Astronomy & Astrophysics

Astronomy & Astrophysics

  • Oliver Manuel added an answer:
    Could a supermassive black hole singularity experience amplification of quantum fluctuations similar to AQFs that Linde claims cause a big bang?
    Could a singularity in a supermassive black hole experience amplification of quantum fluctuations similar to quantum fluctuations that form ever larger cycles, causing a big bang as described by Linde? If it is reasonable to assume that an amplification of quantum fluctuations can occur spontaneously at the quantum level and continue to fluctuate in ever larger cycles until it produces a universe--forming big bang (Andrei Linde, inflationary multiverse and eternal chaotic inflation), then would it also be reasonable to assume that a singularity in a supermassive black hole could experience a similar amplification of quantum fluctuations? (PhysOrg.com) – “In a new study by physicists Vanzella and Lima, it is proposed that gravity could trigger a runaway effect in quantum fluctuations, causing them to grow so large that the quantum field’s vacuum energy density could dominate its classical energy density. This vacuum-dominance effect, which emerges under some specific but reasonable conditions, contrasts with the widely held belief that the influence of gravity on quantum phenomena should be small and subdominant.” “If the vacuum-dominance effect exists and is strong enough to have such consequences, scientists will still have to discover a new kind of quantum field that would react to gravity in this way, since none of the quantum fields based on known forces could induce these effects. Still, the physicists note that the possibility of vacuum dominance itself is surprising to discover within “a simple and classically well-behaved situation.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news193330592.html#jCp Daniel Vanzella and William Lima. “Gravity-Induced Vacuum Dominance.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 161102 (2010). Such an amplification of a quantum fluctuation in a supermassive black hole singularity could occur either spontaneously or possibly caused by some unusual event. The following are proposed as possible causes of cyclic amplification of quantum fluctuations: 1. Spontaneous event similar to the subatomic quantum fluctuation proposed by Linde; 2. The merging of two very large supermassive black holes; 3. The mass of the black hole exceeding the mass of the rest of the galaxy, thus causing an extreme warp of space; or 4. An usual interaction with dark matter.
    Oliver Manuel · University of Missouri
    1. Real scientists address experimental data instead of anonymously voting against answers that cite experimental observations they cannot explain. 2. There is a growing sense of fear and desperation in our society as Earth's constantly changing climate confounds scientific models based on false nuclear and solar models: <i>Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice?</i> http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/03/why-is-there-so-much-antarctic-sea-ice/
  • Daniel Baldomir added an answer:
    What is a physical theory, a creation or a discovery?
    It may seem that Einstein could create wonderful theories without going to any laboratory as Newton or Maxwell just by using their minds. Might this be possible overall nowadays with the huge amount of knowledge that we have?
    Daniel Baldomir · University of Santiago de Compostela
    The General Relativity seems to be one of the most pure creations in Physics. Applying the Riemann geometry it was possible to generalize de gravitation of Newton and conceptually it was a tremendous change of its scope. The curvature of the space-time is directly related with energy-momentum of matter creation the gravitational field. Experiments as the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury or the measurements made by Eddington for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919. Which opens really the new field of knowledge called Cosmology. This is for me the most paradigmatic example for justifying the creation part of the physical theories. On the other side are the phenomenological theories as the Weiss mean field of the inner magnetic field to explain the ferromagnetic phase of a material, which have turned to be very advanced for the conceptual means of its age. But it was a clear consequence of the experimental work. What do you think about these two extremes? Do you think that there is another science which could be enable to have theories so advanced as there are in Physics?
  • Sagar Gorijala added an answer:
    Our Universe exists instead of nothingness, can this equation explain it? 0=something.
    Our Universe exists instead of nothingness, can this equation explain it? 0=something... 0=absence of something so zero is also relatively something??? 0^0= can not exist... why?0^0 = 0^19/0^19 = 0^(19-19) = 0^0 but zero can't exist as denominator so 0^0 is impossible.1/0 is impossible. If 1/0 is possible then equations fail.
    Sagar Gorijala · Independent Researcher
    3 has virtual existence 3 apples have physical existence 1/0 means 1 cut into zero parts or we can say 1/0 means somehow 1 disappears or 1 gets destroyed. 0+0=0 not 1 so zero can't become 1 and 1 can't become zero. xy=1 says if x and or y equals zero we get 1=0 which is impossible In other words x can't be zero simply impossible neither can y so 1/x or 1/y or 1/0 is impossible. My first postulate 1. Zero can't exist as denominator. 0/0 means denominator comes into play first so 0/0 is not indeterminate and 1/0 is not undefined 1/0 and 0/0 are impossible or ----> 1. Zero can't exist as denominator. My theory... [ http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in/ ] Zero is absence of something so nothingness is relatively something, it is actually absence of something. In other words nothingness has meaning only when existence is possible. So Universe/World must exist and there is no alternative.
  • Guoliang Liu added an answer:
    Could Planck constant be a function of the gravitational potential?
    http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.110801 Kentosh and Mohageg looked through a year’s worth of GPS data and found that the corrections depended in an unexpected way on a satellite’s distance above the Earth. This small discrepancy could be due to atmospheric effects or random errors, but it could also arise from a position-dependent Planck’s constant.
    Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
    Experimental results can give final judgment to any physics theory, no matter how beautiful it was. So I think the Kentosh and Mohageg work is worth to upgrade to an even more accurate level.
  • Zitouni Hannachi added an answer:
    What is the order of number density of electrons in the plasma of accretion disks around compact objects?
    It is of the order of 1 m^−3 (intergalactic medium) to 10^30 m^-3 (stellar core). My calculations show that it should be of the order of 10^23 m^-3. Is my order of magnitude alright?
    Zitouni Hannachi · Dr. Yahia Fares University of Médéa
    I recommend you to look through the paper "A two-temperature accretion disk model for Cygnus X-1 - Structure and spectrum" of Shapiro, S. L.; Lightman, A. P.; Eardley, D. M. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..187S).
  • Byron Labadie added an answer:
    Our Unverise is not what we thought, or is it?
    I would like to open this question up and see what the responses are. There is new evidence that is coming to light that our universe is not flat but it is curved. This has sparked ideas that the Big Bang theory is false and that our universe is really a black hole. If the universe is and continues to expand than the flat plane that we associate and conceptually understand our universe to be, forces it to curve in upon itself. It must be due to the vacuum of “A” black hole but not saying our universe is the black hole. What are your thoughts on the topic? Hoping to shed light on the topic, which could be another topic for the future? Eg: Outside light traveling at different speeds with shape of the universe folding and expanding.
    Byron Labadie · Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
    Thse shape of the Universe has been accurately measured to within 1 percent. Recent spectroscopic measurements at the Apache Point telescope in New Mexico were used to make ultra-precise spectrascopic measurments, and the findings are that not only is the Universe "flat" in geometric terms, but almost certainly endless as well. I have suspected infinite for a very long time, as pointed out in my comments on the topic "Does God Exist?" http://www.space.com/24207-dark-energy-galaxy-map-aas223.html
  • Michael Clark added an answer:
    How can I combine the PSO algorithm to my stars scheduling problem to get a well defined shoted list?
    I want to choose the best suitable star from a large database for the observation at a particular time for the purpose of observing maximum number of possible observations with some interesting data. From where can I start implementing this algorithm in my problem.any basic idea then please give some suggestions.
    Michael Clark · New Mexico State University
    The latitude of the observer, and the time of the year are important in choosing a reference star for observations at night.
  • Yannick Jean added an answer:
    Can we really travel with speed 10 times faster than the speed of light?
    In 1994, physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a new kind of technology that would allow us to travel 10 times faster than the speed of light, without actually breaking the speed of light. This sounds confusing. Do you Agree? source :http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/sci-fi-becomes-sci-fact-the-real-star-trek/
    Yannick Jean · University of Québec in Chicoutimi
    Look at that picture of the universe that reveals all the interconnections between stars and galaxies, talks by itself !
  • Antonio Alfonso-Faus added an answer:
    Why does there exist similarity between brain cells and the Universe? Is it just a coincidence or Pareidolia?
    The universe may grow like a giant brain, according to a new computer simulation. The results, published Nov.16, 2012, in the journal Nature's Scientific Reports, suggest that some undiscovered, fundamental laws may govern the growth of systems large and small, from the electrical firing between brain cells and growth of social networks to the expansion of galaxies. "Natural growth dynamics are the same for different real networks, like the Internet or the brain or social networks," said study co-author Dmitri Krioukov, a physicist at the University of California San Diego. See the complete papers by Dmitri Krioukov in arxiv.org (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2109.pdf and also http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.6272.pdf), or summary in http://www.livescience.com/25027-universe-grows-like-brain.html. Nonetheless, it is also possible that such a similarity is caused by merely coincidence or a psychological effect called Pareidolia, see for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia. See also my recent paper included here. So what do you think? Do other astronomical observations support this similarity? Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
    Antonio Alfonso-Faus · Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
    Victor: Here is attached the paper
  • Jürgen Kiener added an answer:
    Proton- proton reaction in star center can anyone help?
    The proton-proton reaction in star center goes on for billions of years. But when the reaction starts on the surface as in the case of the nova, it only lasts for a few weeks. Can somebody explain this difference?
    Jürgen Kiener · Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules
    Dear John and Cody, here is what I understood after a short discussion with a collegue who did years ago hydrodynamical simulations of classical nova outbursts: apparently there is no initiating event in these simulation codes. The requirement for a classical nova explosion is a very slow accretiion. It must be sufficiently slow in order that the accreted envelope is not heated. Then the thermonuclear runaway happens somewhere at the bottom of the accretion layer, which is degenerate. Some slight fluctuations in temperature might start localized enhanced nuclear burning (this is maybe what Cody means by pycnocuclear conditions). Because the degenerate matter cannot respond by expanding it gets heated and you have the explosion because of the extreme temperature dependence of nuclear fusion reactions. The explosion then expands over the whole envelope. In this respect I do not see the need for a substantial amount of energy input for ignition as Cody writes.
  • Marshall Eubanks added an answer:
    What would be the effect of a nuclear explosion in space?
    Various articles over the last decade or so have proposed using nuclear warheads to divert asteroids on a collision course with earth. Given that a major factor in the explosive force of any weapon is the resulting atmospheric shock wave, what would be the effect on the explosive force of a nuclear warhead detonated in the vacuum of space?
    Marshall Eubanks · Asteroid Initiatives LLC
    @Volker Maiwald - Yes, I agree. @Michael Clark - I think an external Teller Ulan type ablation rocket would be more efficient at pushing an asteroid than an internal explosion, which, as you say, might result in a chain of impacts.
  • Florian Glodeanu added an answer:
    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.
    Florian Glodeanu · Retired from nuclear industry
    RTGs are not nuclear reactors! A radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or RTG, uses the fact that radioactive materials (such as plutonium) generate heat as they decay into non-radioactive materials. The heat used is converted into electricity by an array of thermocouples which then power the spacecraft. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/1-what-are-rtgs.html All nuclear reactors are devices designed to maintain a chain reaction producing a steady flow of neutrons generated by the fission of heavy nuclei. They are, however, differentiated either by their purpose or by their design features. In terms of purpose, they are either research reactors or power reactors. http://www.euronuclear.org/1-information/energy-uses.htm
  • Istvan Horvath added an answer:
    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)?
    Istvan Horvath · Zrínyi Miklós Nemzetvédelmi Egyetem
    Have not heard it. Neither Arthur Koestler.
  • Guoliang Liu added an answer:
    What is the origin of the magnetic field of a neutron star?
    After surpassing electron degeneracy and supported by quantum degeneracy pressure, these kind of stars are composed mainly by neutrons, particles without electic charge. They posses nevertheless very strong magnetic fields. So, if they are composed mainly from electrically neutral particles, what is the origin of their strong magnetic fields?
    Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
    The magnetic field of a neutron star comes from the intrinsic magnetic dipole fields of aligned neutrons. A formula is derived from my cosmological model to calculate the magnetic flux density of a neutron star.
  • Krzysztof Bohdan added an answer:
    Cosmic background microwave radiation - why can we still detect it?
    I have a difficulty in understanding how can we still detect CBMR. In literature I read that:"The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since:" "The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling." Now, if we observe a supernova explosion, the light will get past us and we can no longer detect these photons emitted during the explosion. I cannot understand how can we still detect the photons from the surface of the last scattering, why they just won't get past us and be gone?
    Krzysztof Bohdan · University of the West of England, Bristol
    @Liu Interesting concept.
  • Guoliang Liu added an answer:
    What causes the jets of black holes to have great speed up to 2/3 C?'
    Recently, new observations show that the jets of black hole 4U 1630-47, in the direction of the constellation Norma, carry massive particles, such as iron and nickel atoms, instead of the typical low-mass particles such as electrons. The fast-moving, heavy-particle jets, which move at two-thirds the speed of light, have more power than spurts of only low-mass particles, astronomers report November 14 in Nature.. The question is why and how is this jet formed and why this high speed of heavy particles?
    Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
    Yes, in order to solve the cosmological puzzles, a new cosmological model is necessary.
  • Guoliang Liu added an answer:
    Can anyone prove that supernovae as standard candles are reliable?
    Based on my cosmological model, using supernovae as standard candles will lead to wrong conclusions.
    Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
    Dear professor Matts Roos, I had read Michael's answer and replied to him 9 days ago. I also read your answer, I wonder if you have time to review my paper, any advice will be appreciated.
  • Guoliang Liu added an answer:
    Is Hubble's Constant really a constant? Or just a parameter?
    Hubble's constant gives the expansion rate of the universe and the universe is accelerating. So does it mean that the Hubble's constant itself is changing? Why call it a constant then?
    Guoliang Liu · Independent Researcher
    Hubble constant is determined by the gravitational coupling constant in my cosmological model, which is 14.68 (km/s)/Mpc.
  • James Dwyer added an answer:
    Can a "Gas Moon" exist?
    Is it physically possible for a huge Jupiter-like exoplanet to harbor this kind of moon? Could have been formed in the protoplanetary disk or could be Neptune-like planets that have been trapped during migration towards to, or away from, the central star?
    This recent detection of an Earth-mass, probably gaseous, exoplanet might be relevant - see http://www.nature.com/news/earth-mass-exoplanet-is-no-earth-twin-1.14477.
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Do you know of any proofs for the independence of the gravitation coefficient from the star age and size?
    The fact is that, until the gravitation coefficient independence from the star age and size is proved by independent measurements, the notions on the so-called dark matter, dark energy, etc. are no more than the scientific fiction, because these notions result from the rates of recession of galaxies, which, in their turn, are estimated on the basis of the constancy of the gravitation coefficient.
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter. Dear Prof. Matts Roos, I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”. This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention. The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows. (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington); (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington); (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity); (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR). None of these assumptions was proved. The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc. Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them? As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it. The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation. We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons: (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable. (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable. (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system. We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies. The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes. Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation. This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space. We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them. (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements? (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma? (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe? (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe? We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless. The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism. The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question: (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang? Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question: (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections? I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive. I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works. Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there. The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars. The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows. The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications. I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers. The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored. Sincerely, Victor
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Are solutions of the problems of dark matter, black holes, etc. hidden in celestial phenomena or in our heads, i.e., in erroneous notions on stars?
    The so-called standard solar model and all calculations of the masses and rates of stars are based on arbitrary Eddington's (1919) notions on the stars as on the balls of an ideal gas, which transform in time under the action of inner thermonuclear processes. Are such computational results of applications of these notions, as the "dark matter", "dark energy", "black holes", etc. unconfirmed for several decades, the critical phantoms, which show that the notions of the Universe historical grounds should be reconsidered, similarly to those of the 19th, 18th, and earlier centuries? The last question is now actual the more so because a new theory of the stellar nature and development is available, which considers the stars as the "cold" knots in the mass/energy space and which includes the processes of formation of all elements over the space around each star and on the basis of radiation-chemical reactions rather than formation of selected elements inside definite stars on the basis of fusion reactions (see here, PFO-CFO Hypothesis).
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter. Dear Prof. Matts Roos, I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”. This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention. The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows. (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington); (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington); (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity); (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR). None of these assumptions was proved. The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc. Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them? As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it. The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation. We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons: (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable. (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable. (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system. We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies. The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes. Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation. This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space. We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them. (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements? (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma? (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe? (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe? We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless. The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism. The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question: (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang? Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question: (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections? I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive. I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works. Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there. The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars. The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows. The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications. I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers. The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored. Sincerely, Victor
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Now, 90 years after publication of Eddington's hypothesis, are there any real scientific proofs for the occurrence of fusion reactions within stars?
    For several decades, the astronomers and astrophysicists search for black holes, dark matter, dark energy etc. over the Universe and search for explanations of such phenomena as Bok globules, periodicity of protuberances at the Sun, isotopic anomalies at the Solar System, warming up of the solar corona etc. in different theories. Meanwhile, all these black and dark objects and all theories applicable for the attempts of explanation of these mysterious phenomena came into being, owing to Eddington's assumption on fusion nature of stars and owing to acceptance of his proposal for describing stars as the perfect-gas balls. At present, are there any proofs of these assumptions? S. Lem, famous author of numerous science-fiction books wrote away back in the 1974 about Eddington’s book of 1926: “In our times, scientific works grow old very fast. “The Internal Constitution of the Stars” by A. Eddington enthralled me when I read it 40 years ago, and it is still a magnificent book, but it must be read now as (genuine!) Science Fiction, because nothing in it corresponds anymore with our present knowledge”. After these words were written, 40 more years has elapsed. Are we today capable of arguing effectively against this Lem's opinion?
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter. Dear Prof. Matts Roos, I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”. This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention. The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows. (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington); (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington); (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity); (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR). None of these assumptions was proved. The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc. Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them? As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it. The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation. We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons: (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable. (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable. (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system. We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies. The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes. Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation. This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space. We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them. (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements? (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma? (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe? (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe? We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless. The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism. The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question: (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang? Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question: (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections? I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive. I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works. Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there. The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars. The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows. The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications. I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers. The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored. Sincerely, Victor
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Does present astrophysics have a consistent (noncontradictory) ground? Could it be regarded as a science about Universe out of the Solar System?
    I assert that our present scientific ground for the science on the space is limited by the laws by Newton and by Kepler and that these laws are applicable to the Solar System exclusively, that all applicable notions on the out-of-the-Solar-System space are illusory because they are built on the sand fastened by nothing, that the fantasies on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, various varicolored dwarfs, Big Bang, etc. should be packed up into the bin of the science history, and that the scientifically ground science on the Universe will be formulated not earlier than within 100-150 years or, maybe, never; as for the Solar System, our real knowledge is limited by those that are evident from Newton’s and Kepler’s laws and from the real observations and include no information which follows from the so-called standard solar model, because the last is questionable. This my question is worked up by the numerous debates that I conducted for several months at different ResearchGate pages. Nobody present proofs of my wrongness, and at present, I address myself to the entire community as a whole. The factual grounds for this question are presented in a number of my answers and questions written in the ResearchGate pages and can be summarized in the following statement: the vault of heaven doesn’t reflect the real displacement of celestial objects out of the Solar System because of the physical features of light, and neither the real luminosity nor the real size and remoteness can’t be determined for any real celestial object out of the Solar System. I offer you to pay attention to the PFO-CFO hypothesis as to the only modern and original alternative to the widely-distributed views on the physical grounds of the Universe.
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter. Dear Prof. Matts Roos, I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”. This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention. The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows. (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington); (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington); (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity); (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR). None of these assumptions was proved. The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc. Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them? As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it. The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation. We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons: (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable. (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable. (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system. We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies. The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes. Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation. This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space. We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them. (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements? (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma? (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe? (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe? We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless. The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism. The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question: (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang? Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question: (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections? I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive. I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works. Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there. The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars. The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows. The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications. I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers. The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored. Sincerely, Victor
  • Vladan Celebonovic added an answer:
    How many Jupiter-Like planets (Gas Giants) are in our Galaxy (estimation)? How many of them are in their Stellar Habitable Zone?
    Which is their size (radii) range. Included Neptune-Like planets.
    Vladan Celebonovic · University of Belgrade
    For the number of those which have been discovered go to http:// exoplanets.eu, which is an encyclopaedia of exoplanets .
  • Martin Bülow added an answer:
    Which is the most Earth-like planet discovered so far? And how near is it?
    Similar in size, energy received from its host star and star type etc.
    Martin Bülow · Leibniz Societät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
    I agree with Sandro Cervante's opinion. In addition, I suggest you to look into my article on "Exoplanets". Therein, you may find many papers written by well-known specialists in astrophysics and - biology.
  • Biplob Sarkar added an answer:
    Why are there different gases for different galaxies?
    In different galaxies there appear different gas structures. What is the mechanism adapting certain gases in certain galaxies while excluding the other gases?
    Biplob Sarkar · Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
    I totally agree with Charles Francis. The composition of the galaxies will depend on the generation of the galaxies as well as the constituent stars in the galaxy. If a galaxy contains huge numbers of high mass stars, then the probability of Supernova explosions in the galaxy will go up, thus filling the galaxy with higher mass elements. Also galaxy mergers may occur and this can also alter the composition of the new galaxy formed as compared to the parent galaxies.
  • James Dwyer added an answer:
    String theory tells us we live in ten dimensions. What is the actual difference between 3rd and 4th dimension?
    Also, what are the maximum dimensions existing in this universe?
    Also see http://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_dimensions_are_there_in_the_universe
  • Victor Christianto added an answer:
    Is Frank Tipler's Omega Point hypothesis supported by observation?
    Caution: I am not sure about this topic, and I never read Tipler's papers and books except for one paper, but it seems that his ideas are quite interesting to ponder. An interesting page to begin with is http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/. It is mentioned there that according to Frank Tipler it is possible for intelligent beings to process and store an infinite amount of information in the universe, if certain conditions are fulfilled. His definition of Omega Point is essentially a future c-boundary which is a single point and an Aleph state, where information processing continues indefinitely along at least one world-line gamma all the way to the future c-boundary of the universe. i.e. Life never dies out. Tipler himself describes his own Omega Point here: http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/why.html. He cited other scientists, like MacCallum, Barrow, Yorke etc. MacCallum has shown that a three-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space. Yorke has shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) almost certainly must be present arbitrarily close to the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. In the meantime, I searched today in arxiv.org to find clues on this question, and only found 13 papers by Tipler, two of them are seemingly quite related to this question: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058. While his ideas seem interesting from philosophical or theological viewpoint, as far as I know, they lack support from observation/astronomical data. So, what is your opinion? Thank you and best wishes.
    Victor Christianto · University of New Mexico
    Thank you, Rajat, for your answer. Best wishes
  • L. Neslušan added an answer:
    What's the explanation for jet emissions from black holes?
    The gravitational field of a black hole is so strong that nothing, not even light (the limit of all speeds), can escape. Yet we still see jets of matter coming out of a black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet
    L. Neslušan · Astronomical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences
    1st comment: As far as I am informed, it is believed that the matter in the jets originates in the accretion disk that circles the supermassive black hole (SMBH). 2nd comment: Regardless the origin of the matter, its escape outward is possible only through the jets that form in the narrow cones, where the orientation of magnetic field is radially oriented, i.e. above the magnetic poles of the central object. The extremely strong magnetic field can be expected due to the plasmatic character of the accretion disk. The common stars should have a static electric charge (the mechanism of the occurrence of such a charge can be found described in the works briefly sumarized in my paper: Neslusan L.: 2001, "On the global electrostatic charge of stars", in: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 372, pp. 913-915). Such the charge should be property of all plasmatic objects, also SMBHs before its collapse and (since the electric charge conserves in the BH) also after the collapse. The charge forces the electrons in the accretion disk to orbit the central SMBH much faster than the protons do. This different speed of the particles charged with the charges of opposite polarities results in the electric current and, consequently, dipole magnetic field. 3rd comment: The recent discovery by Chinesse researcher Ni (Ni, J.: 2011, "Solutions without a maximum mass limit of the general relativistic field equations for neutron stars", in: Science China: Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, vol. 54, pp. 1304-1308) indicates that the central SMHB could not be any black hole (i.e. the object with an outer physical radius collapsed in its proper time below the event horizon), but a prosaic cosmic object, with the outer radius in "our" part of the universe. Some mass ejections from the surface of such object would then be possible. So, the mass in the jets could originate directly in the central compact object. (Remark: Compact object is the kind of objects the spacetime of which inside it as well as in its vicinity can be described only by the general relativity. The classical, Newtonian physics is not usable, here, because the spacetime is curved too much for a classical approximation.)
  • Rajan Iyer added an answer:
    How can one use scatter data obtained through astronomy to deduce quantum data obtained from particle physics?
    While I was working through mathematical modeling physics, that is reaching to go beyond the general theory of relativity to grand unified theory, I came across possibility that a scatter plot from astronomical observations with remodeling with statistical probability analysis may prove quite useful as a way to connect to standard model of the particle physics. More interest with scientists as well as researchers will help to take it to the next level. How can one proceed now?
    Rajan Iyer · ENGINEERINGINC TEKNET GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM
    Thank you very much Dr. Perlman with your appropriately great response information. Myself and TEKNET partners are planning to organize world physics global conference that will cover my TIME MECHANICS mathematical modeling and STANDARD MODEL presentations. We are all looking for sponsors presently. Your papers will provide impetus to examine further these aspects and to ascertain about gravitational speed measurements, the experiment in space that I have proposed. These will help towards grand unified theory of everything along with earth global warming knowledge.

About Astronomy & Astrophysics

Everything about Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Topic Followers (10974) See all