Astronomy & Astrophysics

Astronomy & Astrophysics

  • Sandro Cervantes added an answer:
    Between exoplanets discovered so far, or to be discovered, Could exist exact Earth analogues? In terms of Atmosphere, Habitability (for us) and Life?
    The answer for me is: No, due that current Earth atmosphere was made and has been maintained because of life, and there isn't at the moment, any abiotic process known able to produce or maintain current oxygen levels. But, how likely could be that very similar Earth-Life could arise on another planet, or that the Panspermia process could give us a surprise?
    Sandro Cervantes · Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
    After a time of good discussions and learning I dare to conclude several things about habitability and the searching of LIFE. I wrote those things here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Habitable_Zone_Gallery?cp=re65_x_p2&ch=reg&loginT=i-C8BQfZSYGitMum-AzFHVshIo_PuIUrcAspwI5k49pfYqpLTeDTTA%2A%2A&pli=1#view=5318cea7d2fd64767d8b461f

    Please I would like to know all the different opinions about this and about I wrote. At your orders, I remain.
  • Sandro Cervantes added an answer:
    Which Biologists have participated in the creation-modification of Habitable Zone and Planets concepts, Earth Similarity Index and Searching for Life?
    To date, I have not found the involvement of biologists in these areas and related topics, in all the papers I've revised. As far as I know, only scientists with physical background, have participated in these topcis that are largely Biological. I would really know which biologists, or at least, multidisciplinary teams have papers about those topics.
    Sandro Cervantes · Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
    After few amazing readings, lectures, discussions and coffee breaks, I can conclude that among all the habitability conditions that we could know and imagine (obviously just for the life we know), there are at least 3 extremely important for us (mainly) and for the most of the LIFE in Earth.

    -- water (in its 3 states, although liquid is better),
    -- a source of energy (Geothermal and its variants, Solar and Chemical), and
    -- LIFE

    A planet without Life will be uninhabitable (in a natural way) for us, could be habitable (in a natural way) for our microbial life, and could be habitable (in an artificial way), for us, by colonization-terraformation (and we need another house in order to survive as specie).

    A planet with Life could be relatively habitable (in a natural way) for us, and very habitable (in an artificial way), but ethically uninhabitable, and likely dangerous by its microbial Life.

    Then, an inhabited planet (if exist) isn't habitable, is just inhabited. The Oxford English dictionary say literally Habitable = “suitable or good enough to live in”

    Very likely there isn't a "Habitable Planet" (for Us), so nor a "Habitable Zone". In order to understand better this, we need to think about that we need plants and animals to eat, to survive. Are we going to go to an inhabited (technologically habitable for us) planet, with our seeds of apple, sunflowers, grass, etc. and cows, chickens, pork, etc.??

    A scientist who I admire so much said in one of his papers: "If the Sun were removed to some typical distance (∼30 light years) and were on the target list of our planet-hunters, it would probably still be listed as having no planets"
    Ok, that is very bad, but then I wonder what’s going on with a typical distance of 20 ly, or 10 ly, or optimistically 4 ly? What chances we have to find life with certainty, if we are unable to detect life in our neighbor planets or nearby moons.

    In my humble opinion we are not approaching, in an adequate way, to solve the problem and we are losing the compass. We need invest 90% of astrobiological founds, infrastructure and minds, in searching life and after, search for or made habitability (colonization-terraformation) in our neighbor planets or nearby moons.

    Out there, could exist Life and inhabited planets, and a lot of "Tech-Habitable potentially planets" (for Us). But we need to be more precisely, humbles and careful with what we search. There aren't authorities in this topic. We need something like a multidisciplinary and international panel, to define the “what” and “how”. The "Habitable Zone" concept must be underused, mainly in the search of life and renamed as: Zone for the search of Surficial Liquid Water, and point . Now, I know that I'm not an important scientist, but I'm doing my best because I really want to find Life out there, is just that it seems that for imprecise or mistaken that a set of concepts might be (or are being used), they linger many years, I think because there are disconections between sciences, arrogance and historically we have many emotions when somebody come to tell us that the Earth isn't the center of the Universe.

    Please I would like to know all the different opinions about this topic and about I wrote. At your orders, I remain.
  • Volker Maiwald added an answer:
    When hydrogen burning in the core stops, the core contracts and heats up again. However hydrogen does not start again - explain this occurrence?
    Hydrogen is finished, the core has contracted but the core starts heating up again.
    Volker Maiwald · German Aerospace Center (DLR)
    The occurence is very simple: Hydrongen is eventually depleted. All the hydrogon has been subjected to nuclear fusion and became helium. However in many stars (upper main sequence stars) helium and hydrogen burning happens at the same time... Anyway the short answer is, it stops because there is no hydrogen left.
  • Chandra Mohan Nautiyal added an answer:
    Is the Earth / solar system collecting a net charge from cosmic rays?
    This is an old question, and not even mine (contact me for the reference), but I haven't reached a conclusion yet. Maybe you have?

    Cosmic Rays bombard the solar System with mainly positively charged particles. The corresponding electrons remain in the proximity of their source (electromagnetic rigidity). So where does that charge difference go?

    If we do acquire charge through cosmic rays, we would be at a different electrostatic potential than other regions of space closer to cosmic accelerators, right?
    Now please forgive me for being very provocative with this one: Couldn't this mess with arguments discussing deviations from the laws of gravity (Voyager, Pioneer anomaly, dark matter, etc. - you name it)?
    Chandra Mohan Nautiyal · Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany
    The electrical discharge between clouds and Earth (lightning) also affects the electrical charge state of Earth. A huge amount of charge on Earth is thus neutralised.
  • Zheng-shi Yu added an answer:
    Are there any other natural bodies in the universe that can emit stable signals like pulsars?
    As far as I know, pulsar-based navigation has been intensively investigated. I wonder are there any other natural bodies in the universe that can emit stable signals like pulsars?
    Zheng-shi Yu · Beijing Institute Of Technology
    Thank you Mr. Eubanks, The concept of using black hole as time reference is very interesting.
  • Tatiana Korona added an answer:
    Use of higher order perturbation or exact perturbation in spite of first order perturbation always leads to more accurate results ?
    I wish to know that in what scenario (with conditions), which order of perturbation will give more accurate results.
    Tatiana Korona · University of Warsaw
    In PT of intermolecular interactions we use the first, second, and sometimes third order, and it works very well in practice, although we know from a formal analysis that the series diverges eventually. One should just know where to stop:-). In intermolecular interactions the main problem is non-fulfilling of the "smallness condition" for the perturbational operator. Natural and the only physically sensible operator is V=H-(HA+HB), where for the interaction of A and B: H is the total Hamiltonian, and HA, HB are the Hamiltonians of subsystems. One can easily see that V has a lower permutational symmetry wrt to electron permutations than the whole H, so V cannot be considered as "small". In spite of this, PT up to second order works fine, if one forces a proper permutational symmetry on approximate wave functions (it is the main idea of symmetry-adapted perturbation theory -SAPT). In our case the second order SAPT is a standard, and adding third order does not change much.

    I also want to add some observations to the Jared contributions: from the Moeller-Plesset theories only MP2 is used in practice nowadays (with rare exceptions), although MP3 and MP4 are available in most quantum chemistry codes. Instead of MP3 and MP4 people prefer to use CCSD and CCSD(T), which require about the same amount of computational resources, but are free from PT convergence problems. For some cases the oscillatory behaviour of higher MPn corrections to the correlation energy is quite pronounced, see works of Jeppe Olsen, e.g.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234990965_On_the_divergent_behavior_of_MllerPlesset_perturbation_theory_for_the_molecular_electric_dipole_moment?ev=prf_pub
  • G. Bothun added an answer:
    What are Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG's)?
    I have been reading about dark matter and saw that some data was acquired by observing Luminous Red Galaxies, but I couldn't find a satisfying definition, so I need either a direct definition or a reference to look at.
    G. Bothun · University of Oregon
    better terminology is that these are MASSIVE spherical galaxies with old (red)
    stellar populations
  • Jaspreet Singh Randhawa added an answer:
    Why are there differences in gases in different galaxies?
    There are many observed gases in different galaxies; however there are differences in these gases what do you think is the cause of these differences?
    Jaspreet Singh Randhawa · St. Mary's University
    Interactions among galaxies in clusters can also lead to significant lose of gas, example is ram pressure stripping
  • Ludwig Combrinck added an answer:
    What are essential and nice features to have in a telescope control system?
    I am currently writing software to control a small refractor (125 mm). Drive motors are brushed DC, encoders are 10 000 ppr mounted on the motors, gearbox has 1:8000 ratio. The German equatorial mount is well built and solid. The observer's software has a GUI and writes directly to Excel spreadsheet using dynamic data exchange (DDE). Another program communicates with the servo drives, and receives pointing information and other instructions from the GUI, via Excel spreadsheet. So both the GUI and servo control software can exchange data via DDE and both can read and write to Excel spreadsheets, allowing data plots, simple statistics etc. Currently the software has a fair number of GUI accessible functions. What would you expect a telescope control program to have as a must, and what would you like if you could choose features?
    Ludwig Combrinck · National Research Foundation, South Africa
    One thing that is proving very useful is the capability to generate plots of various parameters, e.g. in setting up the servo control units, the drive must be matched to the motor electrical characteristics (torque, min and max voltage, min and max current etc.) so proportional, integral and derivative values can be fine tuned. As example I currently have a bit of noise in the set-up, exhibited as noise in the encoder counts, this has now clearly been identified as the source of a 3 arc-second peak to peak cyclical noise in the HA drive, now I can target it and devise ways to get rid of it. Most software do not have an engineering component, this I would say, is essential to allow improvements in tracking and pointing algorithms, from a nuts and bolts level and upwards.
  • Biplob Sarkar added an answer:
    What are the perspectives on time?
    If we are looking out "into the past" when we view planets/stars away from the solar system, does that mean they are looking at our past when/if viewing us? In which case there is no present? Does that mean we would have to communicate at the speed of light, to communicate in "real time?"
    Biplob Sarkar · Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
    The speed of light is also a finite quantity, so if the source and the observer are 6 lac kms apart, there would be a time lag of 2 secs for communication. I think there can never be absolute 'real time' communication, only the lag of time can be vanishingly small.

    Also if we talk about the arrow of time, then as far as I know only the thermodynamic concept of the increase of entropy can explain the passing of time or it is the only thing that can distinguish between 'past and 'present'.
  • Resconi Germano added an answer:
    Is the General Theory of Relativity equivalent to the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity?
    There is a quite recent paper (2011) by Santiago-German which says that the Einstein's general theory of relativity is formally equivalent to the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1179v1.pdf). He further wrote that this fact lead us to suspect that the superconductivity of gravitation ought to be a real physical process occurring in the outskirts of galaxies.

    Such a proposition seems to support previous articles by Horowitz (you can search at google.com), suggesting connection between General Relativity and superconductivity. There is also a paper sometime ago by Kholodenko and Ballard, saying that in dimensions three and higher the famous Ginzburg-Landau equations used in theory of phase transitions can be obtained (without any approximations) by minimization of the Riemannian-type Hilbert-Einstein action functional for pure gravity in the presence of cosmological term. See their paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410029.

    If such a proposition is correct, then perhaps we can view some problems in cosmology from new angle. Not only dark matter but perhaps the solar system and planets can be viewed as superconductors too. Other possible analogy is between cosmology and condensed matter phenomena such as superfluidity. This analogy has been explored for instance by G. Volovik et al.

    So, what do you think? Do you agree that General Theory of Relativity is equivalent to the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity? Your comments are welcome.
    Resconi Germano · Catholic University via Trieste 17 Brescia Italy
    Can you please give me your email? I can send you the preprint. If you want you can also download the paper at my ResearchGate Germano Resconi. Yes the name synthetic means artificial or instrument as you say for mathematics but in a more general way. I have also another paper that is not publish if you are interested I can send you also the second paper.
  • Hanno Krieger added an answer:
    Is it possible to view any sub-atomic particles like electron, proton, or neutron?
    With view I mean observe with eyes, or with a photo/image etc., not the outcome of electron and its energy like scintillation, or illuminance. Is there any incident where we have actually seen an electron or other sub-atomic particle?
    Hanno Krieger · retired from Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen
    @Ulrich: Was talking to Henna, she cant see bacteria, thats the reason she cant see electrons (mathematical points = QM knowledge). Sorry for my strong answer, its normally not my turn.
  • Biswajoy Brahmachari added an answer:
    How is curvaton related with the curvature of space?
    Curvature of space can be estimated from Planck satellite data 2013.
    Biswajoy Brahmachari · Vidyasagar Evening College
    Thank you for your answer. Let us discuss qualitavite aspects
    only. By power spectrum we usually mean a fourier analysis. Now
    CMBR anisotropy has to satisfy periodicity condition for us
    to do a fourier decomposition. Do we get such repeated behaviour
    in the CMBR anisotropy ?
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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:
    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. Detail discussion is in section 6.3 of my paper.

  • 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
  • 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.

About Astronomy & Astrophysics

Everything about Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Topic Followers (11046) See all