Astrophysics - Science topic

If it is true that space-time is expanding, how does the measure of space-time change?

The shape of space-time is the shape of the universe; how can expansion without a boundary be called expansion? If the boundary of spacetime is the boundary of the universe, can spacetime expansion with a boundary have no background? How is the boundary maintained? If the boundary of spacetime is infinite, how does it expand?

We will use these paired terms to describe spacetime: infinite/finite, absolute/relative*, flat/curved, continuous/discrete, four-dimensional†/higher-dimensional, and so on. Normally we think of these properties as opposites ‡ and only one or the other can be chosen. But the full range of properties of spacetime will be combinations between these different properties. For example, spacetime has infinite, absolute, continuous, flat, four-dimensional properties, or spacetime has finite, discrete properties, etc. In any case, none of us thinks that there is a concept of "multiple spacetimes", or that spacetime should have its own background, or that spacetime can overlap, although physics suggests that there may be local "warps" in spacetime.

Astronomical observations show that the universe is in a process of accelerated expansion [1][2][3], with all stars moving away at an accelerated rate and possibly never returning. Physics attributes the expansion of space-time to the presence of dark energy with negative pressure [4]. Dark energy has been hypothesized in various ways (including non-existence), one of which is the cosmological constant Λ in Einstein's field equations (the zero-point radiation of space [5], the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy [6]).

Physics has not exactly explained the exact relationship between spacetime and the various fields assumed by the Standard Model [7], but only assumes the existence of vacuum energy [8][6], and is not sure which field's vacuum energy it is, whether it is the electromagnetic field, the electron field, the muon field, or the up-quark field, the charm-quark field, the Higgs field [9], or just the sum of their respective vacuum energies. So when it is assumed that space-time is expanding, and vacuum energy is expanding, are they created in it, or are they diffused across the boundary? Are they the driving force or the result? How do they manifest within microscopic particles when expanding at high speeds on the macroscopic scale?

Physics does not explain the origin of the dynamics of the Big Bang, nor does it explain when and how all the various fields in the Standard Model were formed, how they were formed, how they were maintained in existence, and how they evolved along with, or determined, the evolution of the Universe throughout the entire evolution of the Universe from the Big Bang onward. It is not clear how the various particles were excited initially from their own fields, but the explanation of nucleosynthesis [10] to the current period is relatively clear.

Usually we think of the universe as a set of space-time and matter-energy. There are many different models of the universe, and in addition to the Standard Model, there are many cyclic universes and multiverse views [11][15]. Then, when we haven't confirmed the model of the universe, there is no confirmed goal of the evolution of the universe, and there is no confirmed shape and boundary of the universe.

Both Einstein and Hawking say that the universe is "finite and unbounded" [12]. They believe that the universe is a finite three-dimensional sphere with a finite volume but no boundary. Topological theory says, "The boundary of a region has no boundary itself. "** [13]. Wheeler's statement is, "The boundary of a boundary is zero" [14]. What is the result of the infinite extension of the three orthogonal coordinate axes for a finite three-dimensional spherical universe?

Mathematically, there are four combinations between measures and boundaries: finite bounded, infinite unbounded, finite unbounded, and infinite bounded. The first two concepts are clear, but the latter two need to be recognized carefully when translated to physics. The "singularity" is a typical example of an "infinite bounded". Usually in physics, when time or space shrinks to zero, the corresponding physical quantity tends to infinity. For example, E=hν, when ν→0; F=q1*q2/r^2, when r→0. However, we believe that this is only a trend and that there can be no state that reaches a singularity. Therefore, "infinitely bounded" is not real. The Koch Curve, often thought of as a fractal geometry expressing "finite unbounded", is one of the nth iterations of the Koch snowflake that can be implemented in the Wolfram Language as KochCurve[n]¶. The difference between physical reality and mathematics can be shown here, as n cannot be chosen to be infinite, so the Koch Curve will always be in a definite state in reality, and although it can evolve, "finite and unbounded" is a tendency, not a state. The formulation of the Mobius strip††, the irrational numbers, is another way of saying "finite unbounded". In physics, a typical example of "finite unbounded" is the electron. The electron has a fixed charge e, but the boundary of the electric field E of the charge extends infinitely (the field strength is convergent). Of course, the concept of zero-dimensional "point particles" is also a kind of abstract "finite unbounded". In short, in physical terms, finite must have boundaries.

General relativity is the basis for modeling the universe, but is there any good reason why we should be able to determine the evolutionary goals of the universe, its shape, and its boundaries through general relativity alone? Shouldn't such boundaries be "boundary conditions" of GR?

There should not be any boundary conditions, which are the conditions necessary for the model of the universe to hold correctly.

------------------------------------------------------

Notes

* cf, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373877548_Convergent_and_Disperse_Cyclic_Multiverse_Model_CDCMM.

† cf, https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Can_This_Be_an_Argument_for_3-D_Space;

‡ As long as we do not have a precise definition of spacetime, viewing these properties as opposites can only be taken for granted. As with the wave-particle duality of particles, which property is presented depends on the observer's perspective; the structure of the particle itself does not change. Further characterizations of spacetime include whether it is inherently existent or generative, whether the vacuum contains energy, and so on.

¶ https:// mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html; Stephen Wolfram, Founder of Wolfram Language, is very interested in the question of the evolution of the universe, and is the author of the book "a new kind of science", which has been trying to find out how the universe evolves using metacellular automata.

** e.g. the two-dimensional region has as its boundary a one-dimensional loop; the loop has no end, that is, it has no boundary itself.

†† The Möbius strip is bounded as long as one does not confuse metrics with boundaries.

------------------------------------------------------

References

[1] Linder, E.V., Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Physical Review Letters, 2003. 90(9): p. 091301.

[2] Riess, A.G., The expansion of the Universe is faster than expected. Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. 2(1): p. 10-12.

[3] Freedman, W.L., The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe. Physics Reports, 2000. 333: p. 13-31.

[4] "Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration." from https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/.

[5] Oks, E. (2021). "Brief review of recent advances in understanding dark matter and dark energy." New Astronomy Reviews 93: 101632.

[6] Carroll, S. M., W. H. Press and E. L. Turner (1992). "The cosmological constant." Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 30: 499-542.

[7] Group, P. D., P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky and E. Pianori (2020). "Review of particle physics." Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020(8): 083C001.

[8] Jaffe, R. L. (2005). "Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum." Physical Review D 72(2): 021301.

[9] Springer (2020). 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment.

[10] Cyburt, R. H., B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T.-H. Yeh (2016). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status." Reviews of Modern Physics 88(1): 015004.

[11] Carr, B. and G. Ellis (2008). "Universe or multiverse?" Astronomy & Geophysics 49(2): 2.29-22.33.

[12] Hawking, S. W. and M. Jackson (2001). A brief history of time, Bantam Books New York.

[13] Yang, C. N. (1980). "Einstein's impact on theoretical physics." Physics Today 33(6): 42-49.

[14] Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler (2017). GRAVITATION, Princoten University Press.

[15] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373877548_Convergent_and_Disperse_Cyclic_Multiverse_Model_CDCMM.

In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?

I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.

But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.

If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".

This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.

But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.

The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.

GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX (GCP):

INTRODUCTION TO GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (GCC)

Anything can exist only non-vacuously and absolutely in Extension (having parts) and simultaneously and inseparably also in Change (existents and their parts impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two mutually integral characteristics cannot exist. Physical entities are in finite change in themselves and in every part. In that state of finite change, they are also finitely stable in themselves. This alone is their identity as Extension-Change-wise processes. The entities within cosmos are such.

Hence, back to the cosmos. Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed measuremental concepts from the results of empirical activity of experiments and thought on Extended-Changing existents and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if these processes are physically existent. Without such existence, statistics has no foundation at all.

If not in Change, how can something physical exist in Extension alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in Change alone? Hence, Extension-Change are the two fundamental and exhaustively complete implications of To Be, and hence may be termed the ontological Categories of all existence.

Finally, Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality. That is, if anything exists, it is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...!

Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all?

In short, everything existent is causal: hence Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be.

Absolute vacuum is not an existent. The 3500+ years old gods are either vacua, or parts of this cosmos. And if the Absolute Divine should exist, the only remaining rational possibility is that it must have ubiquitously infinite Extension and infinite Change. Infinite Extension is not stability without Change. Infinite Extension must be just the infinitely intense state of affairs – infinite activity and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.

If the Divine exists, it must be in infinite stability in its state of infinite Change. But is it possible to have rational arguments in favour of its existence? The whole history of humanity has not yet produced one with enough truth probability. Can cosmology now accomplish this task? We do not yet know.

Even if there is no common big bang within a fully finite-content universe, there will be expansions and contractions locally. Moreover, the universe will have outer limits. At the outer limits some gravitational and non-gravitational energies must be lost, because there is no force at the outskirts to block these from escaping. Additionally, if the universe has a finite but fixed speed limit of energy propagation, then what is lost at the outskirts can never be brought back by propagations that issue later. If there is a general expansion, then there will be contraction too. Naturally, there are consecutive expansions and contractions, however limited they are. These cannot go on infinitely, since the finite-content universe loses energy (convertible in terms of mass) at the outskirts.

A fully cyclic and geometrically fully spherical oscillating universe existing as the sole finite universe can never be defended. Within a finite (of course, very long) time, it will exteriorize its matter-energy and be entirely rarefied over a finite number of oscillations. This raises the question of the causal horizon of the first big bang of a finitely cyclic universe and/or the very beginning of this universe. If other such separate universes exist, the final residues of the first will form part of one or many of them, because the distance between them is always finite, and all of them have some gravitation.

Now there are the following two possible lines of solution for the first big bang of a finite-content universe: (1) the matter of our universe has come from other universes or (2) it was created in some way from a Source that is not a form of matter-energy with finite activity and finite stability (which finite activity and stability is the case only of the cosmos).

If the matter-energy of a finite oscillating universe is from other universes, there remains only the case of existence of an infinite number of them. All of them eventually will exteriorize their matter-energy into becoming parts of other universes in finite durations. Such universes exist at finite distances. Gravitation from one such universe will affect similar neighbour universes in finite time. So, they should coalesce gravitationally with each other and with others over the course of time. Gravitation has a finite propagation velocity, not infinite. If gravitation can vary in velocity, each such local gravitational coalescence will have a highest limit, whatever, of gravitational velocity at each phase of expansion from a common central black hole.

Moreover, at any time with respect to one finite-content universe, there are only a finite number of universes in mutual gravitational attraction, since an infinitely spatiotemporal universe can never form a fully gravitationally related infinite-content conglomeration. If it could, there would again appear the contradiction of infinite mass, density etc. and infinite velocity, which is the same as the absolutely miraculous action-at-an-infinite-distance. We do not need it.

The mass-and-volume differences among coalescences do not matter. Due to the tendency of matter as groups of island universes to form ever wider gravitational conglomerations or coalescences, the formation of an eventual common center for each such wider coalescence is a must. There is no time when a coalescence of such universes existed or exists without gradually forming a common gravitational center. This conclusion is absolutely inevitable if all existing universes and parts thereof are gravitational.

No such coalescence, however wide, can bring back the gravitons it has radiated to the peripheries from the common gravitational center at a time before or during or after its big bang or big crunch – and even if there is no big bang and big crunch. This process can only continue forwards forming ever wider coalescences; and never backwards in a de-coalescence or de-coherence of gravitational coalescences, because gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of some sort of energy propagations.

If the cosmological scalar Λ-addition is a dark energy qualified solely by its alleged ability to repel, no amount of dark energy should possess the capacity to attach itself to any other dark energy quantum. Ipso facto, it never exists in any real universe. If it includes also gravitational radiation, it is impossible to understand why there should be these ad hoc quanta of repulsion if, naturally, the limits of density that each conglomeration of matter-energy possesses by reason of its mass, volume etc. can produce repulsion between parts of the conglomeration after the conglomeration has attained critical density.

As is evident, it is irrational to posit the existence of repulsons – as quanta / wavicles of repulsion to keep dark energy on par with gravitation. Hence, I discuss gravitational coalescences to theoretically circumvent any irresolvable problem that the concept of dark energy can offer.

It is common knowledge that gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of energy propagation from any gravitating material body. This should take place also from within a universe to other universes. Hence, there should be coalescences of universes at some time or other due to gravitational attraction.

At no time relative to the coalescing universes of universes can an infinite coalescence be actualized via gravitational influence from a central black hole common to all the infinite number of universes, although infinite such gravitationally coalesced universes, groups of universes, etc. exist in an infinite-content multiverse.

Hence, no gravitational coalescence, however big, is a gravitational member of an infinite number of gravitational coalescences. This fact and the fact of loss of energy at the fringes of universes flow logically from the foregoing discussions. I shall now define in the following paragraph the paradox of matter-energy creation implied above.

The Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP): At any time in an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of gravitationally ever broadening coalescences, none of which can be traced back to other such coalescences for their origin. Each maximal gravitational coalescence at any timerelative to the local set of coalescences is irreducibly finite and hence has a finite past in the absence of any past contact with any other outer universes.

Each of the infinite number of coalescences is thus cosmogenetically isolated from other such coalescences, because, at any time, there exist an infinite number of coalescences which are cosmogenetically isolated and cannot be traced for any causal inheritance from an infinite number of them. All the universes from which a certain universe has had causal inheritance is already included within its broadest possible gravitational coalescence.

The above Paradox facilitates the question to be posed of the origin of each such gravitational coalescence in the finite past of each such, since at any given time none of the designated infinite coalescences has had past gravitational or any other causal contacts with any other cosmic entity. I term the foregoing discussion the backbone of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

In the definition of the ontology of physics (generally as the study of the cosmos), I shall posit the necessity of the highest possible grounds that I find as fundamental for physics and philosophy alike. The reason for these Categories’ (a few universals that apply to all existents, and not merely to all discourses) being meant also for philosophy (especially for the philosophy of science) is that both philosophy and physics have physical existents in common as their object range.

Philosophy additionally has the pure universals of physics within the ambit of study, and both physics and philosophy have different manners of treating their object range. Hence, well-grounded physical foundations cannot do without the most suitable among these universals as its fundamental Categories, selected from among the universals forming part of the objects of philosophy.

Although many physicists and mathematicians may find the following definition of the ontology behind physics queer due to their pragmatic and near-sighted concept of physics (where physical objects are part of their object range, and not their universals / qualities / forms) in a non-grounded manner, I define here ontology for use in physics with the purpose of later elaboration of the various aspects brought forward in the definition.

The Ontology behind physics is (1) the rationally consequent science of the totality of physical existents, their parts, and their sine qua nons, namely, the pure universals (whereas “properties” are the conglomerations of universal qualities) as pertinents of existents and their parts, (2) prioritized as objects in terms of the To Be (Greek, Einai) of Reality-in-total and only thereafter in terms of the to be (einai) of its parts (reality-in-particular), (3) serving to achieve ever better measuremental approximations of the cosmos and its part-systems (4) in terms of the epistemological ideal of Reality-in-total, namely, the theoretically highest possible notion of Reality-in-general, (5) grounded in the unique and exhaustive implications of To Be, namely, Extension and Change, that are the absolutely necessary touchstones of observables and unobservables which exhaust the object range of physics, (6) in properly physical activities that let Reality and realities be measured in term of measuremental and classificational categories that facilitate both experiments and theories equally well.

I have merely used here the highest Ideals of philosophical and scientific thinking, namely, To Be, Reality-in-total, and Reality-in-general. These are not explained here well enough. I have treated them with detailed justifications in my books: Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, Frankfurt, 2015, and Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.

It is well-known from the literature that there exist diverse acoustic waves in compact astrophysical objects, such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. Can anyone please give us a concise glimpse of the state-of-the-art astronomical observations of such existent acoustic wave spectra?

A research by Prof. Juan De Vicente (CIEMAT, Madrid), author of dozens of publications in the field of astrophysics, was recently published (May 23), which demonstrates, in the opinion of the author, that the universe is not expanding and that the observed cosmological redshift must therefore be attributed to some other physical cause. For example, the decrease in the speed of light over time.

If Prof. De Vicente's research were confirmed, it would put an end to the Big Bang model that the recent observations of the JWST are strongly questioning.

I, not being an expert in astrophysics or statistics, am unable to understand the article in which De Vicente explains the methods and results of his research.

This is the link of the article:

Prof. De Vicente's research is based on the analysis of public data, published on the website:

therefore it is perfectly reproducible.

Is anyone interested in checking De Vicente's research and confirming/denying these results?

It goes without saying that if these data passed the examination of careful criticism they would represent a revolutionary result that would change the history of astronomy forever.

In the event that someone is about to do this check, could he explain exactly the steps taken (possibly limiting to a few dozen galaxies in order to make the method adopted clear) so that this check can also be performed by non-experts?

As far as we are aware, the coulomb proton breakup cross-section is the astrophysically significant reverse process of the proton capture reaction. Therefore, is it feasible to determine the relationship between the astrophysical s-factor and the proton removal cross-section using any method or theoretical framework?

It will be very interesting if there is direct connection between breakup cross-section and s-factor.

As a consequence of a "bad" evaluation last year, when the outcome of the institute was judged between good and excellent, but not outstanding, the Senate of the Leibniz Association recommends that the Federal and State Governments terminate the joint funding of the Leibniz-Institut für Sonnenphysik (KIS, previously known as the Kiepenheuer-Institut für Sonnenphysik) in Freiburg, Germany.

This would be dramatic for the solar physics community in Germany and in Europe, and in the long term for research in astrophysics and beyond. Therefore, the international research community is asked to sign the following petition to support the funding of KIS at an unchanged level:

Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.

Without the presence of existent gravitational propagation wavicles / particles, nothing physical can hold together. Additionally, there are electro-magnetic and other non-gravitational propagation wavicles / particles. Both are carriers of energy. Thus, there can be two kinds of force-carrier existents (energy wavicles / particles) which are forms of physical matter processes and hence irreducibly are matter:

(1) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes and pull other objects a step backwards, thus attracting the object gradually into the graviton-issuing object, and

(2) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes, do not pull other objects to the issuing object, and thus give a portion of themselves off to other objects.

Do these gravitational and non-gravitational (electromagnetic and other) wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist and how they may exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are:

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

In short, any matter particle and any force-carrier wavicle can exist only Extension-Change-wise. Whether they really exist is clear enough: if they do not exist, then the matter particles that issue force-carrier existents (wavicles) too need not exist, since force-carrier wavicles are just another (relativistically, and not absolutistically, source-independent) form of existence of mater particles.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

The Extension-Change kind of existence is what we call Causation, and therefore, every existent is a causal Process in all parts. This is nothing but the Universal Law of Causality. That is, no more do we need to prove causation scientifically. This Law is a pre-scientific and hence physical-ontological Law, meant also for biological existents.

Hence, no quantum physics, statistical physics, or quantum cosmology can now declare that certain processes in nature are non-causal or acausal, after having admitted that these processes are in existence!

That is, existents at any level of formation are fully physical, possess at least a minimum of causal connection with others in its environment, are not merely virtual (nor fully modular / non-local / non-emergent / self-emergent / sui generis in a totally isolated manner). Therefore, any existent must have causal connections with its finitely reachable environment and within its inner parts.

Physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents in groups, i.e., as parts of a type / natural kind. These generalities are not existents, but pure ontological universals in natural kinds. Extension and Change are purely ontological and absolutely basic characteristics of all existents. Hence, I have termed them Categories.

Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions or versions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are ontological generalities of all existent processes, because nothing can exist without these two Categories.

Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to, existents. In short, physical science working only on measuremental space-time cannot verify newly discovered energy wavicles and matter particles by use of the physical “properties” they are ascribed to.

The test criteria for the existence of any existent particles will be Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within).

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

According to James C. Keith, see appended PDF files, two components of gravitational drag are to be expected on rotating systems, a 1/c⁵ order drag to be observed preferably on systems of astronomical size, and a 1/c³ order drag preferably observable on millimeter size systems. Observation is limited in either case by experimental resolution of rotational frequency shift. In the early 1970s, Hulse and Taylor [1] determined relative deceleration of a binary neutron star system at 1.5 x 10^-12 per second in agreement with theoretically accepted gravitational quadrupole radiation. A relative deceleration of about 2 x 10^-11 per second was observed around the same time [2] on a 2.5 mm diameter steel ball at 75 kHz rotational speed. This observation has not yet been accepted by established theoretical science as due to gravitational interaction. The access of experimental results to serious analysis seems to be largely a matter of decision by representatives of theoretical rather than engineeering science.

[1] Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 195, p. L51-L53 (1975)

[2] Physical Review Letters, Vol. 30 (16), p. 753-757 (1973)

Seeking expert advice from academia. Both my bachelor’s and master’s are in the field of computer science. I have research, industry, and entrepreneurship experiences related to that field only. However, I would like to explore something new. I have always been fascinated by astronomy and astrophysics. Would it increase my chance for a Ph.D. if I have a publication relevant to the new field? Or are there other opportunities that I don’t know about yet? Thank you!

The available source https://ingenieria.uatx.mx/orionfrg/cry/ currently doesn't have the dataset. The existing artIcles also mentioned the link. However, unable to find the dataset.

How would we go about specifying the position of our solar system in the universe, let us say

to an intelligence residing in an unknown part of the universe (assuming for simplicity that we can neglect the sun's motion in our galaxy).

Are there any objects or "landmarks" in the universe that could be used as known points of reference that could be used to specify our location to other intelligent beings residing in a distant part of the universe ? I am thinking of an exact analogue of longitude and latitude for the earth's surface.

An obvious answer would be simply to specify the aspect of the sky (and all known data) as seen from earth or the sun. But would this really be helpful, even if this did specify uniquely our position ?

Relativistic considerations further complicate matters.

Dear All;

If we look closely to scientific works, interviews and speeches of Stephen Hawking, we may see many points unacceptable to norms of science. I myself have identified questionable statements by him that may need to be clarified. I share you several examples:

1- As far as I have seen and read his books, I did not find any referencing styles, bibliography...

2- Strange Statements, for example about Black Holes, rejecting other sciences such as Philosophy,

3- Changing his views constantly, with no reference, talking about Big Crunch, then reject it, talking about Big Bang and then reject it.

4- Advertising "The theory of everything" and then giving it up silently...

5- Did not talk about opposite ideas by others, eg, those who don't accept Big Bang...

6- Changing his ideas about our fate constantly, for example saying we have 1000 years time to leave earth, 600 years, 200 years, 100 years...

7- The reasons he talks about for leaving the earth (such as possible nuclear wars, Viruses, climate change, ... ) could be easily challenged, as humans (if ever according to him ) leave the Earth, wont take with themselves their behavior, culture, tools, systems, policies, attitudes, understanding ideology, beliefs, systems, doctrines? just to name a few.

8- Alien invasion

9- other issues... we talk about later

Please share your ideas on points mentioned above, or other points you know

Thank you

In reference to the attached document, it seems that scientist with the helping hand of metaphysics have created several scientific versions of Turtle All the Way Down viewpoint.

The article criticizes two widely accepted models for the genesis of the universe which can be listed under two hypotheses:

Both theories have been discussed in enough detail, but this question/discussion is related to the second theory.

I need some guidance to understand and properly use MESA.

My ultimate goal is to modify it such that I can use a variable G.

I saw a video using it to predict the evolution of a main-sequence star. I don't quite understand how it is used to predict observations (Stellar Population).

I am familiar with the Kennicutt-Schmidt Law, relating the rate of galaxy formation and gas surface density

The Tolman surface brightness test (surface brightness versus z), might be used together with wavelength information to determine star population as a function of z.

Then there is the initial mass function

It is not clear how this initial mass function would be changed in an epoch-dependent G.

IN SUMMARY

This is a very early stage of exploration of the issue of Stellar Population Modeling, Star Evolution under MESA.

Advice and comments are welcomed.

I agree that Astrophysics is a multidisciplinary field and that students of Astrophysics are taught many subjects from diverse fields. For example Astrophysics curriculum covers mathematics, relativity, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiation, lasers, electronics, optics etc. etc. But I am perplexed to find that neither Astrophysics text books nor the study curriculum of Astrophysicists cover theory of elasticity in general or working out stresses and strains in solid bodies in particular.

An obvious answer of most learned readers may be that Astrophysicists are not required to deal with solid bodies throughout their career and hence are not required to study theory of elasticity or to learn working out stresses and strains in solid bodies.

Actually however, the situation is other way around. Since Astrophysicists do not study theory of elasticity and do not know how to work out stresses and strains in very large spherical solid bodies under self-gravitation, they erroneously make them collapse under self-gravitation into black holes, thereby misleading the whole scientific community.

None of the current models of stellar core collapse make any attempt to compute the magnitude of STRESSES in the SOLID iron cores actually produced in massive stars at the end of their fusion burning stage.

As per current models when a solid iron core becomes degenerate, the degenerate electrons get freed from their parent iron atoms leaving behind 'positive ions' of iron. When the positive ions start falling towards the center of the core under gravity, the high energy degenerate electrons are SUPPOSED to push these ions outwards by their degeneracy pressure to counter the effect of gravity. However, to impart an outward push to the falling ions, the high energy degenerate electrons will have to exchange their momentum with the falling ions through elastic collisions. But the high energy electrons cannot exchange their momentum with positive ions through elastic collisions because of their electrostatic interactions and hence can never provide the so-called electron degeneracy pressure in stellar cores to counter the effect of gravity.

The main reason for ASSUMING the electron degeneracy pressure in solid iron stellar cores is the implied belief that a cooled down stellar core cannot maintain its Hydrostatic equilibrium in the absence of adequate thermal pressure and that nothing else can stop the gravitational collapse of such cores. Therefore, the constituents of a solid stellar core are first ASSUMED to be non-interacting for applying Hydrostatic equilibrium equations and then the electrons and ions are again ASSUMED to be non-interacting for invoking the electron degeneracy pressure to support the pull of gravity.

Hence, it turns out that all stellar cores which are said to be degenerate, where some sort of degeneracy pressure is invoked to prevent their gravitational collapse under Hydrostatic equilibrium conditions, are in fact SOLID stellar cores which acquire their stability through Equilibrium equations of elasticity. In current models, the stresses in a solid iron stellar core are never analyzed as a SOLID body under self-gravitation, by using the Equilibrium equations of elasticity. By taking into account the electromagnetic interactions among electrons, protons and ions we can show that the high density stellar cores transform into gravity induced solid state which can support the gravitational loading through development of radial and hoop stresses.

The offended paper is here:

This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.

I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.

That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.

In my case, it took 16 years.

My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...

Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.

My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).

It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.

Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.

The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).

As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop

SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.

It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).

What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.

So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.

So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.

Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.

Recent numerical simulations show that the inner part of the disk seems to oscillate in presence of a Large scale magnetic field or when the disk is in MAD state. So, can we correlate this sort of behaviour with the variability of the source?

I would like to publish my Scientific Preprint Paper free-of-charge in an international Astrophysics journal with a satisfactory Impact Factor. Can you please suggest such a journal?

I have published my Research Results on a New Orbital Model for Moving Bodies in the Universe that I am asserting as a result of my scientific analysis, which can be found below:

"Everything Is A Circle: A New Model For Orbits Of Bodies In The Universe"

(Paperback Book) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08NYG14X8

(Kindle eBook) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08PVS2FBW

I will be presenting this work to the general scientific community at #COSPAR in Sydney, Australia, which will be broadcast Live according to Congress schedule on February 2, 2021

and will be available as Video-On-Demand in more detail.

To provide an introductory idea for readers and scientific community in general, here is a short video giving an overview description of the main and most significant findings:

We all know that accretion disks around BHs are presumably be magnetized in nature. If we consider ideal MHD, we know magnetic fields are frozen within the plasmas. Now, magnetic fields are turbulent, so can they help in raising the temperature of the disk? And is it significant?

Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?

Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.

I want to create preprint of a research article via arXiv. Do you recommend any specific latex template?

I conducted a experiment whose conclusions were opposite as that of Big Bang. So, based on the conclusions of my experiment I concluded that some points in Big Bang Theory are wrong...

The existence of turbulence in astrophysical fluids has been living as a well-known unsolved problem for a couple of decades. The range transitions among three distinct scales of the micro-fluidic kinetics are still lying obscure. In this context, is there any equation of state to describe turbulent fluid media in the fabric of the modified (by turbulence) macroscopic Navier-Stokes equation?

There are several papers which are using following formula (as shown in the picture) to calculate the dust mass (Md) of the dusty environments such as Nebula, loops etc in the ISM. The expression for dust mass shows that it depends on grain size, grain density and grain emissivity, here, for IRAS Survey, grain size = 0.1 micron, density = 1000 kg/m3 and emissivity = 0.0010 for 100 micron, respectively, are used. Are these constants same for AKARI and WISE survey too? OR, are there any other methods for the dust mass calculation using AKARI and WISE data? I would be very much happy to get your valuable suggestions. Thank you :)

..

Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:

Modeling SN1a data:

That said, he leads a field where a lot of unsupported claims are tossed around without anything to support it. That is why they are unsupported..:)

As Dr. Carmesin professed, scientists should follow the teachings of Aristotle and always use the simplest possible model that is consistent with Reality.

Dr. Carmesin's model has nonlocality, dimensional transitions, the usual suspects (Dark Matter and Dark Energy), and an epoch-dependent Dark Energy (figure 8.15 on the first book above).

It is a fantastic work and from my point of view, unnecessary and incorrect.

Unnecessary because there is HU which is capable to explain everything Dr. Carmesin explained without the need for a Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, epoch-dependent Dark Matter, Polychromatic Vacuum. Because of that, Aristotle and Occam's Razor would support HU and rebut Dr. Carmesin's work.

Attached is my summary of the problems I found on Dr. Carmesin's claims that SN1a distances support his work.

This is an ongoing discussion.

Dr. Carmesin provided a reply to my objections and confirmed that he is not sure if his model can predict the SN1a distances.

In fact, he said: "My theory does not fail to predict these distances. I just did not calculate these distances yet for a good reason: I tested my full theory by calculating the measured Hubble constants of the Hubble tension."

My plot of his model showcases that the model fails to predict the observed distances.

I also drive home the fact that Dr. Carmesin's model modifies the meaning of H0 (the Hubble Constant). Because of that comparison of results are not straightforward and seems to not have been considered before.

The plots also show that HU model predicts the observed distances without any parameters.

This is to understand how the concepts of statistical mechanics is applied in astrophysics.

Dear Researchers in the field :

Does anyone know what the KAGRA Gravitational Waves Observatory it's been up to ?

KAGRA announced at the end of last year (2019) that they were ready for the kick off. And that in February this year (2020) they were turn to the sky for the first (real) observations and be ready to joing the efforts of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration.

But I haven't hear anything about KAGRA since that time.

I'm sure they had to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic, probably since March.

But, now in December, almost the end of the year, I would have expected to hear news about Observatory.

Does anyone know what is it status nowadays ? Maybe the explanation is that the facilities kept shut down almost the whole year since the pandemic.

If someone know fresh news, I'll appreciate the sharing.

Best Regards all ! :)

A Cosmology based on a Chaos-borne Hubble Law

Otto E. Rossler

Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.

A recent classical-mechanical finding, Fermi deceleration, implies a classical Hubble-like law. While its exact size is still open, it is bound to co-determine empirical reality. Some old and new questions concerning the size and the age of the cosmos arise. The current enigma of early old galaxies supports the prediction of a potentially much larger and older cosmos. So does Riccardo Giacconi's finding of ultra-high-redshift x-ray point sources.

(October 8, 2004)

Recently, a classical-mechanics based Hubble-like law was described [1,2]: Light rays

negotiating galactic clusters that are in random motion with up to 1 percent the speed of light (as is realistic) suffer a distance-proportional redshift through "Fermi deceleration." The latter phenomenon was discovered by Loskutov et al. [3] on a chaotic billiard: A fast-moving, low-mass billiard that is subject to random grazing-type collisions with slowly moving high­mass boundaries suffers a distance-proportional loss of momentum called Fermi deceleration [3]. The repelling grazing-type boundaries of Loskutov et al. can be replaced by attracting high-mass point centers - with the same grazing-type interactional effect. The slow attracting centers may be galaxies or clusters of galaxies and the billiard may be a light ray. The size of the effect depends on the density, mass and speed of the attracting centers.

The size of the effect appears to be neither too large nor too small to accomodate the empirical Hubble law [1]. If this preliminary result is taken as a cue, the implied lack of cosmic expansion re-opens the age-old question of the size of the cosmos. Fortunately, perhaps, a general-relativistic size limitation remains in charge if the mass density in the cosmos is uniform. In this case, not too much is changed compared to the standard paradigm: The cosmos can still be a pulsatile cosmos, for example, albeit so on a longer time scale.

If the assumption of a uniform mass density is dropped, on the other hand, the general­

relativistic bound is no longer finite. This stationary solution to the original Einstein equations was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot [4], a fact which is not very well known. If the fractal dimensionality of the mass distribution is assumed to be unity (so that twice as large a radius contains not eight times but only twice as much mass - as in an ultra-light hole­ ridden Swiss cheese), the Schwarzschild radius which limits the size of the cosmos becomes infinite. For twice as much mass by definition has twice-as-large a Schwarzschild radius (and so on), so that no finite limit is reached in the present case. An exactly 1-D Mandelbrot cosmos is both stationary and unbounded. Peebles almost immediately found that the empirical fractal dimensionality of galaxies is about 1.2 up to large distances [5]. This and subsequent data can be re-evaluated by dropping the original assumption of a progressive lack of volume as the remaining distance to the primordial fireball shrinks toward zero. The validity of Peebles' near-unity result will thereby be extended to covering the greater part of the visible universe.

If this prediction is correct, a "Brunian cosmos" (in honor of Giordano Bruno) of potentially unbounded extension in both space and time becomes an option again- But would not the other "pillars of the big bang" automatically preclude so far-reaching a conclusion? Surprisingly, this is not the case. The cosmic background radiation -- the strongest ally -- would assume the role of "mean cosmic temperature" in the sense of Assis [6]. The also observed large-scale fluctuations in the WMAP would reflect a giant honeycomb structure that lies beyond the range of current telescopes (although some infrared and x-ray sources may already be pointing the way). The three other major pillars - primordial nucleosynthesis, inflation and accelerated expansion - would have to wait in line until the gross features have been straightened out. The third (large-distance dimming) may, by the way, prove reducible to Peebles' little-known (1+z)--4 formula [7], cf. [8].

But how about the riddles newly imported by a modern Brunian cosmos? First, in the absence of a far-from-equilibrium big bang, the persistent far-from-equilibrium state of the observable universe becomes incomprehensible. A gravitational effect partially anticipated by Einstein in 1912 [9] may possibly solve the mystery: Any particle in rectilinear motion inside a Newtonian (or Einsteinian) void enjoys a forward acceleration [10], cf. [11]. If this is so, gravitational energy gets "recycled" into kinetic energy in a Carnot-like manner. The same mechanism, by the way, could explain - jointly with Hawking radiation [12] - the second major new riddle that arises: the empirical "non-devouredness" of almost all matter by age-old black holes.

The main asset of a classical explanation of cosmological redshift, when held against the backdrop of the standard model, seems to lie in the fact that it introduces no hypotheses. lt only uses facts that are implicit in classical (post-Newtonian) mechanics and special and general relativity anyhow. lts predictions are irrefutable once their size has been correctly determined. What is surprising is only how many accepted hypotheses suddenly lose their hard-won plausibility.

Nevertheless it would be nice to have direct evidence as well. Very faint distant x-ray point sources appear to possess redshifts in excess of 30. This is because, on the one hand, the sensitivity ofx-ray telescopes is presently 1000 times greater than that of light telescopes [13]

- so that they can look 30 times (squareroot of 1000) deeper into space in principle - and, on the other, x-ray point sources continue to pop up at the lowest brightnesses [13]. This empirically suggested, two-tiered conclusion is incompatible with the big bang scenario (which leaves no room for redshifts beyond about 10 for massive objects). lt is about tobe decided by direct redshi:ft measurements in progress [13]. A hard - if weaker - fact is the recent optical discovery of strongly redshifted old galaxies 12 billion light years away, which has put cosmology into a full-fledged crisis [14,15]. While almost any way out appears acceptable at the time being, the above explanatory scenario was arrived at independently.

To conclude, the classical-mechanical finding of Fermi deceleration has upset the decades­ old belief that only a relativistic mechanism can account for the Rubble law. By coincidence, an empirical crisis holds cosmology in its grip in which fiddling with the usual culprits (like the star formation rate in young galaxies) seems insufficient to rescue the big bang model. In

,.:;uch a situation, even an at first sight alien, chaos-borne ray of light can acquire a warm glow.

I thank Christophe Letellier, Heinrich Kuypers, Dieter Fröhlich, Normann Kleiner, Peter Weibel, Erwin Wendling, Hans Diebner and Florian Grond for discussions. For J.O.R.

[1] O.E. Rossler, D. Fröhlich and N. Kleiner, Time-symmetric Hubble-like law: Light rays grazing randomly moving galaxies show distance-proportional redshift. Z. Naturforsch. 58 . 807-809 (2003).

[2] O.E. Rossler, Cosmic shear's temporal fluctuations generate a distance-proportional redshift in both time directions: Minibang theory. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12, 1335- 1338 (2004).

[3] A. Loskutov, A.B. Ryabov and L.G Akinshin, Analysis of billiards with time-dependent boundaries. Facta Universitatis Series Mechanics, Automatic Control and Robotics 11, 99- 116 (2001).

[4] B.B. Mandelbrot, CR. Acad. Sci. Paris A 280, 618 (1975).

[5] M. Seldner and P.J.E. Peebles, Astrophysical J 215, 703 (1977).

[6] A.K.T. Assis, "Relational Mechamics." Montreal: Apeiron 1999.

[7] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press 1993, p. 226.

[8] O.E. Rossler, "Darkness intensified: Existence of a nonlinear threshold in redshift­ induced dimming." Z. Naturforsch. 54, 453-454 (1999).

[9] A. Einstein, Does there exist a gravitational effect analogous to electrodynamic induction?

"Collected Papers," English Translation edition, Vol. 4, pp. 126-129. Princeton University

Press 1996.

[10] O.E. Rossler, A morphogenetic instability in gravitation. Physica D 2004 (invited paper submitted).

[11] The term "Fermi acceleration" was already reserved by Loskutov et al. [3] for a different mechanism (the heating-up of billiards subject to repetitive head-on collisions with moving boundaries). Thus, a new term (“Einstein acceleration”?) will be needed for the present mechanism which has nothing to do with billiards and, by the way, does not extend to light, provided it is going to be confirmed.

[12] S.W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes. Commun. Math. Phys. 33, 323 (1973).

[13] R. Giacconi, Kepler lecture, held at the University of Tübingen, July 2003.

[14] J.-M. Bonnet-Bidaud, Le big bang face à ses contradictions, Ciel&espace No. 412, 42- 44, September 2004.

[15] Editorial: Mature galaxies in young universe at odds with theory, Scientific American online, September 2004.

Remark added in 2020: Since this paper was written in 2004, Cryodynamics – explaining cosmology causally for good – got discovered; so this text remains just a step on the road.

Is that has an effect on the biological life

If the Earth going through space would be close to a black hole, it would be gone to the center of it. Perhaps it is surrounded by low-density air

My questions are:

1. Could exist a black hole there without eating Earth surrounded perhaps by vacuum?

2. If it is possible that the black hole generates a lot of energy in the out border of the event horizon that could explain that the Earth heating is about twice the received sun power?

3. If it could explain the Earth magnetic field

4. It's mass

5. How to detect it

6. If it is true, perhaps earth temperature is higher than several million years before. It is known what was the Earth temperature then?

I make these questions because I am worried about the danger of generating a stable black hole in a scientific test. If one of them were created, it would go to the center of the Earth eating earth generating a thin tunnel.

Physics is one of the physical sciences. The two other physical sciences are chemistry and astronomy. Astrophysics is the branch of physics that deals with space and celestial bodies.

Carroll and Ostlie in An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, second edition at page 1099 remark: “Cosmological redshifts are caused by the expansion of the space through which the light travels, so for extremely large distances the total elongation of the wavelength depends on how the expansion of the universe has changed with time.” The 4/3 laws are based on dimensional capacity and imply a distance in 3 dim space stretches by 4/3 compared to the same distance in 4 dim space-time. Is there a connection?

It may be a binary black hole accretion disk or an AGN.

Can anybody please share the IDL source code for Hapke photometric modeling?

Thank you,

Dear Sirs,

I think many knows the ideas due to Jules Henri Poincaré that the physics laws can be formally rewriten as a space-time curvature or as new geometry solely without forces. It is because the physics laws and geometry laws only together are verified in the experiment. So we can arbitrary choose the one of them.

Do you know any works, researchers who realized this idea. I understand that it is just fantasy as it is not proved in the experiment for all forces excepting gravitation.

Do you know works where three Newtons laws are rewritten as just space-time curvature or 5D space curvature or the like without FORCES. Kaluzi-Klein theory is only about electricity.

astrophysicst

What is the role of anisotropy in the dynamic modeling of star. For realistic modeling of star what should be the trend of anisotropy from center to boundary.

Some petroleum and geophysics companies use controlled-source seismology for Mineral Inspection and cavity detection. These methods based on impulsive source controllers such as (dynamite, air gun seismic source, etc.). More efficient techniques use a Seismic vibrator for seismic wave generator such as chirp, sine or square seismic waves.

I wonder if recents detections of Gravitational Waves coming from earth or space using optical interferometry, and how to distinguish between each of them, especially when seismic wave have a same chirp form such as Gravitational Waves?

Example of Seismic Source: http://seismicsource.com/html/index.php

If global warming cannot be resolved by controlling/minimising gas emissions, then extraordinary measures may be the only viable options, one of such ideas is placing a solar shield between the sun and earth at the L1 lagrangian point to obtain a reduction in solar insolation . It may sound crazy, more like science fiction to know that a disk of 2000km in diameter would be necessary to reduce solar radiation reaching earth by 1.7%. I wonder about the sort of stresses that would be experienced by such an enormous body. Also, what sort of materials' properties would be required to withstand the conditions at L1, for example solar radiation, other rays. While it is possible to calculate the disk's orbital velocity around the sun, its angular velocity (around its axis) is difficult to calculate. I would be grateful if those with relevant experience could share their thoughts about how such calculations could be achieved.

Hi everyone,

I am studying MSc Astrophysics and my supervisor informed me last year that I would need to know Python to create plots in order to analyse data.

So I had started watching Python videos but when it came to using it for Astrophysics it turned out I still had not learnt anything. Being new to Python I had been 'learning' it in the ways of building a website and not for Astrophysics.

It's not applicable to what I am working on.

Long story short, I have been given some code to work with for analyzing chemical abundances in dwarf galaxies in the MW Galaxy. I feel I am learning by trial and error and ideally I would like to replicate scatter plots that I have seen in research papers but using my own data.

Is it possible to 1.) Know what programming software/language a scientist has used in their paper and 2.) Is it possible to get the code (the structure/layout) more than anything else?

I'm teaching myself Python and whilst everyone says it's easy compared to other programming languages, this is my first and therefore no comparison: just a lot of libraries that do many different things. I am finding it rather frustrating and need a "all you need to know" book on Python for Astropysics.

Equally if anyone knows any helpful resources I would be very grateful. Thank you!

What we actually mean by "Dark Matter Energy" in layman language?

Dear Colleagues,

I am a liaison (informal) at my university between science and the arts. I have family in planetary astronomy but this is far afield.

LINK to VIDEO: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/largest-gaseous-structure-ever-seen-in-our-galaxy-is-discovered/

A question or two:

What does this newly-reported Radcliffe Wave of gaseous proto-stars tell us about how our galaxy originated?

Is there any chance that this wave will make some difference in our own sun's behavior?

I was once told that stable isotopes of lighter elements such as H, N C , etc are found in stars, planets, etc. Can anyone suggest any literature which talks about the formation of these isotopes?

Does the New Astronomy Journal charge fees for publishing accepted papers? Are there any page charges?

Or is it totally free like Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal of IOP or Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy of Springer?

There are some Computational fluid dynamic numerical simulations available like John Hopkins CFD numerical simulations database is available to use. Is that can be used for Astrophysics purposes?

What are the major unsolved theoretic problems on the astrophysical dust molecular clouds and their evolutionary dynamics?

We can direct this question to astrophysics scientists, theologians, philosophers, scientists thought and civilizations! why?

Astronomy shows that the universe is very wide and the distances between the planets are very far away, especially those distances between solar groups or between galaxies. So, for now, humans can not get out of the earth and settle outside.

Nor have we found references in religious beliefs about the possibility of humans coming out of the earth.

As well as philosophy scholars did not deviate from the geographical framework of the Earth!

It was amazing to see the very first image of a black hole. I'm not expert in the field of astrophysics, but in the interest of AI, I think the image is worth to be discussed more. I have made a blog to explain my point of view:

https://scientificpedia.blogspot.com/

Agree? Disagree?

Astrophysical S-factors for thermonuclear reactions that produce electron neutrinos.

To publish a Unified Theory of Everything, which includes a series of papers describing and proving its Astrophysics, Electromagnetics & Optics, Gravitation, Weak Force, and Strong Force counterparts, what would be the best Scientific Journal to publish it altogether, or is it better to publish it as a book with chapters covering individual proofs in different physics disciplines? If submitting to a Journal, how can the intellectual rights be protected in the peer-review process? If published in a book, what would be the pros and cons in comparison to being published as an Academic Journal Paper?

Dear all,

in accordance with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equation there are three different possibilities of space curvature which can be described mathematically and imparted graphically or analogously (Closed, Openend or Flat Universe). In the attached poster a fourth graphic representation is shown, which is however only graphically derived.

Is this sketch describable within Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equations? How can we interpret this sketch? A Universe that is truly infinite, although it has a defined start and a defined end point?

What would be a 3-Dimensional mathematical object to describe the plot (closed hypertorus, while closed means without a connection in the center?). And what numbers for curvature parameter k and density Parameter Ω make sense for this sketch?

I have created this plot purely graphically and wonder whether a mathematical interpretation of such a shaped space-time is possible, or whether it inevitably leads to paradoxes and is thus a graphic that can be drawn abstractly, but ultimately makes no mathematical sense.

Thank you!

Dear Sirs,

I would like to find out more precisely whether the 2nd Newton law is valid or not in wide range of masses, accelerations, forces. Particulary I have a question whether the inertial property of body (inertial mass) is able to stop the body for small external forces or not. I have found in the Internet the fresh articles with tests of the 2nd Newton law for small accelerations (10^-10), small forces (10^-13) and SMALL masses (about 1 kg). The articles deal with the question of dark matter and MOND theory in astrophysics.

But I am interested in BIG masses. Could the test be carried out in planetary scale? Maybe for the Moon or asteroids? Or for masses like 1000 kg? Thank you very much for any references.

the gravitational waves are travels through the universe with the speed of light and it is the disturbances/ ripples in the fabric of space-time. as observe in the electromagnetic radiation light is decays/redshift, similarly in the case of gravitational waves curvature of any massive astrophysical objects affects or deacay it???

Kepler-186f is the first earth-sized planet located in the habitable zone of another star that has been discovered. With this discovery, the search for life on other planets has entered into a new zone of discovery.

This question relates to naturalistic explanations, because they can approach to the reality or retreat from it with time.

A three-dimensional (3-D, nonplanar) geometrical configuration of astrophysical fluids could be conveniently visualized.

What is a justified way to visualize one-dimensional (1-D, planar) geometrical configuration of dust molecular cloud fluids in astrophysics?

What is well represented by the single spatial variable, x, in this context?

The constitutive dust grains in astrophysical environments are partially ionized. What should be the most appropriate (effective) form of dust-dust interaction in astrophysical environments? In a broader sense, how should we improve the existing models in the above light?

Astrophysical fluids are nonthermal in nature. Could you please provide a list (preferably, tabular form) of various nothermal distribution laws for the constitutional particles relevant in large-scale astrophysical fluids?

Can any body name some astrophysical fluid instabilities still lacking theoretical explanation?

Paranomal Research should be considered research, we all understand that, but what kind of research? What branch?

At the dawn, of the 21st century during a reign governed by money and greed the buzz in the economic and technological race was to build an economy based on hydrogen. A couple years later with the financial internet crisis of 2001 all this buzz disappeared and we entered a reign of terror and war governed by a different type of ethics…

Now, we are facing a different challenge: the climate change due to the over consumerism and accumulation of pollution since the 19th century. After decades of foolish hard geo-engineering experiments scientists, engineers and technologists have to come up with all kind of ineffective “solutions” (some are doing worse than good) to master the astronomical forces involved in order to control the effects of climate change and continue business as usual…

Hydrogen is seen as a non-polluting way to store renewable energies and nuclear energy since its recombination with oxygen produce only pure water. It is a transportable fuel for vehicles and other tools and devices running on electricity.

Further, some scientists fascinated by the solar nuclear energy (“illimited source of free energy”) have convinced uneducated deciders that the ultimate goal was to master the nuclear fusion and build an experimental international power plant called ITER.

Please, justify your position by sound arguments.

Thank you in advance for your esteemed expert contributions and for your understanding.

Kind regards.

No personal attacks, insults, pollution of the answers with popular press clippings from other discussion will be accepted.

The derivation of orbital velocity is presumably well understood. One method is to set the centripetal force equal to the gravitational force and solve for v.

Mv^2/r = GMm/r^2

for which orbital velocity becomes v = sqrt(GM/r)

Now let's assume we have a spacecraft in stable orbit around a body at some distance r(1) and want to move the craft to a higher orbit r(2), to do this it must fire it's engines, i.e. accelerate the craft (a) for some time (t), and presumably increase its velocity as ∆v = at, however Newtonian theory tells us that the velocity has indeed decreased as r(2) is larger than r(1).

So I would like to know what kind of Hokus Pokus is normally applied to explain this problem.