# Astronomy & Astrophysics

Is it correct that Kepler gave four laws but one of them was wrong?
The three laws of Kepler are well-known. These are (i) Law of Orbits/Ellipses ( in 1605) (ii) Law of Areas (in 1602) (iii) Law of Periods/Harmonic Law (in 1618). What was the 4th law (if possible please give the reference)?
Ramanand Jha · Skyline Institute of Engineering & Technology, Greater Noida (UP) INDIA
In a two temperature plasma, we have the ratio of electron and ion temperature given by T_e = (m_e/m_i)^0.5 T_i. How do we arrive at this relation?
The above relation has been used in the synchrotron cooling expression in the paper "Behaviour of dissipative accretion flows around black holes" 2007MNRAS.376.1659D.

We know that the electron thermal velocity is v_e = (k T_e/m_e)^0.5 and ion thermal velocity is v_i = (k T_i/m_i)^0.5. If we say that ions and electrons have same kinetic energy then...m_e (v_e^2) = m_i (v_i^2)...and we arrive at the ralation...

T_e = (m_e/m_i)T_i

But under what assumptions can we arrive at the relation T_e = (m_e/m_i)^0.5 T_i ??
Yuri Shchekinov · Southern Federal University
have to think -- I am not quite familiar with what's going on with T_e/T_i when you do approach black hole.. depends on heating sources of the electron, I guess.
Is it possible to see mercury transit the same way that I saw venus transit i.e without a telescope?
I saw venus transit in the morning 6-june-2012 at sunrise just by putting a sun glass and looking at the sun as it was rising. I calculate that mercury during transit would have
about one fifth the angular size of venus. My question : Is it possible to see mercury
transit the same way that I saw venus transit in 2012?
Luc Arnold · French National Centre for Scientific Research
Yacoub, yes with binocular with 7x or more power, you should see Mercury.
The sun is a critical fusion reactor and needs negative feedback control. How does the sun stabilize itself?
Negative feedback is essential for the steady state operation of any dynamic system. The sun generates heat based on nuclear fusion. Therefore the sun is a nuclear reactor operating in a critical condition. How does the sun remain stable? What mechanisms are the control feedback of sun?
Why you think that you should not give importance to the study of untested theories?
Why you think you should not give importance to the study of the possibility of the existence of dark matter / energy , multidimensional theories , worm tubes , and other theories that have not been tested yet? (They are made ​​on paper ! )
Recall that the theory of relativity, theory of evolution of Darwin and others were not accepted by the scientific community in its principles. There were writen on paper before being confirmed after many years. An example of this is: Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity predicts that the path of light bends in a gravitational field. This was no positive proof until many years after his death. This was confirmed during observasion of light in an eclipse.
Alexander E Kaplan · Johns Hopkins University
The question by Luis is formulated in a very awkward way -- is the author implying that untested theories should not be pursued or the other way around? I guess what he wanted to say is that they should be pursued, with which most of us would agree, but then it is truism, a bit too trivial to have a serious discussion about it.
How to calculate power spectrum from density perturbation?
What is the method for finding the power spectrum from the distribution of density? Considering I have the distribution of density over a certain volume.
Yurij Kulinich · Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221936046_Non-linear_power_spectra_of_dark_and_luminous_matter_in_halo_model_of_structure_formation?ev=prf_pub
How can we compute solar position at a given place on a given day and time?
I have GPS obtained UTC time (hours, minutes, seconds), longitude(deg E), latitude (deg N) and date. I have thoroughly search on internet for step-by-step procedure to obtain solar position variables - solar zenith angle, solar azimuth angle, Sun-Earth distance. But every method is different. Some followed geometrical method while most others have some complicated formulae with varying coefficients. I never found a generalized way to obtain solar position variables. Is there any reference which provides step-by-step procedure to obtain them in the most accurate way? Can anyone provide the step-by-step procedure with equations, corresponding explanation for coefficients, accuracy of output and literature references for each equation? Please don't provide me readily available codes / functions or links on internet search.
Chris Gueymard · Solar Consulting Services
The formula of Dr. Dong cannot be precise because it ignores the effect of leap years and thus the exact (fractional) number of days in a year. It's only an approximation compared to the more complex methods discussed earlier.
Is it possible to have some quasi-periodic solutions for the accretion disk equations?
Can the accretion disk disappear and form again for the same compact star? And If yes what is the time scale for this process?In which type of disk this quasiperiodicity can appear?
It seems the Marscher work was published in 2002 - I'm not sure that the regularity of AGN cycle has been borne out... Here's some more recent research from 2012: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3175. It also provides other, more recent references. As I understand, the case of galaxy 3C120 accretion is peculiar...
Can we build nuclear power plants on the Moon and transport energy to the Earth? Wouldn't that be very safe for all of us?
Nuclear power plants are some of the most sophisticated and complex energy systems ever designed. Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot be deemed failure-proof. Veteran anti-nuclear activist and author Stephanie Cooke has argued:
The reactors themselves were enormously complex machines with an incalculable number of things that could go wrong. When that happened at Three Mile Island in 1979, another fault line in the nuclear world was exposed. One malfunction led to another, and then to a series of others, until the core of the reactor itself began to melt, and even the world's most highly trained nuclear engineers did not know how to respond. The accident revealed serious deficiencies in a system that was meant to protect public health and safety.
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident inspired Perrow's book Normal Accidents, where a nuclear accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of a normal accident because it was "unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable".
Perrow concluded that the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system's immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems, he realized, were prone to failures however well they were managed. It was inevitable that they would eventually suffer what he termed a 'normal accident'. Therefore, he suggested, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not possible, to abandon such technology entirely..
A fundamental issue contributing to a nuclear power system's complexity is its extremely long lifetime. The timeframe from the start of construction of a commercial nuclear power station through the safe disposal of its last radioactive waste, may be 100 to 150 years.
Controversy

The abandoned city of Prypiat, Ukraine, following the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is in the background.
The nuclear power debate is about the controversy which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.
Proponents argue that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels. Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that nuclear power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries. They emphasize that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
Opponents say that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents.Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology.They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.
Dominic Napolitano · Enercon
It is not necessary or desirable to build nuclear plant on the moon. Nuclear power is, based on actual statistics, one of the safest ways to produce energy and also has one of the least environmental impacts. The reasons are simple:

1. There is no air pollution and no carbon dioxide. Air is not used in the process
2. The amount of fuel and waste produce is small. The fuel in a 1000 MWe reactor core can fit in a two garage.
3. Since the amount of fuel required is smaller than coal, gas, wood or any other burning fuel the mining impact of nuclear is the least of all the major energy opitons.
4. The amount of land usage for a reactor is the least compared to Wind or Solar or bio mass
5. Nuclear energy production is 24/7 except for a refueling outage which takes 3 weeks every two years. Solar and Wind have capacity factor 25 and 35% are are very intermittent.
6. Concerning accidents, even with TMI, Chernobol and Fukushima, the loss of life (none in the case of TMI and none in the case of Fukushima), is still very low and cancer rates are not significantly above the norm.

FinallyAll energy options should be assessed against one another for there pro and cons. There is a serious problem with climate change and nuclear power must be part of the energy mix.
Has the important astronomical event, supernova 1054 in constellation Taurus, played any role in the discovery of pulsars?
I know that the development of radio astronomy was the most crucial step in the discovery, but still I am convinced that the supernova 1054 may have had some inspiring role in the discovery of pulsars.
James Garry · Red Core Consulting ltd.
Yacoub,

The '68 discovery was the first observation of a periodically radiating stellar object. Neutron stars, or rather, supernovae remnants, had been known to be sources of radio emission for a little while before that, but the cognitive link hadn't been made (as far as I understand the chronology) to predict that such signals would be generated.

The wikipedia page is quite forthcoming, and if you want to go to source, you could always ask Dr Bell-Burnell.
Can the Lambda-CDM cosmological model survive the discrepancy between galaxy cluster observations and CMB projections?
See http://www.nature.com/news/cosmic-mismatch-hints-at-the-existence-of-a-sterile-neutrino-1.14752. It states:
"… The background radiation shows the small density variations in the early universe that would eventually cause matter to clump in some places and form voids in others. We can see the end product of this clumping in the recent universe by observing the spread of galaxy clusters across space.
"The best measurements of the cosmic background radiation came from the European Space Agency’s orbiting Planck telescope in March 2013. Galaxy-cluster measurements, on the other hand, come from various methods that include mapping the spread of mass across the universe by looking for the gravitational lensing, or warping of light, it causes. The two measurements, however, are inconsistent with one another. "We compare the universe at an early time to a later time, and we have a model that extrapolates between the two," says Richard Battye of the University of Manchester, UK, co-author of the new study1 published on 7 February in Physical Review Letters (PRL). "If you stick to the model that fits the CMB data, then number of clusters you find is a factor of two lower than you expect.""

Recent reports of X-ray signals that may signify the decay of sterile neutrinos have raised hopes for a cosmological solution, as some mix of Cold Dark Matter (CDM), Warm Dark Matter (WDM) and/or Hot Dark Matter (HDM) could fit CMB projections of galaxy cluster formations to observations since WDM and HDM would prevent structure formation at increasingly larger scales. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3255 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.051303 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.051302.
Also see http://phys.org/news/2014-02-massive-neutrinos-cosmological-conundrum.html https://www.technology.org/2014/02/25/neutrino-replaces-higgs-boson-sought-particle/ http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/02/x-rays-other-galaxies-could-emanate-particles-dark-matter and http://www.nature.com/news/physics-broaden-the-search-for-dark-matter-1.14795.

However, if the composition of universal mass-energy included HDM or WDM and less total CDM than now thought, how would that affect the enormous gravitational effects routinely attributed to CDM in the observed universe?

Adding HDM and/or WDM may help with LCDM problems such as 'the small scale structure problem', 'the missing satellite problem', the 'cuspy halo problem' and others, but it must do so while maintaining alignment with other observations. What other L-CDM results would be affected by the inclusion of HDM and/or WDM?
Dear Biswajoy,
There have been a few L-CDM anomalies identified even in the Planck CMB data - see http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Planck_reveals_an_almost_perfect_Universe
"One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the CMB temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard model – their signals are not as strong as expected from the smaller scale structure revealed by Planck.
"Another is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look.
"Furthermore, a cold spot extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected."

Moreover, to this pedestrian, it seems that L-CDM power spectrum analyses may be more an exercise in parametric curve-fitting than stringent testing of model results. For example, see http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/31.

There are also some very fundamental observations of low mass, large separation stellar binary systems in our galactic neighborhood that do not comply with Keplerian expectations for inverse-square diminishment of rotational velocity as a function of separation distance. While they do fit with the general expectations of modified gravity theories, there seems to be no configuration of dark matter that could produce the observed rotational characteristics. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7063.

Dark matter's only purpose, even in the primordial universe, is to increase the effects attributed to mass-energy to fit observations. Alternatively, the analytical determination of effects produced by mass-energy, especially under widely varying conditions, could be different than currently established evaluation methods presume. If the effects of mass-energy in the early universe were different than determined by the L-CDM model, results might still fit with observations despite the absence of any dark matter.

Again, our interpretation of early, large scale conditions may be skewed by averaging methods and other scale dependent factors - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2314.
• Michael Y.T. Hwang asked a question:
What is the standard for a new physics discovery?
I discovered a EIDIP function that can be used to model the upper bound of nuclear binding energy, the relationship between the Higgs boson mass and nuclear binding energy, the relationship between quantized mass number and speed of light, the repulsive/attractive characteristic of the inter-nucleon nuclear force and inter-molecule covalent bonding force, the short range asymptotic freedom and long range color confinement behavior of the strong force at inter-atomic range, the Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft sunward acceleration anomaly at interplanetary distance, and the galaxy rotational velocity anomaly curve at interstellar distance. In order to prove it, I have developed 9 EIDIP function application models; Comparison between empirical data sets and model predictions are summarized in this slidedoc (in MS PowerPoint).
Big bang is sometimes explained as an hydrogen generation explosion. Is that correct and why hydrogen?
That should give hints about the preceeding origin, no?
Isn't it thought that the very early universe was so hot (energetic) that perhaps only transient virtual particles could (fleetingly) exist? As the universe expanded and cooled, progressively more stable particles condensed until, eventually, hydrogen nuclei became stably bound...
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_epoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron_epoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_epoch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_epoch and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis.
Do dark matter and dark energy constitute valid evidence of large spatial dimensions higher than 3?
There are speculations that the gravitational effects of matter in 4 or greater LARGE spatial dimensions might account for the substantial discrepancy that exists between measured gravitational effects on normal baryonic matter and the amount of that matter that exists according to measurements. Could we be measuring the gravitational effects of "normal" matter in higher dimensions? And can large higher dimensions also explain the huge amount of dark energy that seems to be around?
Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry

Please, I send you the addresses of the two-page abstract and of the more comprehensive presentation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245023223_PFOCFO_Hypothesis_of_Solar_System_formation_the_notion_of_the_Sun-like_stars_and_their_transformations?ev=prf_pub

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257235779_PFO-CFO_Hypothesis_of_Solar_System_formation_the_notion_of_the_Sun-like_stars_and_their_transformations?ev=prf_pub
From dwarfs to giants: how were ellipticals formed ?
Updating a basic question: what are the possible ways to make elliptical galaxies with various masses? Is merging the only way for the massive ones?
I have not done any simulations in regards to monolithic collapse producing unstable rotation curves. However, it is relatively easy to conclude that if we initially have a spheroidal galaxy with mostly radial motion transitioning to a more tightly concentrated disk, then the exchange of gravitational potential to momentum along the z-axis would need to be conserved in some manner (x-y plane is aligned with the disk). There was a recent article about wavy motion in the Milky Way disk and I believe that this is a residual of collapse along the z-axis (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24464-milky-way-galaxy-is-fluttering-like-a-flag.html#.U1m9laIa7pc), along with the motion of UV excess stars.

The theory that seems to match observations best is an origin from dense, x-ray emitting gas. Therefore, initial star formation begins due to a prior higher density of the ISM and then is halted in early-type galaxies due to expansion of the ISM (decreased density). The next phase would be cooling of the x-ray emitting gas, which relative to the Jean's criterion would allow a new generation of stars to form (high redshift ETG in the paradigm that I am arguing for). This is the only way I can think of that would reconcile the bottom heavy IMF in massive ETGs with its correlation to metallicity, stellar dispersion and x-ray temperature. For example, a very dense hot initial state would induce significant fragmentation while producing fewer massive stars. In regards to elliptical galaxies in cluster and field environments, the field varieties have more neutral hydrogen and increased ring/disk formation. One can therefore infer that cluster environments provide a look-back as to the previous evolution and state of field galaxies. Also remember that the gas in ETG's is on the order of that contained in their stellar populations, so a lot of future star formation is still possible.
How should I choose a particular gauge in first order perturbation in general relativity?
In the case of general relativity the change in coordinate can give rise to fictitious perturbations, for which we can use gauge invariant variables or we can also choose a specific gauge. My question is how to decide which gauge is suitable for a particular problem?
Rolando Gaitan Deveras · Universidad de Carabobo, UC
Following Dr. Eubanks, if one assume gravity as a gauge theory, there is a nice analogy with Yang-Mills theory about possible gauge fixations. For example, let $h_{\mu\nu}$ be the graviton field in a perturbative regime, then the "Coulomb" gauge must be $\partial_i h_{i\nu}=0$. Observe that this fixation is no more a general relativistic covariant constraint. So, in gravity a gauge fixation and covariance constraint go hand in hand.
Big bang theory indicates that universal expansion will continue but where it is expanding and is it going to stop after several million years.
Once the universal expansion stops will our universe start converge or collapse and will form another big bang and the new universe will start its creation and this process will go on and the creation and recreation will continue and the universe will remain infinite with expansion and contraction.
V. T. Toth · N/A
Whether or not the expansion comes to a halt or continues forever depends on whether or not the gravity of all matter and energy in the universe is sufficient to overcome the expansion itself. The recent discovery of accelerating expansion suggests that it is not; that in fact (due in part to the presence of "dark energy", about which we know next to nothing) not only will the expansion continue forever, but it will accelerate.
When the Big-Bang exploded in a millisecond, what created the space in which primordial matter traveled?
Did a certain type of space exist before the explosion took place? Even when the explosion itself created the space by its own strength, there had to be something that existed before the Big-Bang, or was there?
G. Bothun · University of Oregon
the "Big Bang" event does not need to be a singularity. Generally speaking, the
big bang should be equated with the creation of space time and the point when
the Universe starts to evolve. What exists before known physics its not a relevant question.
What is the Rayleigh Taylor Stability criterion in the case of a rotating viscous fluid?
Why does the outward increase of angular momentum in an accretion disk make the disk Rayleigh stable? Since the density profile in an accretion disk increases inward in the case of constant accretion rate, there should not be an instability in between consecutive rings. Is that the reason why they are Rayleigh stable?
Biplob Sarkar · Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
The Rayleigh criterion, relies on fluid elements retaining their angular momenta.
Following Rayleigh, suppose we interchange the fluid in two rings, of equal masses, at radii r1 and r2 . So the fluid initially at r1 is moved to r2 , conserving its angular momentum L1 . Similarly the fluid initially at r2 is moved to r1 , conserving its angular momentum L2 . Then,

change in KE ∼ (L2^2 − L1^2 )(r1^-2 - r2^-2)

Now a system always wants to go to the lowest energy state. If angular momentum is a increasing function of r, then the swapping of fluid parcels is going to cost the system to increase its energy, so the system will not try to do it and the system is stable to this perturbation.
However in case when angular momentum is a decreasing function of r, then the system can release its energy by swapping of fluid parcels and the system will try to do so, so the system is unstable to this perturbation.

So we can say that when the angular momentum is a increasing function of r in an accretion disk, the disk is Rayleigh stable.
What was before Big-Bang?
If we accept Big-Bang theory, what has been before that?
No space, no time, no mass, no energy, no momentum, no event, no sequence...??!!
Jorge Silva Barcellos · Independent researcher
Dear Parviz.

Exactly!
How much energy hits Mars' surface per second?
55 x 10^6 mi^2 (surface area)/4 (cross section of Mars) x (5,280 ft)^2 x (12)^2 x (2.54 cm)^2 x 117 W/m^-2 (insolation)/(100 cm)^2 = 4.16 x 10^15 Watts.

Does this seem accurate?
Chris Vincent Boretzky · Robert Morris University
Yes i rounded, but you were right when i took the cross section twice. Thank you
Is the cosmic axis due to a large-scale magnetic field?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269311003947
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html#.UunXEtGYZok
A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals has indicated a parity violating asymmetry in the overall universe and a preferred axis.
Could the large-scale magnetic field be related to the predominant left-handed neutrinos in our cosmic sphere as well?
Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
In 1915 Emmy Noether demonstrated that the conservation laws are consequences of properties ("symmetries") of the space and time.
Briefly :
- Homogeneity of space -> Conservation of momentum
- Isotropy of space -> Conservation of angular momentum
- Uniformity of time - > Energy Conservation .
These 3 symmetries are always present in Galileo-Newton space as in Minkowski space.

The General Relativity theory requires the loss of these symmetries to explain gravitation. Only the space isotropy may be possible with spherical symmetry condition (Schwarzschild), but this is a particular case.

Curved space-time in GR is incompatible with - Homogeneity of space - Isotropy of space - Uniformity of time, and will violate the conservation laws associated with those symmetries.
Who can define the G without using Newton's gravitational law?
Any theory giving up the absolute space has to give its own definition first, because the G is defined by Newton's absolute space.
Without a universal flat space-time reference frame (Newton's absolute space), talking about conservation of energy and momentum is nothing more than daydreamer talking nonsense.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0210005.pdf

Only experimental results can give final judgment to any physics theory, no matter how beautiful it was. Even Einstein said that no matter how many experiments can not prove his theory right, but just need one experiment to prove it wrong.
http://alpha.web.cern.ch/
If the ALPHA experiment in CERN can confirm the gravitational repulsive force between matter and anti-matter, then it will set the last nail on the coffin of the old dogmas, and set the cornerstone for the new theory of gravitation.

CPT and Lorentz Violation along with the emergence of the gravitational repulsive force towards anti-matter seems to be the only way to avoid the singularity in both special and general relativity.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/401916
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0505070.pdf

Logunov - Author Index All archives
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/lo/Logunov
Is Lorentz-invariant gravitation theory a valid alternative to general relativity?
Krogdahl in his critique to general relativity suggests that we should better consider Lorentz-invariant cosmology (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.1145.pdf).

I tried to search on this issue and only find few articles discussing Lorentz invariant gravitation theory, one of them from wikiversity, see http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Lorentz-invariant_theory_of_gravitation. Then i can only locate few papers discussing Maxwell-like Lorentz-invariant gravitation theory, one of them is perhaps worth mentioning here that is by Jeffrey Kaplan, David Nichols and Kip Thorne from Caltech. They summarize DSX paper, their paper can be found at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2510.pdf.

So, do you think that Lorentz-invariant gravitation theory is a valid alternative to General relativity theory? Your comments are welcome.
Manuel Morales · Institute of Prephysical Research
"Is Lorentz-invariant gravitation theory a valid alternative to general relativity?"

To speculate valid alternatives there needs to be a way validate them. So 'how' would we validate such a theory?

Prediction is important if you start with "existence" of phenomenon (numerically or physically) in order to try to understand its cause. However, being able to successfully predict gives us a false sense of correctness. There is a HUGE difference between guessing correctly and "being" correct. If science is about the search for objective truths, then "guessing correctly" will never get you there for guessing will always be subjective.

Without Knowledge Of First Cause Can Science Correctly Predict Effects?:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Without_Knowledge_Of_First_Cause_Can_Science_Correctly_Predict_Effects

I find it curious how we all talk about the importance of "prediction" in science while failing to take stock of the "superstitious" quality of the construct of such a method. So who is fooling who?
• Amrit Raj asked a question:
Can we be able to create a worm hole or find one?
Short cuts through space
Can we distinguish the redshift from the expansion of the universe from the R/B shift due to rapid movement of a celestial object near a heavy object?
For some far objects there is a strong red shift due to expansion, if the object was highly affected by a strong gravitational field that lead to affect its movement how can we distinguish between the red shift from expansion and red shift or blue shift that yielded from the fast rotational movement of the object due to being near the highly gravitational field. neglecting the red shift from gravitational field it self. Is the equations of special relativity enough for describing such type of movement?
Thanks Uryson
Is the Sun a pulsar?
Overwhelming experimental evidence from precise measurements shown in three figures indicate:

_ 1. Neutron repulsion is the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms and stars
_ 2. The Sun made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives
_ 3. Iron-56 is the most abundant and most stable atom in the Earth and the Sun
Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
Dear Oliver,

My paper (A Cosmological Model with Variable Constants) is posted on RG.
I understand that you are busy, so please review it whenever you have time.

Guoliang Liu
What do we think about the ESA presentation on Planck? What did we learn?
This morning ESA unveiled the first results from analysis of the the Planck Satellite data on the cosmic background. There are changes to values of certain of the important quantities that define our Universe. But no information as yet from polarization data.
Any reactions, ideas, ...
I think the most important consideration is that the Planck full-sky dust maps will be available late this year and may provide additional information important to the evaluation of the BICEP2 results. In some cases, the rush to publish may be premature. Also see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/mar/18/neil-turok-urges-caution-on-bicep2-results.
Could gravitational waves essentially be black body radiations?
This suggestion seems to be consistent with the following two proposals to replace General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
http://file.scirp.org/Html/16-7500855_23098.htm
The so called gravitational waves as ripples of curvature of space-time may not exist in reality. If GR could be replaced by these proposals, then the counterpart of gravitational waves could be electromagnetic radiations with black body spectrum.
The alternative solution to the precession of binary pulsars was found by professor Arbab in 2010.
Function (21) in this paper should be the formula for gravitational radiations in form of black body radiations.
The CMB itself could be cosmic background gravitational waves in form of black body radiations, Big Bang should be ruled out if this is confirmed.
Michael,
I appreciate the copy-formatting issue, but I think the change was a correction in response to the first comment posted to the article...
What empirical evidence is there that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at the present time, T_0?
SN-1a data [Reiss et al., Perlmutter et al.] indicates that there is a deviation from a linear Hubble curve for data points at large distances, > 3-4 Gly. Theoretical fits are then made, based on Friedmann equations, that include a “dark energy” term, Lambda. From this fit it is shown that the rate of the expansion of the universe will lead to an accelerating universe. It is often stated that the universe is accelerating at the present time, T_0. But if one looks at the Hubble curve for only the past 2-3 billion years the Hubble curve can be fit nearly perfectly with a straight line. This indicates to me that there is no empirical evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at the present time. In other words, the Lambda -fit curve _suggests_ that the expansion is accelerating at the present time but this acceleration is, in fact, presently _not_ observed to any degree of certainty over the past few billion years.
Biswajoy Brahmachari · Vidyasagar Evening College
As we see structures of luminous matter, such as galaxies and
galaxy clusters. Dark matter also should have some form of
structures. We do not know what are those structures. But always
there is a gravitational interaction between dark matter and
luminous matter. Therefore, will dark matter structures be gravitationally
tied to luminous structures, and voids will remain simple voids
without neither luminous nor dark matter ? This is perhaps a
natural case. Thinking otherwise, that voids will contain
large amount of dark matter only (without luminous matter)
seems unnatural due to the presence of gravity. I guess
thus voids will indeed expand faster making bubble like
things.