Will humanity become a single civilization? Underground alien bases are created to conduct terrible experiments

Now many researchers are talking about underground alien bases, where they can conduct their terrible experiments on the biological species of the planet with impunity. Until now, such statements were considered an invention of ufologists, but real evidence their activities are in the archives of secret documents.

In the 60s, the American press wrote about a mysterious incident involving Dan Henrikson, who went to the mountains with his comrades. The young man fell a little behind the group and noticed strange creatures that took him into the spaceship with them, after which he lost consciousness. The witness of the event woke up in a dark room where there were aliens with large eyes on their heads and four fingers on their limbs. From such a shock, the tourist again found himself unconscious and had already come to his senses near the entrance to the cave. It, along with other analogues, formed a real underground labyrinth, but police officers were able to find the missing man, whose body was covered with incomprehensible cuts. He immediately reported that he spent 3 days on an extraterrestrial base, after which many ufologists suspected that aliens were hiding here from people.

A similar incident occurred near Bishop, when a speleological couple found a strange chamber in a cave with inscriptions on the walls, illuminated by light coming through the holes. They decided to look there, after which terrible sounds, reminiscent of sirens, filled the entire space. Before fainting, the couple noticed the door opening and then woke up with no equipment near the entrance. British explorer Timothy Goode, after his expeditions to Puerto Rico, wrote a number of books dedicated to aliens. He found out that residents often noticed them emerging from the bowels of the earth, and also quickly disappearing during meetings with earthlings. Carlos Mercada even visited their underground factory, where he noticed strange devices. The humanoids said that these were parts for their service, and that they themselves were studying life on the planet.

Tibetans also encounter UFOs flying to the surface near Ladakh, where the mountain pass is controlled by India and China. This place also has a space refuge for extraterrestrial guests, which confirms a number of interesting facts. In the 1960s, after a long conflict, the countries decided to cancel their claims to the territory, which may have been the result of a secret agreement between the authorities and the aliens. Nowadays, in addition to the military, a small population lives in the closed zone, and in 2012 this place was damaged by a strong earthquake. Then many people talked about increased activity of devices near their base before such events. The air forces of the two countries sent planes here, in which, in addition to turning off the engines, all the instruments failed. Then Indian TV showed a report, and viewers saw a UFO in the shape of triangles, followed by a human military transport, ready to destroy any obstacle in the way of the aliens. The media blamed officials for such an agreement and suggested that countries were protecting them in exchange for new technologies.

Now you can turn your attention to the Dulce base, where aliens conduct their experiments on people and animals in underground laboratories. Since the 70s, in addition to the mass disappearance of livestock, abnormal levels of potassium in the body were noticed in the surviving individuals. When James Bishop published his materials regarding his visit to the site with members of the group, he described creatures resembling Scandinavians, and also could approach the place in the canyon from where the UFOs were flying out. John Lear managed to visit the bowels of the earth and talk with the creatures who told their story. It turned out that the military had seized their reactor, which ran on hydrogen, without which they could not leave Earth. Then the humanoids captured 44 people and demanded that the stolen device be returned to them, but instead the special services arrived here. As a result, they all died or went missing, and the base is at the complete disposal of extraterrestrial guests.

In the 1980s, the press published 30 materials from the base, transmitted by Thomas Castello. A former employee indicated that it has 7 levels and 100 exits from the underground labyrinth, and the employees are people working together with humanoids. The purpose of their experiments was to create a hybrid of people with a cosmic race, as well as to gain control over the mind. Freezing chambers with the bodies of victims and their organs are built below, as well as embryos obtained after crossing. His colleague Frederick Atwater added that the extraterrestrial colony occupies a vast territory, connected by passages. The American authorities are well aware of such experiments, but prefer to remain silent because of the acquisition of new knowledge.

Engineer Phil Schneider had a chance to take part in an underground battle and tell people the truth during his speeches, but after being tortured, the intelligence services strangled a witness to the events. Underground bases for aliens have been created by the military since the 40s, after which the president’s team signed a cooperation agreement with them. Humanoids could use biological species for experiments, but they discovered technologies for the military that could cause an artificial earthquake. They were tested in San Francisco and the Japanese city of Koba, causing much more destruction than their natural counterpart. This person also claimed that in the 70s, geneticists created the AIDS virus from the secretions of extraterrestrial beings, but what actually happens in such places? It is already known about 130 objects located on the territory of the country, so nothing can prevent humanoids in the future from taking over the planet.

And Stephen Hawking said that this could be the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

What discovery confounded the great scientific minds of the last century, and why did it force them to rethink the origins of the universe? New, more powerful telescopes have revealed the secrets of the universe and raised new questions about the origin of life.

Has science discovered God?

Wait! But hasn't science proven that we don't need God to explain the Universe? Lightning, earthquakes, and even the birth of children were once attributed to the acts of God. But now we know their origin. What is fundamentally different about this discovery and why did it stun the entire scientific world?

This discovery, along with discoveries in molecular biology about the amazingly complex DNA code, has now led many scientists to admit that the universe appears to be part of a grand design.

One cosmologist put it this way: “Many scientists admit that their views are inclined toward a teleological explanation, or a grand design explanation of the universe.”

And it is surprising that many of the scientists who talk about God have no religious faith at all.

So what stunning discoveries suddenly made scientists talk about God? Three revolutionary discoveries in the field of astronomy and molecular biology stand out clearly:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The Universe Is Surprisingly Suitable for Life

3. The DNA code suggests it was intelligently created.

The statements made by leading scientists about these discoveries may shock you. Let's get a look.

One-time start

Throughout human history, people have always looked in amazement at the stars scattered across the sky and wanted to know what they were and how they got there. Although about 6,000 stars can be seen with the naked eye on a clear night, observations from Hubble and other powerful telescopes indicate there are trillions of stars in more than 100 billion galaxies. Our sun is comparable to one grain of sand among all the sand on the shores of the world's oceans.

However, until the 20th century, the prevailing opinion among scientists was that our galaxy, the Milky Way, occupies the entire Universe, and that there are only about 100 million stars.

And the prevailing opinion of most scientists was that our Universe never had a beginning. They believed that mass, space and energy had always existed.

But at the beginning of the 20th century, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding. Extrapolating a model of this process into the past, he mathematically calculated that everything in the Universe, including matter, energy, space and even time itself, actually had a beginning.

This statement caused a huge shock in the scientific community. Many scientists, including Einstein, reacted negatively to him. Einstein later called “The biggest mistake of my life” that he adjusted his equations to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a beginning.

And, perhaps, the most ardent opponent of the beginning of the Universe was the British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who sarcastically called the event of the creation of the Universe the “big bang.” He stubbornly adhered to his theory of the constancy of the Universe, which has always existed. Einstein, along with other scientists, adhered to this theory until the facts of the beginning of the Universe could not be denied. This problem, which was preferred to be ignored, this existence of a beginning of the Universe implied that something or Someone, not subject to scientific discovery, was the beginning of everything.

And finally, in 1992, experiments using the COBE satellite confirmed that the Universe did have a one-time beginning in the form of an incredible burst of light and energy. And although some scientists called this beginning the moment of creation, many preferred to call it the “big bang.”

Astronomer Robert Jastrow tries to help us imagine how it all began. “The picture implies the explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb. The moment of the explosion of a cosmic bomb marks the birth of the Universe."

Everything from nothing

Science cannot explain to us what caused or who caused the beginning of the Universe. But some believe that this definitely points to the Creator. “The British theorist Edward Milne wrote a mathematical work on the theory of relativity, concluding as follows: ‘As for the first cause of the Universe, in the context of its expansion, the reader must insert himself here, since our understanding is incomplete without Him.’”

Another British scientist, Edmund Whitaker, attributed the beginning of our universe to “Divine will, creating Nature out of nothing.”

Many scientists have been amazed at how this one-time creation out of nothing matches the biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1. Before this discovery, many scientists considered the biblical explanation of the creation of the world out of nothing to be unscientific.

Despite the fact that Jastrow considered himself an agnostic, under the pressure of facts he was forced to admit: “We now understand how knowledge of astronomy leads to a biblical view of the origins of the world.”

Another agnostic, such as George Smoot, the Nobel Prize winner who led the COBE experiments, recognizes this parallel. “There is no doubt that there is a parallel between the big bang and Christian idea about the creation of the world out of nothing.”

Scholars who scorned the Bible as a book of fairy tales are now recognizing that the biblical concept of creation out of nothing was right after all.

Cosmologists specializing in the study of the Universe and its origins soon realized that a random cosmic explosion had little more chance of creating life than an explosion atomic bomb, with the exception of a clearly thought out engineering calculation. And this meant that it was planned by the creator. They began to call such a creator “Super-intelligence”, “Creator” and even “Supreme Being”. Let's see why.

Fine tuning for life

Physicists have calculated that gravity and other natural forces must be just right for life to exist. Otherwise, our Universe could not exist. If the degree of expansion were slightly less, then the force of gravity would pull all matter back into the “big squeeze.”

AND we're talking about not about one or two percent reduction in the expansion rate of the Universe. Stephen Hawking writes: “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been less than one hundred-thousand-millionth of a million, the universe would have collapsed before it could reach its present size.”

On the other hand, if the expansion had been even a fraction greater than it was, then galaxies, stars and planets would never have been able to form, and we would not be here today.

As for the existence of life itself, the conditions in our solar system and on the planet they also had to be ideal. For example, we all understand that without an atmosphere containing oxygen, we would not be able to breathe. Without oxygen there would be no water. Without water there would be no rain, which is necessary for crops. Other elements - hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, carbon, calcium and phosphorus - are also necessary for life.

But this is not the only thing necessary for life to exist. The size, temperature, relative proximity and chemical composition of our planet, sun and moon must also meet certain precise conditions. And dozens of other conditions must be very precisely tuned, otherwise we simply would not be here, and there would be no one to think about it.

Scientists who believed in God may have assumed such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics could not find an explanation for these amazing “coincidences.” Theoretical physicist and agnostic Stephen Hawking writes: “ The amazing fact is that the values ​​of these parameters seem to have been very precisely adjusted to make the development of life possible.”

Accident or miracle?

But can such fine tuning be attributed to chance? Professional players, know that even betting on the horse with the least odds can ultimately bring success. And, in the same way, despite the insignificance of the chances of winning the lottery, someone still manages to win. So what are the chances of human life accidentally arising from a random explosion in cosmic history?

The emergence of human life in the Big Bang defies all laws of probability. One astronomer estimates that this impossible chance would be “one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.” It would be much easier for a blindfolded person, in one attempt, to find a specially marked grain of sand among all the sand on all the coasts of the world's oceans.

Another example of how unrealistic it is for life to arise from a random big bang would be the odds of winning a multimillion-dollar lottery over a thousand consecutive attempts by purchasing just one lottery ticket for each attempt.

How would you react to such news? This is only possible if someone behind the scenes predetermined everything, you say. And this is exactly the conclusion that many scientists come to - Someone behind the scenes planned and created this Universe.

This new understanding of the miracle of human life in our universe led scientists such as agnostic astronomer George Greenstein to ask the following question: “ Is it possible that we have suddenly and unintentionally encountered scientific evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being?”

But while an agnostic, Greenstein retains faith in science, not a Creator, to ultimately explain our origins.

Jastrow explains why some scientists are slow to accept a transcendental Creator.

There is a kind of religion among scientists; it is the religion of a person who believes in order and harmony in the Universe...This religious belief of the scientist is disturbed by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions under which the known laws of physics do not apply, and as a product of forces or circumstances that we cannot discover. When this happens, the scientist loses control. If he had considered what conclusions would follow, he would have been traumatized by it.

It's understandable why scientists like Greenstein and Hawking are looking for an explanation other than attributing the fine-tuning of our Universe to a Creator. Hawking speculates that there may be other undetected (and untested) universes, which would increase the chances that one of them (ours) is perfect for life. But since this is just an assumption that cannot be verified, it can hardly be called scientific. British astrophysicist Paul Davies, also an agnostic, rejects Hawking's idea as too speculative. He's writing: “Such a conclusion must be based on faith and not observation.”

And although Hawking, as a leading scientist, continues to explore purely scientific explanations for our origins, other scientists, including many agnostics, recognize facts that seem convincing in favor of a Creator. Hoyle writes:

“Common sense when interpreting facts suggests that some superintelligence has taken charge of physics, chemistry, and biology, and that there is no point in talking about some blind natural forces.”

Although Einstein was not religious and did not believe in God, he thought about the brilliant creator of the Universe, calling him “a mind of such excellence, in comparison with which all systematic thinking and actions of people pale in their insignificance ”.

Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who devoted most of his life to studying the question and denial of God, was most puzzled by the fact that life could not exist if the conditions for its existence were " at least a little different«.

Davis admits that

To me there is compelling evidence that there is something behind all this. It looks like someone very precisely tuned all the components of nature to create the Universe... I have the full impression that there was a plan.

DNA: The Language of Life

Astronomy is not the only area in which science sees evidence of design. Molecular biologists have discovered the amazingly complex structure of the microscopic world of DNA. In the last century, scientists discovered that a tiny molecule called DNA is the “brains” of every cell in our bodies and all other living things. But the more they learn about DNA, the more they are amazed at the genius of its creation.

Scientists who believe that the material world is all that exists (materialists), such as Richard Dawkins, argue that DNA evolved through natural selection without the participation of a Creator. However, even the most ardent evolutionists admit that they cannot explain the origins of DNA's intricate complexity.

This amazing complexity of DNA led scientist Francis Crick, who was one of the first to discover it, to believe that it could not have arisen naturally on earth. Crick, being a proponent of the theory of evolution, believed that life in such a complex manifestation must have been brought from space:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge now known to us, can only say in a certain sense that the origin of life seems to be this moment seems almost a miracle, since its origin would have been impossible if numerous conditions had not been met.”

The DNA code speaks of an intelligence that defies imagination. A pinhead of DNA contains as much information as enough paperback books to circle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA acts like a language with extremely complex programming code. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, says the DNA program “ many times more complex than any program that has ever been developed”.

Dawkins and other materialists believe that all this complexity is the result of natural selection. But at the same time, as Crick notes, the first molecule could not possibly have been the result of natural selection. Many scientists believe that the coding within the DNA molecule indicates an intelligence that far exceeds what could arise through natural causes.

In the early 21st century, the atheism of leading atheist Anthony Flow hit a dead end during the study of DNA. He was amazed at the intelligence of her creation. Flo explains what prompted his change of heart.

I think the DNA material shows that there must be intelligence behind the combination of all these extremely complex elements. The enormous complexity of the results achieved, in my opinion, is the work of intelligence... It seems that the results of more than fifty years of DNA research provide material for a new and much stronger argument in favor of the design of the Creator.

And although Professor Flow was not a Christian, he admitted that the “program” underlying DNA was too complex to be created without a “designer”. The discovery of incredible intelligence in the creation of DNA, in the words of a former leading atheist, "provided the materials for new and extremely compelling arguments for the design of the universe."

"Fingerprints" of the Creator

Are scientists now convinced that the Creator left his fingerprints on the Universe?

Although many scientists still stubbornly deny God's involvement in the creation of the universe, most of them recognize the religious background to these new discoveries. In his book Great design Stephen Hawking, who does not believe in God, tries to explain why the Universe does not need God. But even Hawking, in the face of facts, also admits that “ There must be some religious overtones. But most scientists would probably prefer not to touch on the religious side.”

The agnostic Jastrow's conclusions have no hidden agenda against Christianity. However, he freely accepts convincing evidence in favor of the Creator. Jastrow writes about the shock and despair experienced by those scientists who believed that God had no place in their world.

For the scientist who lived by faith in the power of logical arguments, this story ends like a nightmare. He conquered the mountains of ignorance; and is about to reach its highest peak; and just as he pulls himself up over the last ledge on the rock, he is greeted by a group of theologians who have been sitting here for many centuries.

Personal Creator?

If there is a super-intelligent Creator, then the question arises - what is he like? Is he some kind of Force, like in Star Wars, or is he a Being like us? Since we humans are bound by personal relationships, is he bound by personal relationships since he created us?

Many scientists like Arthur L. Scholow, a Nobel Prize-winning physics professor at Stanford University, believe that these new discoveries strongly favor a personal God. He's writing: " It seems to me that when discussing the amazingness of the existence of life and the Universe, we need to ask the question “why?”, and not just “how?”« The only possible answers are religious answers... I find a need for God in the Universe and in my life.” If God is personal and since he has given us the ability to communicate, is it unreasonable for us to expect him to communicate with us and answer us why we are here?

As far as we know, science cannot answer questions about God and the meaning of life. But since the Bible was right in creating the universe out of nothing, maybe we should also trust it in questions about God, life and its meaning?

Two thousand years ago, a man stepped onto our planet and declared that he knew the answer to the question of life. And although his stay on earth was short-lived, it changed our world and is still felt today. His name is Jesus Christ.

Eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ tell us that he constantly demonstrated creative power over the laws of nature. They say he was wise, modest and sympathetic. He healed the lame, the deaf and the blind. He instantly stopped raging storms, created food for the hungry, turned water into wine at a wedding, and even raised the dead. And they claimed that he rose from the dead after a terrible execution.

They also say that Jesus Christ scattered the stars in the sky, fine-tuned our universe, and created DNA. Maybe he is the one whom Einstein, without knowing it, called the “supreme intelligence” that created the Universe? Could Jesus Christ be the one whom Hoyle, unknowingly, believed to be the one who “fine-tuned physics, chemistry and biology?”

And isn't the mystery of who was behind the big bang and the intelligence in creating DNA revealed by the following account in the New Testament?

Now Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. He was before the beginning of creation, and it was through him that everything was created, both spiritual and material, visible and invisible. Through him and for him, power and dominion were also created. In fact, everything was created by him and for him.... Life began through him from nothing, and life from the dead began through him, and therefore he is rightly called the Lord of all.

Christ spoke with confidence about God's love for us and the reason for our creation by Him. He said that he had a purpose for our lives, and that this purpose was based on a connection with him. But for this connection to be realized, Christ had to die on the cross for our sins. And he had to rise from the dead so that we too could have life after death.

If Christ was the Creator, then he truly had the power of life and death. And those who were closest to him claim that they saw him alive three days after his death.

Did Christ really rise from the dead?

The Apostle Paul tells us that life from the dead began through Jesus Christ. The words and actions of witnesses to Jesus Christ indicate that they believed in his physical resurrection from the dead after his crucifixion. If they were wrong, then this means that Christianity is based on lies. But if they were right, then such a miracle confirms everything that Jesus Christ said about God, about himself and about us.

However, should we accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ on faith alone, or is there strong historical evidence for it? Some skeptics began to examine historical materials in order to prove the inconsistency of the resurrection. What did they find?

Further reading on origins

• Accident or Intelligent Design?
• Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
• Why is Only Earth Suitable for Life?
• Is the Universe a Product of Design or Chance?
• Was Darwin Right about the Eye?
• Does DNA Point to a Designer?
• Where are Darwin's Predicted Fossils?
• Are Humans the Result of Evolution?
• Is a Designer Revealed in Creation?

Notes

1. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
2. An atheist believes God doesn't exist. An agnostic believes we can’t know.
3. Brian Greene The Elegant Universe(New York: Vintage, 2000), 81-82.
4. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time(New York: Avon, 1993), 241.
5. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers,(London: W. W. Norton, 1992), 13.
6. Ibid., 104.
7. Ibid., 103.
8. Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
9. Jastrow, 14.
10. Smoot and Davidson, 17.
11. Stephen Hawking The Illustrated A Brief History of Time(New York: Bantam, 1996), 156
12. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos(3rd ed.) (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.
13. Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time(New York: Bantam, 1990), 125.
14. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos(Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 198.
15. George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe(New York: William Morrow, 1988), 27.
16. Ibid., 189.
17. Jastrow, 105.
18. Paul Davies God and the New Physics(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 174.
19. Fred Hoyle, “Let there be Light,” Engineering and Science(November 1981).
20. Albert Einstein Ideas and Opinions-The World As I See It(New York: Bonanza, 1931), 40.
21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI
22. Paul Davies The Cosmic Blueprint(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 203.
23. Francis Crick, Life Itself(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981), 88.
24. Quoted in William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, eds., Signs of Intelligence(Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 108.
25. Quoted in Gary Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism”: Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi, (Winter, 2005).
26. John Boslough Stephen Hawking's Universe(New York: Avon, 1989), 109.
27. Jastrow, 107.
28. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens(Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
29. Colossians 1:15-17, J. B. Phillips.
30. John 3:16; John 14:19.

Permission to reproduce this article: The publisher grants permission to reproduce this material without written permission, but only for non-commercial use and in full. It is prohibited to change or use out of context any part of the article without written permission from the publisher. Printed copies of this article and journals Y-Origins And Y-Jesus can be ordered from the website: http://jesusonlineministries.com/resources/products/

© 2012 JesusOnline Ministries. This article is a supplement to the magazine Y-Jesus Published by Bright Media Foundation & B&L Publications: Larry Chapman, Editor-in-Chief.

We have already deviated quite far from the topic of this book, but we needed this “zigzag to the side.” Without it, it was impossible to consider another version of the origin of man, which we have not even mentioned yet. I mean the version that is presented in the ancient Sumerian texts, where we are talking about precisely those gods for whose sake we deviated for so long...

Rice. 266.Sumerian cuneiform tablet

“According to Sumerian texts, Man was created by Ninhursag with the assistance of the “wisdom” of Enki... Ninhursag created Man who could not hold urine, a woman who could not give birth to children, and a being devoid of any sexual characteristics. Ninhursag produced a total of six such defective human beings. Enki was credited with creating an imperfect creature with weak eyesight, shaking hands, and a diseased liver and heart; the other quickly died of premature old age, and so on” (Z. Sitchin, “12th Planet”).

“Several texts were found in Nippur... In one of them, Ninti (aka Ninhursag) says to Enki: “Create servants for the gods, so that they produce others like themselves.” And Enki replies: “The creature you named already exists”!.. He obviously meant humanoid creatures that could be “improved” with the help of genetic manipulation. Improve just enough to learn how to use tools and understand the orders of the gods. In any case, it is completely acceptable and legitimate to interpret the Mesopotamian texts in this way” (V. Coneles “They Came Down from Heaven and Created People”).

This is a rather indicative and important point - the “creation” of a person does not occur from scratch, but from a certain “being” that already existed on Earth. This "creature" in its " pure form“For some reason, it was not suitable for the gods, and it needed to be “improved.” Sumerian texts do not indicate the reason why the existing “creature” was not suitable for the gods, but this is explained in the mythology of other peoples, which says that this “creature” for some reason “was not capable of serving the gods.”

To that important point We will return later, but for now we will continue about the process of “creation” of man as described by the Sumerians.

“When the gods decided to create Man, their king proclaimed: “I will collect the blood and give life to the bones.” Ea [aka Enki] proposed to choose a “donor” god and said: “Let primitive creatures be like him”... Having agreed to fulfill the high mission entrusted to her, the goddess (here called NIN.TI, that is, “the maiden who gives life”) puts forward certain requirements for carrying out this complex operation, including some chemicals (“Abzu resins”) to carry out “purification”, as well as “Abzu clay”…

After listening to the goddess, Ea understood and accepted all her demands and conditions, saying: “I undertake to prepare a bath of purification. Let one of the gods give his blood... Let Ninti prepare a mixture from that flesh and blood”...

To fashion a person from this mixture of clay and other components, female help was required - some kind of gestation or birth. Then Enki offered his wife to help: “My Ninki, the goddess and my wife, will give birth. And next to her will be the goddesses of the lower births - seven in number" ...

This artificially produced being is invariably called in Mesopotamian texts the “model”, “model of Man” or “form”... Thus, after several failures, Adapa/Adam was “bred” - the first “model” of Man. And at first Adam was alone. When it turned out that Adapa/Adam fully satisfied all the requirements... he was used as a genetic model, or “form,” to create physiological copies of him that were not only male, but also female” (Z. Sitchin, “12 planet").

Rice. 267.Ninhursag creates Adam

“The Mesopotamian texts provide us with a wealth of information about the process of carrying out the first “copying” of Adam. The gods strictly followed Enki's instructions. In the House of Shimti, where the breath of life was “blown in,” Enki, the Mother Goddess and fourteen assisting birth goddesses gathered. The divine “essence”—the blood of God—and the “pool of purification” had already been prepared. “Ea cleansed the clay, speaking incantations incessantly.” “The God who purifies Napishtu, Ea, has spoken. Sitting opposite, he helped her. Having said the spell three times, she touched the clay carefully... Ninti pinched off fourteen pieces from the clay; seven she put to the right, seven she put to the left”...

Birth goddesses were divided into two groups. “Learned and glorious in their wisdom, the births of the goddess gathered in number twice seven,” read the verses. The Mother Goddess placed fourteen pieces of “kneaded clay” into their wombs...

After the operation is completed, all that remains is to wait: “The birth of the goddess stayed together. Ninty sat nearby, counting the months. The fateful tenth month was approaching; now that tenth month has come; and at the appointed time their bosoms trembled. With a face full of hope and compassion, she covered her head and became a midwife. She hugged her waist and whispered words of blessing. And so I took out the form; and life was poured into it.”

The epic “When, like people, the gods...” contains a passage whose purpose is to explain why it was necessary to mix the “blood” of the gods with the “clay.” This "divine" element was not the blood of a god in the usual sense. The passage reports that the god chosen by the “donor” had T.E.MA - a word that leading textual scholars W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard from the University of Oxford interpret as “personality.” However, in language ancient people this word had a much more specific meaning. Literally translated, it means “that which contains that which memory conveys.” Moreover, in the Akkadian version this word sounds like “etemu”, that is, “spirit”. In both cases we are dealing with “something” in the blood of God, which was the bearer of his individuality. Based on all this, we can confidently say that Ea, with the help of the “baths of purification,” isolated in the blood of God nothing more than the genes of God” (Z. Sitchin, “12th Planet”).

Let us note that the “clay” mentioned in the texts has a slightly different meaning from our usual one. This is not natural clay at all, but a kind of “mixture used for modeling” - “what is used to sculpt (or create)”...

Translating all of the above into ordinary language, we get that, according to the ancient Sumerian texts, man was bred by the gods as a result of a series of genetic experiments based on “local material”, that is, possibly on the basis of one of those whom we now consider his ancestor within the framework of evolutionary theory. In the first experiments, non-viable disabled people and even complete monsters were obtained. Then things got better, but the result still had some drawbacks. In particular, some texts report that a person either could not speak or could not reproduce. It was only successful last series experiments, when it was decided to add the genes of the gods themselves to the “local harvest”. After this, a successful copy was “replicated” using genetic engineering and surrogacy, and goddesses specially selected for this acted as surrogate mothers.

Non-randomness of coincidences

If we compare the testimony of ancient Sumerian legends and traditions with modern achievements in the field of genetic engineering, a number of interesting and very revealing parallels will emerge.

Point one: getting scary monsters at the first stage.

This is reminiscent of the results of some experiments that geneticists conducted in the second half of the twentieth century. Then they got real monsters - frogs with paws on their heads, eyes on their backs and generally something “indigestible”...

The second point: in the course of further experiments, a person appears who is unable to speak.

Currently, many biologists are of the opinion that the ability to speak in the form that modern humans possess is closely related to certain structural features of the larynx and skull that are absent in animals. So, with the appropriate error or simply failure to take these features into account, there is nothing unrealistic in obtaining a result of a genetic experiment incapable of speech.

Point three: the gods create a person incapable of reproduction.

This is generally quite an ordinary result in hybridization experiments. Modern science not only does not contradict, but completely corresponds.

Point four: man is ultimately created as a hybrid of “local stock” and “god.”

All the details of the description of the procedure for obtaining a hybrid are extremely reminiscent of modern experiments in the field of genetic engineering. Including even in the part when, after receiving a satisfactory specimen, the gods proceed to “replicate” it - in modern cloning experiments, after certain primary procedures, gestation of the embryo is required in the usual way. And although human cloning has not yet been carried out, it is obvious that the embryo in this case will need to be incubated in a woman’s womb - a practice that is already widely used today in surrogacy, for example.

Rice. 268.Goddesses took on the role of surrogate mothers

Point five: during the first series of experiments, a sample is created that quickly ages and dies.

The very first known positive cloning experiment was the creation of Dolly the sheep. Dolly, in all respects, was no different from her original, but from a certain moment she began to age quickly and died, ultimately living just a few years. There are different versions of the explanation for her sudden death, but the likelihood of linking this sad result directly with shortcomings in the technique itself or directly in the process of cloning is quite real...

As you can see, the similarity of details is so great that it cannot be a coincidence. And we must either assume that the ancient Sumerians possessed genetic engineering technologies (for which there are no objective grounds) or that they received information about the real manipulations and actions of the gods, which the Sumerians simply presented in terminology that was accessible and understandable to them...

We, of course, are still very far from such an operation as obtaining a new species (or at least subspecies) of a person that would have any significant differences from the original sample. However, science does not stand still. In addition, we are still almost at the very beginning of the path in genetic engineering as such, if we talk about potential opportunities this direction. So it is absolutely impossible to exclude the possibility that the civilization of the gods, by the time of the “creation” of man, had advanced in genetic engineering much further than modern science.

Rice. 269.Dolly the sheep herself was successfully cloned again

By the way, the assumption that the civilization of the gods possessed genetic engineering technology is definitely confirmed.

Thus, ancient legends and traditions of many nations report that “the gods gave agriculture to people.” The famous Soviet scientist Nikolai Vavilov, back in the 30s of the twentieth century, came to conclusions that indirectly confirm this statement of our ancestors. During his expeditions to various countries of the world, studying wild varieties and cultivated plants, Vavilov discovered that there were eight isolated centers of ancient agriculture, which arose here simultaneously and independently of each other about 10-12 thousand years ago. It is curious that it is in the places of these hotbeds that we find the most obvious and distinct traces of highly developed technologies.

It is noteworthy that for the main grain crops, Vavilov did not find any transitional forms from wild varieties to cultivated species. Cultivated species in the centers of ancient agriculture, it seemed as if they appeared out of nowhere immediately in a ready-made form.

Moreover. Wheat, for example, appears in three independent foci at once. And the difference between the wheat varieties in these outbreaks can be traced at the genetic level - they have 14, 28 and 42 chromosomes, that is, there was a doubling and tripling of the chromosome set.

Modern biologists are already able to obtain new varieties with doubled and tripled sets of chromosomes. However, this requires exposure to so-called mutagens - chemical or radiation factors that lead to changes at the gene level. That is, at the very dawn of agriculture, someone carried out genetic modification of the main grain crops. It is clear that a primitive farmer could not do this, but a highly developed civilization of gods could easily do it - after all, by that time it knew how to overcome interstellar distances.

Rice. 270.Nikolay Vavilov

However, it is precisely the alien origin of the civilization of the gods that sometimes raises doubts about the version of the “creation” of man as a hybrid during genetic experiments. They say that for such experiments it is necessary to have similar genotypes of not just two civilizations or species, but also life forms in two different planets, which at first glance seems very unlikely. However, a number of considerations can be made against this skeptical point of view.

Firstly, the discussion in Sumerian legends may not necessarily be purely about that genetic crossing, which is understandable to us already at this stage of the development of science. After all, we cannot exclude the possibility of some other way of influencing the genes of the “earthly preparation”.

For example, now quite a few researchers agree that not everything is determined purely chemical composition DNA and the connections between atoms and groups of atoms within it. There is ongoing discussion about the important role played by the structure of both DNA itself and its components. And the experiments of Pyotr Goryaev and Andrei Berezin show the possibility, for example, of a wave effect on this structure. Moreover, the effects of both destroying DNA and restoring damaged structures. So why shouldn’t the civilization of the gods, instead of the genetic manipulations we are used to, use some kind of “wave genetics” (as Goryaev himself prefers to call this method of influence)?.. There is no special need for the similarity of the genotypes of the “earthly preparation” and the alien gods...

Secondly, it is absolutely impossible to exclude the possibility that the similarity of genotypes did occur due to some additional reasons. For example, life both on our planet and on the planet of the gods had a common source. Or in general, the gods themselves sowed the form of life familiar to them on our planet in time immemorial. Such options are not so fantastic.

And thirdly, why shouldn’t there be similarity in gene pools even with the independent origin of life on different planets? The likelihood of this is actually not that small. At least, this is what another recent study indirectly indicates - studies of the genetic code conducted by Sergei Petukhov, who works at the intersection of biology and mathematics.

I will not go into details of his work so as not to burden the reader with specific terminology. Those interested can easily find the necessary information on the Internet. The only important thing for us here is that the “Biperiodic Table of the Genetic Code” constructed by him, which describes the basic principles of encoding the hereditary information of all known living systems, amazingly turned out to be strictly consistent with... the well-known table of hexagrams in the Chinese Book of Changes “I-Ching”! .

Rice. 271.Biperiodic table of the genetic code of S. Petukhov

Meanwhile, if in the table of hexagrams we replace solid lines with zero and broken lines with one, and write them horizontally rather than vertically, we will get six-digit numbers in the binary number system. In this case, the values ​​of these numbers will be full set numbers in the range from 0 to 63 (in the usual decimal form of notation), located in the table strictly in order!.. The probability of a random arrangement in this way is negligibly small - only one chance out of 64! (factorial of sixty-four, that is, the product of all numbers from 1 to 64 by each other) options. In physics, such a low probability is correlated with forbidden or impossible processes. In other words, this simply cannot be an accident in any way.

Rice. 272.Table of hexagrams “I Ching” and its “numerical double”

Let's leave aside the question of where the Chinese even got such a table. For us now something completely different is much more important. After all, then it turns out that Petukhov’s “Bi-periodic table of the genetic code” is not at all accidental, but is directly related to some basic mathematical principles or laws of our universe!.. If this is so, then the similarity of the genotypes of life on two different planets is not only probable, but it must also take place!!!

Very indicative in this regard are the so-called “black smokers” - underwater volcanoes, near which a whole biosystem of living organisms was discovered, existing on the basis of a fundamentally different biochemistry - they extract energy from hydrogen sulfide coming from the depths with the gases of underwater volcanoes. The study of these living organisms in the “black smoker” system did not reveal any serious differences in the genetic code from known protein systems. This would hardly be possible if there were sharp differences in the principles of constructing the genetic code. It seems that we are still dealing with some general laws self-organization of matter, reflected in the universality of the genetic code...

Rice. 273."Black Smoker" and its inhabitants

And one more important point.

Paradoxical as it may seem, the version set forth in ancient Sumerian legends does not at all contradict the evolutionary theory as such. Let us remind you: before starting the experiments, Enki mentions that the creature the gods need already exists - that is, that on Earth there is already a “natural semi-finished product”, a “blank”, which only needs to be slightly modified. This indicates precisely that man was not created “out of nothing” (as is the case, for example, in the biblical version), but on the basis of “local preparation” (let’s call it that for now), which appeared on the planet during all that the same evolution. Accordingly, a significant part of both genes and traces of ancient mutations inevitably had to pass through the used “blank” and passed on to the resulting hybrid.

The Sumerian version of the “creation” of man actually only complements and expands the evolutionary theory, allowing for the factor of external intervention, which the evolutionary theory simply does not take into account. But the results of our own practice in the field of artificial selection, genetic engineering and cloning provide us with quite tangible and concrete examples of the influence of the very factor of external intervention that evolutionary theory does not take into account. So why don’t we take into account the impact of such a factor on ourselves in the past?!

Nothing passes without a trace

Specific actions also leave traces corresponding to these actions. Therefore, if in some past on Earth there was interference in the evolutionary process at the genetic level, then traces of this interference could – and even should – remain at this level. And it turns out that there really are such traces!.. True, some of them are more obvious, and some are doubtful...

For example, such a remarkable fact has been known for quite some time: humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), and their closest modern “relatives” (gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans) have 48 (24 pairs). The two arms of human chromosome No. 2 correspond to two chromosomes each in chimpanzees, gorilla and orangutan. And at the moment there is no absolutely unambiguous answer to the question for what reasons and when this difference arose.

There are other differences in the gene set of primates and humans. For example, some studies mention some kind of “inversion between the regions p14.I – q14.I, which led to the difference between human chromosome No. 5 and the chimpanzee chromosome.”

Back in the early 80s, the American Page from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology discovered that if you climb the evolutionary ladder of mammals, then all of them, right down to monkeys, have the same piece of DNA on the female sex chromosome X, approximately 4 million chemical in size units (nucleotides), but only in modern man this piece of DNA was also copied onto the male sex chromosome Y. It later became clear that after copying onto the Y chromosome of the hominid, the section of the X chromosome underwent a major mutation, which resulted in it splitting in two and these halves then swapped places. And just a few years ago, molecular geneticist Nabil Affara from Cambridge University It was in this mysterious piece of DNA (available on both sex chromosomes only in humans) that I found two genes with similar functions (PCDHX and PCDHY), responsible for the production of proteins that exist only in the human brain and play a key role in the formation of the nervous system...

Rice. 274.Sex chromosomes

One of the “purely human” genes that distinguishes us from monkeys is the so-called prodynorphin. This gene encodes pleasure substances - endorphins, with the help of which emotional regulation of behavior is carried out, that is, we get pleasure from some of our actions, but we don’t get from others. Differences from monkeys were found to be concentrated in the regulatory region of this gene. As a result, endorphins are synthesized in us in some different situations than in monkeys. That is, we get pleasure from something different and get a different amount of pleasure than monkeys. And in fact, this is a certain mechanism for controlling behavior - something that largely determines our actions...

But we will not go into listing here all the differences that are already known and can still be discovered. The only important thing is that among the reasons for the genetic differences between humans and primates, there may well be that same genetic intervention of the gods (that is, an alien civilization), which is associated with the process of “creating” them from “local materials.” It is not necessary that all differences are due to this intervention; most likely - only some part of them. The very possibility of this is important to us.

Modern researchers talk about mutations. But in the light of the problem we are considering, it is worth asking the question: are these mutations in the full sense of the word?! More precisely, one should ask another question: if by mutations we mean all changes in the structure of DNA, then were all mutations natural in nature and not the result of external meaningful and targeted influence?!

Within the framework of a purely evolutionary theory, it is impossible to assume otherwise. However, as a fact, we can only state the difference between a particular DNA section in one sample and the corresponding DNA section in another sample. And “natural mutation” is already an interpretation. And if you can’t argue with the fact, then the interpretation may well be wrong!..

We were not present at the events of many thousands of years ago. We are only observing the consequences of these events. What will we see if a natural mutation occurs?.. We will see differences in the structure of DNA. And what will we see if there was a genetic change by the gods of the “earthly preparation”?.. We will see absolutely the same thing! That is, differences in the structure of DNA!..

The very fact of the presence of a mutation - as a change in the structure of DNA - says absolutely nothing about whether this mutation was natural, arising during the “normal” evolution of human ancestors, or obtained as a result of genetic intervention on the part of an “alien” intelligent being!..

It turns out that we have the same set of empirically established facts, explained by two different theories.

And here we are faced with a serious problem. Is it even possible to somehow determine whether the mutation that occurred was natural or artificially caused?..

At the current stage scientific knowledge It must be stated that, strictly speaking, we do not have such an opportunity. It cannot be ruled out that appropriate technologies and techniques will appear someday in the future. But now, alas, they are gone. And in the current situation, we can only make some assumptions that require verification in the future.

Rice. 275.Is it possible to distinguish a natural mutation from an artificial one?

However, the matter is not as hopeless as it might seem. And here, oddly enough, evolutionary theory itself can help us. After all, we know some patterns of evolution, and therefore we can evaluate how much a particular mutation and its consequences correspond to these patterns. And we can identify those “anomalous” or “strange” mutations, the very appearance and consequences of which do not fit into the patterns of the general evolutionary process or lead to negative evolutionary consequences. It is these mutations that have every chance of becoming candidates for the title of “the result of external intervention of the civilization of the gods in the process of the emergence of man” and for the title of “evidence of the creation of man by the civilization of the gods.” And in this regard, several interesting conclusions obtained in the course of the latest research attract attention.

The first conclusion, literally striking, is that the genotype of different people is extremely similar. And so much so that it causes great bewilderment.

“If you compare the DNA of different people, it turns out that they differ from each other by only 0.1%, that is, only every thousandth of our nucleotide is different, and the remaining 99.9% are the same. Moreover, if we compare all the diversity of DNA of representatives of the most different races and peoples, it turns out that people differ much less than chimpanzees in one herd” (L. Zhivotovsky, E. Khusnutdinova, “Genetic History of Humanity”).

One can often come across the statement that such a result is due to the fact that the process of migration and settlement of our predecessors around the planet was allegedly accompanied (for unknown and unspoken reasons) by a decrease in the rate of mutations. However, such a statement raises legitimate surprise and great doubt.

If migrations and gradual settlement really took place, then we must also take into account the fact that the climate in different places on our planet is different - conditions northern regions differ sharply from the equatorial conditions of Africa, for example. Consequently, as a result of migrations, a person found himself in conditions different from those in which his ancestors lived. And changes in external conditions do not slow things down; on the contrary, they increase the likelihood of mutations occurring. And according to all the known laws of the general evolutionary process, we should have a completely different result - an expansion, rather than a narrowing, of differences in DNA.

Rice. 276.Humanity is closer to each other than chimpanzees in the same herd

Such small differences between people from each other are possible only if we are descendants of a very, very small (!) group of ancestors (or themselves) of Homo sapiens, who lived in the very recent past, compared to our separation from the branch of primates. And if the separation of the chimpanzee and human branches is now considered to have occurred 5-7 million years ago, then the time of existence of the mentioned small group, from which all of humanity originated, is significantly closer to the present time. Different researchers give different estimates: some call the moment 200 thousand years ago, others much later - only 70-75 thousand years ago. But be that as it may, these are not millions of years at all...

The conclusion about a very narrow “base” of humanity was also obtained in the course of other studies, which are now widely known thanks to the loud name of the search for “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam”. IN various studies Different dates have been obtained for such “Adam and Eve”, but in general we are talking about a time range from approximately 100 to 200 thousand years ago. It was at this time that humanity, according to researchers, went through something like a “bottleneck” in the size of its population, almost ceasing to exist as a species altogether. The reasons for the emergence of this “bottleneck” are absolutely not clear...

Rice. 277.Humanity's passage through a bottleneck

It turns out that evolutionary theory, based on the findings of modern research, indicates a very, very small composition of the human population at a certain point in time that was of “key importance.” Most often, researchers prefer to talk about thousands of individuals of this population, but this does not fit well with the fact that the gene pool is so narrow, which is lower “than that of chimpanzees in one herd.” Therefore, according to some “radical” estimates, we are the descendants of such a group, which at the time of the “bottleneck” numbered only from 20 to 200 individuals!..

But the Sumerian legends about the “creation” of man by the gods during genetic experiments also speak about the same thing. Even the size of the first “mass party” – fourteen “Adam clones” (seven men, seven women) – in order of magnitude coincides with the lower limit in scientists’ estimates of the population size at the time of passing the “bottleneck”!..

Moreover. Research on mitochondrial DNA generally points to a single “Eve,” and on the Y chromosome to a single “Adam.” But this is exactly what the ancient Sumerian legends talk about - after all, they replicated a single successful copy!..

Again, two theories describe the same result.

However, conventional evolutionary theory cannot find the reasons for the appearance of a strange bottleneck. Moreover, there are many complaints about the “bottleneck” version, precisely from the standpoint of the theory of evolution. Why, of all the representatives of early sapiens, only such a small branch continued?.. Did representatives of other branches of early sapiens withdraw themselves from procreation?.. Hardly. But then, where are their (!) descendants?..

But the Sumerian version is devoid of all these inconvenient questions. Within its framework, the “bottleneck” turns out to be just an illusion - there was no “bottle” in front of the “neck”, since there simply were no people of the modern type at all. There was only a certain “earthly preparation” (more on that a little later), and there were gods, the addition of some part of whose genome to the genome of this very “earthly preparation” became the “starting point” of modern humanity.

And one moment.

Genetic studies of recent times have forced researchers to hypothesize that some unknown population, supposedly living somewhere in Central Africa, also contributed to the genetic baggage of modern humanity. However, there are absolutely no material finds that could be associated with this population.

The Sumerian version allows us to do without this hypothetical population. Within the framework of this version, the missing contribution to the genome of modern humanity may be an additionally constructed artificial “supplement” produced by the gods during the modification of the “earthly preparation”, or perhaps part of the gene pool of the gods themselves...

Evolutionary "oddities"

A lot of controversy has occurred (and is still happening) around the characteristics of human hair. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, the naturalness of the process of loss of body hair by a person (or some of his ancestors) is disputed. But, in my opinion, skeptics are coming from the wrong direction.

Just like if a person were just a “naked ape”, then there would be no questions. Well, wool disappeared during evolution as unnecessary - nothing surprising. However, in the absence of serious hair covering almost the entire body, a person has hair on his head, which grows at an incredible speed. In just a few years, a “mane” a meter long can easily grow. And modern “record holders” grow hair longer than one and a half tens of meters.

So imagine a primitive human ancestor who, already in childhood, receives such a “gift of nature.” This “gift” makes it incredibly difficult for him not only to hunt, but also to simply walk. It’s not like you’re running through thickets or bushes, but you can’t really run around in the open savannah either.

Moreover. Long before the hair reaches such a length that a person begins to step on it, it will grow so long that it will constantly fall over the eyes and block normal vision.

From the point of view of the laws of evolution, such a hominid with such a “gift of nature” should have become extinct in the shortest possible time. But for some reason he didn’t do this.

An interesting detail: in almost all reconstructions of ancient hominids (down to our “closest relative” - the Neanderthal) you can only see hair, not only on the body, but also on the head. And not long hair. The question is, why?.. As far as I know, no remains of these ancient hominids have been found that would indicate the presence of long hair on their heads. And this despite the fact that the hair is preserved from decomposition for quite a long time...

Rice. 278.Mummies with long hair in the burials of the Nazca culture (Peru)

To be fair, it is worth noting that in hot southern countries, hair still grows at a slower rate. And there is clearly a direct connection here - for example, when traveling to hot countries you have to shave noticeably less often. And one could try to attribute everything to the fact that the rate of hair growth in our ancestors increased during migration to cooler areas - as a natural reaction to changing external conditions. But then the question arises - why didn’t the hair on the rest of the body also react?.. After all, it was not only the head that needed to be warmed. Then why did the evolutionary mechanism suddenly decide to protect only her?..

Okay, let's say your nails grow quickly too. But nails can at least wear down during certain types of activities. And the hair?!. They don't shorten on their own. Without scissors or at least sharp knife there's no way around it. However, tools suitable for such a procedure as hair cutting appeared, by historical standards, quite recently. It was possible, of course, to come up with some kind of scarves or garters with the help of which to fix the head of hair on the head, but the same garters also had to be made from something...

So if we consider the appearance of fast-growing hair to be some kind of natural mutation, then it must be dated no earlier than the time when the skills of creating special garters or tools such as scissors appeared. And this seems very, very doubtful, since it does not fit in at all in terms of time scales - even garters clearly appeared no earlier than several tens of thousands of years ago. With some optimism, it is possible to push back the time frame for their appearance, say, a hundred thousand years ago. And note that in this case we strangely find ourselves in the same time frame that is reserved for “mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosomal Adam”!..

Rice. 279.Ways

We live in a vast, terrifying universe where strange cosmic asteroids can be destroyed on a planetary scale. It's only a matter of time before a big cosmic killer comes into view of our telescopes.

Features of asteroids

Not all asteroids have a uniform composition and flight trajectory. Some scientists argue that their deflection is caused by surface detonation, others advise detonating them at a distance to clamp a larger surface area and cause more movement.

But there is a third option that can protect our Earth from asteroids - this is changing the flight path of a cosmic body.

Slowly and surely, a small NASA spacecraft equipped with a solar sail can change the asteroid's direction. This is the preliminary conclusion of Finnish researchers. They studied how an improved solar sail, called an "E-sail", uses charged tethers to extract momentum from solar wind particles to produce improved thrust. He could save the world.

The working principle of a solar sail

For all its size, a solar sail is quite light, so a heavy launch vehicle can launch an asteroid into orbit and send it in a completely different direction. After a long journey, the ship tracks an asteroid armed with harpoon tow ropes. If the cosmic body is not strong enough to be captured by a harpoon, there is always the possibility of capturing the dust ball with a large net.

The distance between the sail and the asteroid must be carefully measured, which means the spacecraft must be smart and equipped with special engines to carry out this operation.

Researchers say that even the E Sail system, whose technical data was not so advanced, in ten years could move a large asteroid two radii of the Earth.

A University of Arizona researcher and a colleague from the Russian Academy of Sciences proposed a solar sail system to be installed in place of a tugboat, but then used aluminum-coated mylar that could focus a beam of sunlight into the space rock. This heated the surface and created a stream of vaporized material, which provoked the movement needed to push the asteroid out of Earth's path.

Protection from disaster on Earth

There are some scientists who believe that the Svalbard Global Seed Bank, established on the Norwegian island in 2015 to preserve the world's most important crops, is sufficient protection against planetary disaster. But when it comes to asteroid impacts or a nuclear attack caused by natural causes, backup is not enough.

The idea of ​​​​creating an object that stores DNA records of all life on Earth

About 10 years ago, a lunar scientist proposed the idea of ​​creating a lunar object that could store DNA records of all Earth's life forms, embryos, microbes and seeds.

The scientist created a fully automated facility that worked and was maintained as long as it was needed. The transmitters would transmit DNA sequences to solidified receivers on Earth, where survivors of a planetary catastrophe could use genetic engineering to speed up the restoration of the ecosystem and civilization.

If we talk about the safe storage of DNA, the Moon has conditions suitable for this purpose. Obviously, being far from Earth is a big advantage of a satellite when it comes to large quantities end of the world scenarios.

Storing materials in Earth's orbit is not as safe with the constant threat of meteorites and the fight against Earth's gravity challenging the long-term existence of our planet.

The moon also has abundant sunlight and water to help keep the facility running.

And most of the missing conditions can be created artificially, for example, a dug storage facility under the regolith to protect against meteor bombardment. But for the Moon it poses a danger due to the lack of an atmosphere on it.

The scientist is currently working on Mars programs at ESA, and the idea of ​​a lunar repository has become utopian. It probably needs a stimulating factor, some impending disaster that will force humanity to go beyond its concept of space.

Sun Control

In 1992, Russia launched a solar mirror called Znamya 2 into space with the unique mission of reflecting light onto the planet, providing western Russia with additional light equivalent to the full moon. The patch of light was 5 km wide. It spread at a speed of 8 km per second. The second attempt failed in space when the sail caught the antenna and the flexible mirror unfurled.

Of course, it is possible to use solar reflectors to change the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth, but is this necessary for humanity? Does this model suggest mixing clouds with sulfur to make them more reflective, and do we need that kind of sun when global warming is a problem?

It turns out that it all depends on the scope of application. For starters, intense beams of light could make solar farms more efficient and begin to drive large-scale clean energy projects like molten salt towers.

By promoting plant growth with increased sunlight, more carbon can be sequestered.

Climate restoration

In 2001, Lowell Wood of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory estimated that a deviation of just 1% of sunlight would restore climate stability.

Future humans could use massive solar reflectors to reduce the total amount of sunlight hitting the planet. This would require about 600,000 square miles or mirrors.

Krafft Erice, legendary space engineer and a contemporary of Wernher von Braun, involved in the development of the German and American rocket programs, spent 10 years studying the reflection of sunlight and how it could benefit humanity. His paper, published in 1979, is an excellent example of how smart people approach serious engineering problems.

Creating a world home in the sky

The world population is approximately 7 billion people and is constantly growing. It could reach 11 billion people by 2100, according to the United Nations. No one can be sure how this sustainable process will affect our planet, but even with technological advances in food preservation and production, environmental collapse is a safe bet.

The planet needs a second floor

There is not much space on the surface of our planet. Perhaps the Earth needs a second floor. In 1992, Richard Taylor published an article in the famous journal British Interplanetary Society detailing how humans could reconstruct "the world." The way he saw it would take too much time and require large investments. The scientist proposed building massive domes 3 km high.

On some distant world, the central tower would be home to 500,000 settlers, and the dome would be transparent to harness light for the greenhouses and entire life-giving ecosystem.

Transferring this idea to Earth is not bad, especially in a future in which the population will be concentrated in megacities and resources will be sorely lacking.

Building worlds over deserts, oceans, and poles could help feed populations, ease demand on planetary ecosystems, and give people a place to live close to food and rich in solar energy.

Vertical supercities have been on the drawing boards since the 1960s, but modern scientists are proposing an ecosystem model that is self-sustaining. The big problem with life support is that it gets out of control. For example, in 1993, the plants of Biosphere 2 did not produce enough oxygen.

Source:

In an interview with Gazeta.Ru, Assistant to the Russian President for Scientific and Educational Policy Andrei Fursenko spoke about what awaits Russian science in the coming years, where it can expect funding and new tasks.

— Many scientists still talk – and rightly so – about the lack of funding for science in Russia...
— This year a very important principle was formulated: the share of GDP that is spent on basic research, should not decrease. This order was given following the meeting of the Presidential Council on Science. Perhaps for the first time in my memory, expenses specifically for fundamental research were classified as protected items. The President specifically emphasized that, of course, all science is important, but still fundamental science is the direct responsibility of the state. And at least the costs will not fall compared to last year. Or maybe they will grow up a little.

— What to do with the fact that the ruble has fallen?
“This problem concerns not only science, but also the entire economy, including purchases at the household level. It is clear that when the economic situation worsens, problems definitely arise everywhere, including in such a budget-dependent area as science, for example, with the purchase of imported equipment and imported consumables. This means that we need to plan better, we need to more clearly concentrate available resources on the identified priorities.

But although there is a lot of talk about a weak ruble, I have not yet heard any fundamental important research because of this they were stopped.

— Do you agree that there is too serious an imbalance between the financing of fundamental science and the financing of applied science? Does anything need to be done about this?
- I agree. There are very few extra-budgetary funds in our science. When we evaluate budget funding for our science, we see that we are in the group of leaders. But when the assessment of attracting extra-budgetary funds begins, the situation worsens, both in relative and absolute terms. IN different countries Of course, this distribution looks different, but in Japan, the USA and European countries the share of budget funds for science is 20-40%.

In our country, 75-80% of the total funding for science comes from the budget. It is not normal.

This means that we do not have a full-fledged partnership with the economy, with industry. Perhaps this is partly due to the fact that our science, which is competitive in a number of sectors, does not choose as priorities those areas where there is a demand for results. It is known that today a significant part of funding in science throughout the world goes to the field of biotechnology, research related to medicine, and food. In our country, until recently, it was traditionally believed that the main science is physics and that the main funds should go there. Moreover, the speech concerned not only the defense industry, but also civilian science.

Indeed, we are doing well in this area, at a good level.

But we must understand that today the main demand and the main center of gravity in new research has shifted in the other direction. And we have not fully followed this shift.

I think that if our academic sector in science (and I include both research at leading universities and research at national research centers) pays more attention to what is now most in demand - both in the world and in the country, then , I think the financing system may also change. And if we don’t pay due attention to this, then it will turn out that our money will be spent on the results of “foreign science.” New technologies and new devices will be purchased on a turnkey basis. We are currently re-equipping, for example, the medical sector, the re-equipment of agriculture, the food industry, construction, and housing and communal services. The overwhelming majority of developments, technologies, and products that today in these areas are of a high-tech nature were purchased abroad, and, as they say, on a turnkey basis.

- So what should we do about it?
— We need to work more closely with business. First of all, involve business in the formation of applications, orders, and ensure that business is fully involved in goal setting for science. And one more thing: in order to decide what to do, we need to understand why we should do this or that. We pay very little attention to analyzing our priorities. The first thing we must do (the president emphasized this at the last meeting of the Science Council) is developing a strategy for the country’s scientific and technological development, including defining priorities.

It is necessary to formulate principles for identifying new directions that should have maximum support. So that there is real demand from industry, the economy, and society.

And so that this becomes a serious incentive for scientists to engage in precisely these works, these areas. At the same time, measures must be determined that will ensure the creation of appropriate infrastructure and staffing in these areas.

— What should be written in this strategy? For example, an increase in life expectancy in the country. Such a goal could be a task on the basis of which some activities will be included in the strategy?
- Even this requires decoding. What kind of life do we want to make longer? If we say that we must ensure a long, high-quality life, then we need to explain what we mean by quality of life for a healthy person.

— Ecology, products...
- Right.

- And medicine...
- And medicine! Moreover, medicine is needed not only to treat diseases and save people in a crisis situation. It is also needed to maintain and restore health. The best treatment is prevention. Rehabilitation is no less important. So that if you get sick, the medicines will treat you and give minimal side effects. I often give an example (you probably wrote about this) that the era of antibiotics is ending. And this is a challenge for the whole world. What will replace them?

Will we be able to create a new generation of antibiotics that are harmful to microorganisms and yet to which addiction has not yet occurred?

Therefore, if we talk about strategy, we need to understand what the main problems - not scientific, but economic and social - are facing humanity in general and our country in particular. And when we formulate these problems, then see which of these questions we could answer most effectively with the involvement of science, with the involvement of some new technologies. The strategy should not be perceived as a list of some projects. This is a broader and more meaningful thing.

— Will the strategy be prepared in the near future?
“I don’t think it will happen quickly.” I think six months to a year. We must analyze not only the scientific component, but also the socio-economic situation, national specifics, and geopolitical situation.

— Who will work on this strategy and is already working?
— This is entrusted to the government and us, together with the Academy of Sciences.

— That is, by and large, if they wish, all people of science will be able to participate in the creation of the strategy?
- Not only science, I repeat, not only science. It is very important!

— This week you are performing at major congress dedicated to the interaction between science and business. What are you going to talk about there?
— About what we were talking about just now. I will talk about how important an integrated approach is. Just about the fact that the main thing that today, in my opinion, science needs from business is not money. The money will come on its own if there are interesting offers and decent results.

The main thing is real participation in goal setting, in the formation of orders. And not an order for a specific product, but the formation of prospects together with scientists.

— Can you give any example of such interaction?
— In my opinion, the Scientific and Technological Valley of Moscow State University should become an example of such interaction. It will consist of several clusters, and within their framework (and I know that the corresponding analytical work has already been done) it will be necessary to understand how to respond to many pressing key problems. I saw one of the reviews that was done by Innopraktika, the team that is now preparing the technology valley project. The same issue with antibiotic resistance comes up there. For another cluster there is a whole block of questions related to fundamentally new materials. For example, for Rosatom, which faces a very acute problem of materials science. I would not like to discuss this, it would be more correct if the people who are responsible for the development talk about it. But many business partners have expressed their readiness to go to the valley, and they are focused on the fact that they will have very serious intellectual potential from Moscow State University, and young potential at that. Young teachers and, what is very important, students and graduate students are open-minded people.

And with these people, business partners will be able to discuss and solve some problems.

What's good about MSU? Its universality, encyclopedicity, fundamentality. There is very serious medicine, a good biology department, good materials science and a very strong mathematics school. If so, then business - if it analyzes what is there, together with scientists - really has a chance to find something together with them for the future. And the most important thing is that this joint work is established.

You've probably heard who the potential partners in the valley will be.

Among them there are people who see bottlenecks in large-scale tasks. And they can tell scientists: this needs to be expanded.

Of course, this may be an idealistic picture, but we must set ourselves tasks of this magnitude.

— I would like to compare it with Skolkovo, but they have already said a lot that these are different projects. Let me ask you this: why has no one tried to create such a project before?
“And a lot has changed in our country in 10 years, since the start of national projects in education, healthcare and agriculture. These were very large-scale projects. In parallel with this, remember when the crisis arose in 2008, and it became clear that, unfortunately, the crisis was becoming permanent, another fundamental decision was made: enough large sums— 100 billion rubles. for three years - were allocated to the development of a number of new tools in the field of science, including the “megagrants” program and the implementation of Resolution 218, when we began to give money not to researchers, but to business, so that business, adding their funds, made orders to universities for research that interested him.

As a result, today in Russia we have several dozen universities that are absolutely competitive in the world, in all areas. This is not bad, you will agree.

We have at least the same number of scientific institutes, which in terms of their equipment and personnel are competitive at the world level. The number of scientists in the country has begun to grow, and at the expense of young people. More serious and large-scale tasks began to appear. The technology valley today allows us to take the next step in science. Apparently, new forms are needed. And needed new level tasks.

- Well, after all, not all scientists in the country are happy with their situation...
- Well, we still have “Yaroslavna’s cry”, that everything is bad, everything is not right. In fact, a country in which one and a half hundred absolutely competitive research centers and universities operate normally is capable of implementing serious projects. We can complain as much as we like that our percentage of financing from GDP is not the same as, for example, in Finland or Israel. But we must remember that the scale of our country and the scale of our science - not in specific terms, but in absolute terms - still allow us to count on more. Therefore, the questions that we pose to ourselves today, they appeared not only because we “cheered up”, but because objective opportunities arose to solve these problems.