, neither the water nor the atmosphere fly up anywhere, they are held, and the butterfly flies away. Why? If the laws of gravitation are precisely the laws, and not a theory in which the principle of selectivity reigns, then either the Earth should stick to the Sun and roll on it, or we should all fly around the Earth without touching it with our feet. Is not it? Then "science" urgently comes up with a theory of the "structure of the Earth", which cannot but be a theory, since no one physically penetrated it deeper than 12 kilometers [3]. In the center of the globe, in all textbooks, children are shown a certain "core". This is it, they tell us,and has the properties of a powerful magnet. As a child, I did not argue, but now I want to ask: why then does an ordinary compass not point to the center of the earth? I leave the question open and read on. It turns out, according to the theory of scientists, the Earth's core consists of an iron-nickel alloy. Let's admit. The core temperature is either set or calculated (science is silent about this) and is 5,960 degrees Celsius plus or minus 500. Great, but then we open the chemistry textbook and we are surprised to learn that the most refractory metal is vanadium. To turn it into a liquid, you need to heat it up - attention - up to 3 420 degrees of the same Celsius. So, we draw a conclusion, in fact, the earth's core is molten metal. Then we look again at a physics textbook and learn with surprise that metals have magnetic properties only in a solid state:if melted, these properties are lost. So how can the molten earth's core attract something to itself? "Science" is modestly silent.
[1] Lucifer "luminiferous", from lux "light" + fero "carry" (lat.)
Promotional video:
[2] A measure invented by the author that replaces the "scientific" figure of 1.422 x 1018 tons.
[3] This refers to the Kola superdeep borehole with a depth of 12,262 meters and a diameter of 21.5 cm in the lower part.