Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy showed that the state of a system cannot be measured exactly and so its future behavior cannot be predicted accurately. Only the probabilities of the different egresses can be forecast. This very element of chance is what troubled Einstein so much. He refused to accept that the laws of physics cannot make an unambiguous and exact prediction of what may happen. But, no matter how we express it, the proof is this: the quantum phenomena and the principle of indeterminacy are inevitable and they are observed in every branch of physics.
Stephen Hawking
“In nature there are no variations only if we haven’t looked for any.” /The resonance-isomorphic principle, K. Tomov/
And a little bit more:
“In 1905 Einstein taught the physicists that time and space were not independent concepts, but the two parts of an indivisible whole, the space-time.” /Life in science, M. White, D. Gribin/.
As a matter of fact, something, which due to lack of a better definition is compared to the flight of an arrow, suggests the notion of a long straight line with beginning and end. The problem is that this line wouldn’t look quite in place in a picture, painted solely with the help of the complex and varying curves of space and matter. These were the notions that provoked my thoughts, which I will describe below.
First, let us imagine that the whole Universe appears and disappears, and that is how it has been, and that is how it will be forever. We can try, can’t we? Or, as Isak Azimov says: “We have no reasons to believe that this is not the way it is.” /The gravity collapse of the Universe/.
Why? Because we cannot even approach such a phenomenon with our senses. We couldn’t see it, since our eyes vanish with the world. There is no device, no matter how precise and sensitive, that would measure it, due to the same reasons. We don’t know for how long we are “here”, “somewhere”, or, better say, “nowhere”. In other words, according to our notions, the time between the intervals and the intervals themselves, when talking about an outside observer, could be a part of a second or of million years.
However, one thing is for sure:
Every time we’re “here”, we are different; i.e. a change has been made.
And one more thing, which, for the time being, we will claim to be true:
The difference between two close intervals is the smallest possible change.
This sounds almost absurd, since it would mean that when we are “here” we will be, generally speaking, absolutely immovable, then we will be “nowhere”, then “here” again, but changed. In other words, every particle changes its position, but the way it goes is the shortest possible. Like in movies. The film rolls, the frames change twenty-four times per second. But when we watch it we don’t notice the frame change, because the eyes, which otherwise do a fine job, are quite imperfect. In fact, we, like the movie characters, move “in frames”, but it seems, that our frames are a lot more. It can be showed as follows:
(fig. 1)
The appearances are showed as dots. That follows from the second conclusion. In this perspective, it means that THERE IS NO MOTION IN THE UNIVERSE. But how is that, if everything is moving? This necessitates the definition of two basic systems /levels/, which depend solely on each other. The first is presented by any of the dots on fig. 1. It obeys no laws of movement. It sets these laws by its strictly fixed geometrical structure. The accumulated energy is released as an impulse /interval/, after which the next state of balance occurs /dot/. The second system consists of all subsequent phases of the first, or:
Time is not a phenomenon, which simply depends on the speed of movement; it is movement itself.
Let us imagine a clock. It’s a device, which shows us the time. It has a spring, which drives the cogwheels and their rotating speed is set by a specific anchor-like mechanism. Every clock in the world is set in such a way, that the hand, which shows the seconds, makes one full round for exactly one minute. The concepts of second, minute, hour and so on are defined by a certain system of measurements and describe a certain quantity of time. Defined by us. If the clock starts moving faster or slower we'd say it’s broken and we'd take it to a watchmaker. But the more interesting case is when we want to make it work at a different speed.
We know there are no immovable things. One would say “Every night my car is absolutely motionless out there in the car-park”. I would remind him that his car isn’t just moving, but it spins around the earth’s axis at about 30 km/sec. The Earth, on its behalf, moves around the Sun, which is a part of a galaxy, called the Milky Way, which, on its behalf, spins as well and even moves in a specific direction In space. God knows what the direction of the car’s movement is at any time, as well as the total velocity of all the movements, but it is not so difficult to guess that it’s enormous. From now on, if we want to slow down our clock, we will have to listen to Einstein and accelerate it at a speed close to that of light in relation to our system. And if our arguments until now are correct, it will appear and disappear less times, than it will if it is motionless in relation to the Earth. The opposite case makes sense too. The conclusion is rather important and it has to be mentioned. The Universe does not appear and disappear at one and the same time, like the fluctuations /let us name them so/ of every single body are defined by its speed in relation to the absolute zero speed. The following can be concluded:
Time is change and depends on the frequency of the fluctuations, concerning a certain fragment of space.
We know that time is defined by movement. So:
The length of the intervals defines space and depends on energy. Their number for a certain fragment of space defines time. Both variables depend on the velocity. Let us call the ratio between them a time ratio /KB/. A 'ratio', since it will be a variable with a certain minimum and maximum critical value of speed.
Here, “critical speed” doesn’t mean a “speed limit”. It solely means those limitations which concern the realization of a certain condition, e.g. the Universe we know.
If we define speed not as a distance, covered for a certain time, but as a frequency of vibrations that depend on the energy of movement for a certain fragment of space /lower frequency, higher speed/, we will see that it will be the definition of time, i.e.:
Time equals the speed in relation to the absolute zero speed.
Now, we can build a coordinate system where X is time-speed, beginning at zero, and Y is the time ratio.
(fig. 2)
The curve represents the Universe. A certain part of it represents the Universe that we know /observe/, i.e. we cannot observe other parts directly. If we move a point from any part of the curve to the left we’ll have the Einstein’s picture, which we will be able to predict, using the time ratio. And if we try to play a bit, sooner or later we will come across such misunderstandings as Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy. As far as the speed of light is concerned, yes, it is constant, but only if we consider it from a certain part of the curve, i.e. we can assume that C is the difference between the different speed of the movements. The meaning of the rest of the constant values, i.e. the absolute zero /temperature/, the relation of weight to volume /density/, etc., is similar.
The b intervals, defined by the energy of the movement, do not imply a smooth change in their values. So, the curve on fig.2 is a sequence of lines, parallel to x. Their length is in a direct proportion to KB. The distance between them in the curve, described in the terms of space, is in an inverse proportion to KB /and if it refers to the weight of the objects /bodies/, do we have the reason to doubt its change?/.
In order to examine the curve and especially its beginning and end, it’s already time to make an attempt to describe the mechanism of the vibrations. We know that the elementary particles consist of quarks and that the interaction between them is carried out by gluons. Let this be our starting point. The problem is, that a single quark cannot be traced during the usual observations /accelerator-particle/ and, as we will see later, it will never be traced. Why is that so?
Let us imagine that the whole space /the ether/ consists of gluons with absolute zero speed, placed at one and the same distance to each other, like in crystal structures. In this case what should quarks do? They have to “associate” with each other to make a particle round a certain gluon and then, following their movement, they will have to “dissociate” and move to the next one /fig. 3/. The number of the gluons passed depends on the energy, shown by the time ratio, and on the fact whether there are gluons, occupied with other quarks or not /important/.
KB can be shown as: 
, where 
is the distance between two neighbouring gluons and 
is the number of intervals /vibrations, matter frequency/.
(fig.3)
Since there is power that makes quarks associate with each other round a certain gluon, it will as well deprive them of some of their motion energy when they pass different gluons. In other words, the question about the first law of mechanics stays open. If we follow all our arguments it turns out that every “independent” object moves with constant deceleration, i.e. the time ratio comes to zero. It must be underlined, that if a time ratio comes to zero, it is increased to the maximum KB: 
, which is the beginning of the curve, where х1 is the lowest possible speed /fig. 2/. What would happen to such an object? The energy of the movement decreases gradually and at a certain moment the object will transform into a different kind of matter for zero time and this new matter I would call matter of first kind. This mechanism follows the attraction between quarks and gluons. And so a new factor must be added – the rotation of the objects.
In how many directions can a body rotate? And what is the minimum number of directions which is enough for it to exist in the matter we know, which obeys the gravity laws? Answer: at least two, /and maybe even more/, round the intersection of the rotation axes. The beauty and the importance of the rotation comes from the fact that, no matter how insignificant the difference between the centre and the periphery speed is, it still exists; i.e. having occupied certain gluons, some of the particles have the chance to affect others while they “don’t exist”, increasing the route of their quarks in space and we can add a certain factor, responding to the minimum number of the revolutions and depending on the KB. I think it won’t be too daring to say:
Gravity is not force, but a phenomenon that follows from the rotation of the objects.
/see the part on Gravity/
It means that each object, which stops moving, will transform into super-dense matter, i.e. all neighbouring gluons will be occupied. /And what if it does not stop, but continues rotating quickly enough?/. The object would obtain the absolute zero speed – time, absolute density, with no relation to gravity.
Every object bound to another in a system keeps the rotation of the whole, since the attraction between them is carried out at an angle, defined by the each object’s rotation, i.e. each system may be considered a single object.
About the right part of the scheme.
At a certain moment and a certain speed, the KB will become zero, i.e. within the framework of a certain space fragment the energy of the movement exceeds the energy of quarks-gluons attraction, or, in other words, we’ll have zero intervals. From a mathematical point of view, that would be the death of the matter and it probably is. On the other hand, it is a factor defined by the choice of the length of a certain line, proportionate to the distance between two neighbouring gluons. So, KB is transformed into: 
, where 
is the number of subsequent lines of space, which are enough for 
.
KB cannot equal zero outside the beginning of the coordinate system.
LEVELS OF REFLECTION
and the principle of indeterminacy
Let us divide the Universe into parts or, better say, levels of reflection. At the first level we study everything from the elementary particles and downwards; at the second - the elementary particles plus everything else – atoms, molecules, apples, /every neither living, nor dead cats as well/, stars, etc., or:
- first level - movement;
- second level - interactions and the total lack of movement, concerning the elementary particles, i.e. an electron is an electron only when it exists and that doesn’t apply to the first level. The interactions, which define the powers we know, are states of matter at the right part of fig. 2, applied to the left /as a consequence of the rotation of the objects/;
- third level – a total of subsequent second level states; the difference between them is the smallest possible change;
In other words, the phenomenon of the apple, falling over the Newton’s head, might be considered only at the third level of reflection. At the second we would have to study billions of apples, hanging over billion Newtons. And what about the first? At the first level of reflection there are neither Newtons, nor apples, nor problems; there are only quarks and gluons.
THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTION
The position of the occupied gluons in a certain line /proportionate to the distance of two neighbouring gluons/ is very important. Whether it’s there, where the quarks will gather, or it lies on their way.
In the first case, deceleration or impact will occur, depending on that, whether the gluon is occupied at that moment or the quarks, that have occupied it, are leaving, or they are at a stable, balanced state. The geometrical position defines the direction and the action – bouncing, dissociation /annihilation/, deceleration, acceleration. In this way, transformation into another kind of particle may occur /e.g. p into µ/. In the second case, displacement in space, and KB respectively, without a change in its value, will occur.
This principle, /perhaps we would not be mistaken if we call it the principle of proportion/, would be appropriate in describing and interpreting such phenomena as transparency of the objects, the tunnel effect, the wave function, the photo effect, the chemical and mechanical solutions and reactions, i.e. the colour, even the smell and the taste of a certain chemical substance might be predicted, the diffusion, the Brown movement, the diffraction of light, the adiabatic processes, radioactivity, as well as all the others, I cannot think of now, or, in other words, the whole Universe.
THE TOTAL PERSPECTIVE VORTEX
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Following the principle of proportion, we can ask a question, that definitely will drive Leon Letherman mad /when talking about The dancing masters of Mu-Shu/, and this, I admit, will give me much pleasure, especially if this quant-abuse of mine turns out to be quant-pleasing. And so – are there any parallel worlds? If we follow our arguments, we could see that the answer to that question might be found in the very beginning of this paper. It only has to be stated /as far as we can manage with it/. The only thing that can be said for now is this: the number of the parallel dimensions is in an inverse proportion to the KB. Fig. 4 is the final variant of fig. 2, where Z shows the number of the possible dimensions, but there are no guarantees that all that is mathematically assumed will exist physically.
(fig. 4)
Each dimension can be described by a KB curve, identical to that on fig. 2 with a corresponding beginning. Theoretically, the dimensions extrapolated one over another in a 2D coordinate system, for a certain value of KB, will be at the shortest possible distance from each other /fig. 5/. And that’s exactly the distance between two neighbouring gluons. Their number depends on the lowest possible value of KB, if there are limits at all. A certain distinction between parallel dimensions and other dimensions should be made. In the first case, we examine different curves with a common beginning. In the second case, we examine different parts of the curve on fig. 2.
Parallel dimensions
The distance, expressed with the space between two subsequent states of movement of a certain object or an elementary particle, examined at the second level of reflection, is, in fact, a line with occupied gluons at its beginning and end and free gluons at its extensions. The length of this line depends on KB in an inverse proportion. The free gluons can be occupied by the quarks of another object or particle without interacting with each other, i.e. they are not observed directly one next to the other /fig. 5/. At a KB, which equals or is very close to one, the parallel dimensions intersect, i.e. they have a common beginning.
(fig. 5)
Other dimensions
Objects or particles with a different KB are characterized by different distances between two subsequent states at the second level of reflection. And so, they are not observed directly one next to the other. Intersections /interactions and disturbances of the principle of proportion/ are possible at certain proportions of the lines’ length. The areas of intersection /fig. 6/ are the reason why, for example, we observe the light and, better say, its quanting, wave length and diffraction.
(fig. 6)
Quarks and gluons
It's important to be mentioned, that, when I use the word "gluon" here, I don't guarantee that it is the right term or the right particle. My very aim here is to create a model for reflection, in which the names don't matter. The gluon-quarks scheme is rather an exemplary model, too.
What we agreed that is true so far, is indeed very difficult to be believed in. I explained it to myself in this way: the gluons consist of at least three particles, arranged and connected to each other like in the water molecule. One of the particles attracts the quarks /if it is some kind of power, it lies in the basis of a force that we know/. The other two particles carry negative and positive electrical charge. Their never stopping rotation provides them with the preservation of the same distances, i.e. with the lack of "pressure". We cannot explain the reason of their initial rotation, but we can suppose that the Universe has an end and its boundaries are the gatherings of gluons, like the water molecules in a drop of water at zero gravity.
In fact, this, even as a supposition, is silly enough and it would save us a lot of energy if we leave this problem for now. On the other hand, the nature of such gluon gatherings raises certain questions, which have to be answered. Is their volume likely to change and if it is, does it increase?
If the answers to these questions are positive, then we should revert to the statement that each "independent" object moves with constant deceleration. But if we assume that the Universe has a beginning, like the forming of some kind of a gluon heap, likely to disperse, the quarks-gluons and particles-bodies interactions make their movements relative. Or:
Each independent object moves with a constant deceleration in relation to the first law of mechanics and with a constant acceleration in relation to the dispersion of the gluon heap.
The two statements have no relation to each other and they do not depend on each other. However, the term itself, the gluon heap, presupposes that the lowest KB value still has its limits, set by the limits of the volume.
Whether the gluons are comparatively immovable in relation to each other or they "disperse", does not mean that the whole gathering is not moving in the tremendously infinite, infinitely tremendous, dimensionlessly spaceless, speck-like void. If this is so, the term absolute zero speed will turn out to be a temporary term – infinite from all points of view.
Mr. Adams, your "total perspective vortex" is actually working.
The comparison seems enough to me. And still the inevitable question is: is there any reason for the lack of other similar gatherings and what has God to do with all this? A lot, we can answer the last one, but perhaps it's time to move His throne somewhere else.
However, the number of similar gatherings is maybe infinite – an infinite number of "eggs" moving at infinite speeds out of time which are likely to make an impact and thus start a new Universe. But this, for now, is beyond our reach.
GRAVITY
An object at the second level of reflection /interactions and a total lack of movement/ leads, following the arguments so far, to disturbances in the geometrical structure or, in other words, in the homogeneity of the near gluons /outside the object/. This presupposes the formation of particular "gluon vortexes", as a result of the inertia, if we assume, that the gluon heap is moving in the VOID. The vortexes lead to a twisting of space, obtain considerable differences in the distances between neighbouring gluons in relation to the rest in the heap. It's a statement that excludes gravity. Every subsequent state of the object at the second level of reflection moves the vortexes radially round itself as a result of the rotation. If we examine the same object under the conditions of the third level of reflection we will come across to, what we are used to call, the gravity field.
Areas, that contain gluon vortexes, change the common KB of an intersecting object /deformity/ or: 
, where 
is a factor that sets the difference in the distances between the neighbouring gluons. It depends on the mass and the velocity of a certain object or a system of different objects. The mass is defined by the inertia as a result of the gluons "catching" quarks. So, the extent of the gravity force and the amount of mass should depend on the speed of movement in an inverse proportion, i.e. the amount of mass decreases but not increases, as it is in accordance with the Relativity theory. However, the problem with anti-gravity can be defined and therefore solved.
A section of the gravity field
It is defined mainly by two factors. The total direction of the object's movement and the direction of dispersion of the gluon heap. If we examine the section in one plane at the third level of reflection, its shape will be roughly the one shown on fig. 7. The 
factor will be different at different points of the section. The shape changes as a result of each object's orbital movement. The mess becomes complete, when the deformity of the object as a result of the interaction with foreign gluon vortexes is included as well.
(fig. 7)
ELECTRONS
It is believed, that they, like the rest of the lepton family, are indivisible matter /do not contain any other particles/. If this is true, everything, that has been said till now, will make no sense. This, of course, is not out of question, but still there are enough examples of an electron's behavior, that imply its divisibility. On the other hand, that is not so important in terms of this hypothesis.
In my opinion, the probability interpretation of the wave function works, but it is not important, since it is a look at the Universe, concerning only the third level of reflection. Not to mention that "God doesn't play dice" /A. Einstein/.
Using the standard model of the atom, but abandoning the accepted laws and arguments, with the risk to finally discredit myself, I believe that the state of a certain macro-system is identified mainly with the state of the nucleus. The argument is that the electron covers a considerably greater distance in space than the atom itself, which leads to differences in the KB values /or, perhaps, identical values with different "tension" as a result of the forced interactions/. It can be assumed, that the nucleus' and the electron's existences differ to some extent, i.e. the nucleus and the electron affect each other, concerning the directions of interactions /vector interactions/. In other words, they play hide-and-seek and catch-me forever. The atom model with defining speed and direction of motion is the result of their play. The electron wouldn't move in a circle. If we could examine the motion of the atom's particles in space it would follow the trajectory of the twisted spiral of the DNA. By the way, this analogy makes me question myself about the relation between the DNA and astrology. But that's another subject.
In my opinion, the differences between the nucleus' and the electron's existence are the reason of the misunderstanding, called leptons.
MOLECULES
Following the model, described above, the vector interactions are determinant both in the atom system itself and the system of several atoms, which forms a molecule. Where the nucleus of one atom interacts electro-magnetically with the electrons of another atom. Here, again we see the principle of proportion.
ZERO OBJECTS AND SUPER-NOVAS
The matter of the first kind – it obtains absolute zero speed, i.e. it lacks free gluons within its volume, zero time, zero gravity /or one-way gravity, depending on the direction of dispersion of the gluon heap/, absolute density, absolute transperancy. Such an object cannot be hit or touched by another /particle/, since it will pass right through it and the energy of the quarks-gluons attraction will transform completely into kinetic energy. Depending on the volume of the zero object and the KB of the moving body, the latter in no time will receive a new, considerably lower KB or it will move to another dimension, or both – teleportation.
Moreover, it's important that we have in mind the size of the show, if we succeed in the experiment of "pushing" such a zero object. We would have to look for it somewhere far on the right part of the KB curve. The same will happen, I guess, if the moving object is big enough and the energy transformed is greater than the Zero energy, i.e. at a certain proportion between the zero object's volume, the mass and the KB of the moving object.
STARS
Let us examine an object that has "decided" to become a star. As a result of the gravity, somewhere at the intersection of the rotation axes the pressure is big enough to disarrange the fixed geometrical structure of matter. As a result the principle of proportion is broken to such extent, that the teleportation of matter at the shortest distance to a neighbouring area in the object itself, where the density is not so high, becomes possible. The so moved matter, keeping its parameters at the moment of materialization, can break the principle of proportion in a certain area. A chain reaction is started, not at nuclear level, but at quarks level where the powers are much bigger, i.e. we cannot expect to run out of star fuel. The losses of the matter are different types of radiation, defined by the principle of proportion at the moment of their formation /they are set by the KB, the rotation speed, the pressure, which depends on the mass and the radius/, i.e. it can be assumed, that at different points of the object's radius different waves /radiations/ occur.
Having in mind the level of the processes in stars it can be assumed, that these are objects that exist in more than one dimensions, i.e. in our solar system the number of the planets may be bigger.
BLACK HOLES
If a certain object obtains the common features of a black hole, it inevitably would "ignite" and continue its life but as a star. But in such case, why should a star bother itself to collapse, i.e. there are no black holes, except next to Shroedinger's cat. The objects that we describe as black holes are in fact nothing more than bodies with a KB close to one.
MATTER AND LIGHT
If we consider the zero object as matter of the First kind, the moving objects – as matter of the Second, we could consider light as matter of the Third kind, situated far in the right part of the scheme.
We have already assumed, that all of the moving objects move with a constant deceleration as a result of the "friction" with the gluons /which surely keeps each object's own temperature, that depend on the density and the KB, which means that the Earth will never grow cold/. The particles, that form the matter of the Secong kind, consist of three quarks and the photon - of two. Therefore, it can be supposed, that at a KB which is low enough the matter will "lose" a certain quark /?/, i.e. at a KB which is low enough each object disperses into photons, if we examine it from our part of the curve. It is interesting, what will happen if we succeed in slowing down the speed of light and examine the "filling" of the photons with quarks. In other words – spectral alchemy.
INDEX
of the used terms
gluons – I use this word with the very aim to create a model for reflection, in which the names don't matter. The gluon-quarks scheme is rather an exemplary model, too;
gluon heap – gathering of gluons that form the Universe we know within the boundaries of their volume;
gluon vortexes - as a result of the object's inertia under the conditions of the second level of reflection gluon vortexes are formed that obtain considerable differences in the distances between neighbouring gluons in relation to the rest in the heap. They are situated radially as a result of the rotation of the objects. It might me described as a twisting of space;
gravity – phenomenon, in which areas containing gluon vortexes change the common KB of the intersecting object or: 
, where 
is a factor that sets the difference in the distances between the neighbouring gluons;
critical speed limits – those limitations which concern the realization of a certain condition, e.g. the Universe we know;
certain fragment of space – proportionate to the distance between two neighbouring gluons;
principle of time saving – similar to the principle of energy saving and an inevitable consequence of everything we've said;
areas of intersection – proportionately intersecting points between different areas of the KB curve that fix the interactions in the powers /phenomena/ we know;
time ratio /KB/ - The length of the intervals defines space and depends on energy. Their number for a certain fragment of space defines time. Both variables depend on speed. The KB is the ratio between them. Or: 
, where 
is the distance between two neighbouring gluons and 
is the number of intervals /vibrations, matter frequency/. The KB cannot equal zero outside the coordinate system;
principle of proportion – all distances in the Cosmos are proportionate to the distance between two neighbouring gluons, all interactions obey the geometrical structure of gluons' arrangement and whether they are occupied;
matter – three functions that describe matter and form the features of the KB curve /fig. 2/ can be deduced:
§ matter of the first kind – zero matter, obtaining absolute zero speed, i.e. it lacks free gluons within its volume, zero time, zero gravity /or one-way gravity, depending on the direction of dispersion of the gluon heap/, absolute density, absolute transperancy, or: 
;
§ matter of the second kind - 
;
§ matter of the third kind – light or: 
, where 
is the number of subsequent fragments of space, enough for 
;
tremendously infinite, infinitely tremendous, dimensionlessly spaceless, speck-like void – or the NOTHING;
teleportation – unforced – the way of particles/bodies between two subsequent states at the second level of reflection, when the first law of mechanics is kept; forced – under any other condition defined by breaking the principle of proportion like: moving in time, moving in space, other dimension, parallel dimension;
levels of reflection – it's more a philosophical notion, which suggests division of the point of view, where:
§ first level – motion;
§ second level - interactions and the total lack of movement, concerning the elementary particles;
§ third level - a total of subsequent second level states; the difference between them is the smallest possible change;
EXPERIMENTS
with results that can be predicted, which support the Short Theory of Time
1. If we add a second ionizing cell to the standard setting for observation of the photo effect as shown on fig. 8, we have the reason to believe that in cell 2 there will be teleported particles. The distance L is a constant value depending on the KB /it is probably a few meters/. It is important that during the experiment the angle between the L vector and the vector of light should be kept in mind. The barrier is not so important.
(fig. 8)
2. An object is placed under a strong enough electro-magnetic field and rotates round its axis with quick enough revolutions /acceleration/; its axis must be at Da angle with the lines of the field /fig. 9/. The axis x must be fixed in accordance with the lines of the Earth's mass and magnetic field and the mass of the object. Such conditions suggest breaking of the principle of proportion, which at certain values of a could be: forced radioactivity or the opposite, moving in time and/or space, other dimension, parallel dimension. I would not make any comments on the possible use of this method. I believe that God would not allow us to make such a rash and unconsidered intervention in the Universe.
(fig. 9)
3. The synthesis of extremely unstable isotopes under absolutely identical conditions at different latitude would determine different duration of their existence. Probably it has been already done.
copy from Aleksander St. Uzunov
