Briefly, while the calculated speed of light may be constant, as a function of d/t, it seems its actual, absolute velocity cannot be invariant, since d and t vary...

James, thank you for the comment. But have a look at that section of the paper I've referenced. It shows that the speed of light doesn't vary because it moves exactly as far in space as an observer (a non-accelerating observer, at least!) moves in time.

The first measurement of the speed of light ever was, in fact, done in space: Danish astronomer Rømer by observing the extra time it took for light from Jupiter to reach the Earth when Jupiter was on the far side of the Sun.

Jumping to the present-day, just about every precision-navigated spacecraft indirectly also offers a very high precision measurement of the speed of light, or, to be more precise, the speed of electromagnetic radiation. When orbits are reconstructed using radio-metric data, not only the vacuum speed of light but also specific effects on the radio wave like the delay due to charged particles in the solar wind or due to gravity (the Shapiro delay) are routinely taken into account at very high accuracy. These observations test the predictions of special and general relativity insofar as spacecraft trajectories, the rates of precision oscillators (clock) either on board spacecraft or on the Earth, and the speed of propagation of electromagnetic signals are concerned. In fact, a combination of all observations to date provides very tight limits on the parameters of what is called the PPN (Parametrized Post-Newtonian) formalism, which is a general formalism that describes how a broad variety of possible theories may differ from "vanilla" general relativity (which, of course, includes special relativity as a special case.) For details, see, e.g., www.amazon.com/dp/B008UYKNUA/.

Thank you, but I'm looking for an experiment onboard, measuring the speed of light from an unaccelerated source to an unaccelerated receptor. This would exclude signals to or from the earth and Jupiter.

GRACE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment) and GRAIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Interior_Laboratory) involved measuring the time of propagation if a signal between pairs of spacecraft flying in formation (around the Earth and the Moon, respectively.)

Wouldn't any Earthbound & spacecraft measurements require adjustments for rotational velocity in addition to radial distance within Earth's gravitational field?

I think the transmissions between GRACE & GRAIL were in radio frequencies. How would that compare to laser transmissions, in terms of potential interference of wave propagation? There are several Lunar laser transmit/receive stations here on Earth that might be of some use in determining gravity's precise effect effect on light propagation speeds.

Also, see a news report of GRAIL's interesting mission: http://www.nature.com/news/tandem-satellites-probe-the-moon-s-interior-1.11419

"GRAIL’s two probes, named Ebb and Flow by schoolchildren in a NASA competition, were launched in September 2011 (see ‘Twins to Probe Moon’s Heart’ [http://nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/477016a]). The first probe began orbiting the Moon on 31 December 2011, with the second joining the next day. By March, they had begun detailed mapping. The two spacecraft exchange radio signals, recording fluctuations in their relative positions that are then used to reveal tiny accelerations and decelerations caused by variations in the Moon’s gravitational field. The average altitude of the primary mission was 55 kilometres — much lower than the orbit used by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a similar gravity-mapping mission for Earth that has to fly higher to avoid atmospheric friction. Occasionally, the GRAIL operations team brought the craft lower than 20 kilometres to further improve the resolution of the data."

There might be quite a bit of data at varying radii in the Moon's gravitational field, if precise radio transmission time data was regularly collected...

Also see a report of its results: http://www.nature.com/news/gravity-maps-reveal-why-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-is-covered-in-craters-1.14106 - "dark side of the Moon"

GRACE Follow-On will use lasers (http://esto.nasa.gov/news/news_gracefollowon.html). Then there is also Lunar Laser Ranging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment). And yes, when earthbound stations are involved, the rotational velocity of the Earth (I presume this is what your question was about) plays an important role. Indeed, even tiny effects such as solid earth tides that change station position a little sometimes need to be modeled.

V. Toth,

Yes, Earth's rotational velocity and any satellite's orbital velocity - thanks.

Ranging devices aren't useful for my purpose as they presume an arbitrary although fixed speed of light in order to detect and calibrate variations in range. At a distance of 220 km I would predict that the craft in the GRACE project were about 7 mm closer than presumed, but there's no way of verifying within the experiment which measure is more accurate.

The earth's rotational velocity would be irrelevant to an experiment onboard the ISS using laser interferometry. Everything onboard is moving uniformly.

Interesting question, James. I'm unaware of an experiment to settle the matter, but I'm willing to make some predictions, which depend on direction.

1. Transverse to the Earth's gravitational field, if you compensate for the bending of light it should yield "c." But I don't think this is what you were looking for.

2. Along a path from low to high and back again using the low clock, it will appear greater than c. And along a path high to low and back less than c.

When the light is going up or down, it is exactly accelerated at 9.8 m/s/s like everything else, and the differences in 2 would be explainable by clock rates. When the light is traversing sideways to the gravity vector, it experiences "double bending" due to refraction. This is due to the speed gradient in the gravitational field, and is necessary to explain the apparent positions of stars near the sun during a solar eclipse.

Ouch. Did I say "7 mm closer"? Caffeine is worth 20 pts in IQ. if light in space travels faster then the craft would be 7mm FURTHER apart.

Robert, I didn't see your comment until after I posted my latest.

The affect I would like to isolate is a different measure of light-speed solely due to time dilation caused by inertial acceleration. The most accurate measure to date has been obtained by laser interferometry on the earth's surface, at an inertial acceleration of ~9.8 m/sec. An experiement on the ISS would be performed at zero inertial acceleration. At the short distance allowed by that method, the bending of light is inconsequential, and there would be no need either on earth or the ISS to introduce differences in altitude in the experiment. Except for an effect due to inertial acceleration, both experiments would report the same speed of light, because each would be using their own clocks in their own coordinate system.

I have to take issue with your statement that the speed of light going up or down would be accelerated -- I assume that like me you had a caffeine-deprived moment.

The method of using Minkowski' s diagram at two dimensions in order to examine the kinematic behavior of the unidimensional time and of the tridimensional space is interesting. This diagram is used in the case in point for a graphic representation of the Lorentzian space-time used in Special Relativity.

At pag.4 making use of Lorentz' s Transformations the following relationship is obtained: t'=SQR(t^2-x^2)=SQR(t^2-a^2t^2) , where t' is time observed by the inertial reference frame (at rest or in uniform motion), t is his own time of the moving object, a=v/c in which v is the relative speed and c is the speed of light.

In the preceding relation time t' is real and has physical meaning only for v

Daniele,

Your proposal has some conceptual appeal for me - to explain I'll repeat a comment I just posted elsewhere:

"Briefly, don't the field equations of GR derive the geometry of spacetime primarily from potential mass-energy of massive objects? In my personal view, the geometry of dimensional spacetime used to describe the effects of gravitation may actually directly correspond the condensation of some unspecified and as yet unidentified kinetic energy contained within the vacuum of spacetime. If this were the case, GR is a correct but not physically complete description of the effects of gravitation...."

I would suggest though that while the gravitational deflection of light in some cases may be represented as material refraction, if extended to gravitational lensing some contradictions arise. Of identified galaxy scale strong gravitational lens conditions, about 80% are produced by elliptical galaxies, 10% lenticular galaxies and 10% spiral galaxies. Those few that are produced by spiral galaxies are most often for those viewed edge-on, suggesting that it may be their elliptical bulge that produces the lensing effect rather than the disk, and that face-on spirals' gas and dust filled disks do not produce material refraction of light. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5567.

Moreover, the strong lensing effects produced by low gas and dust elliptical galaxies indicate that they do not have large dark matter halos (which should not refract light in any case since DM does not interact with EMR). See http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6896.

Also, my (limited) understanding of Doppler shifts leads me to think that it is the motion of the emitting object relative to the emitted light wave that physically increases or decreases the wave length of emitted light. Similarly, I view cosmological redshift as being produced not by the enormous velocity that would be required of an emitting object to produce the observed redshift of each light wave, but the accumulative effect of the continuous physical extension of each wave imparted by the metric expansion of spacetime over the duration of the light's propagation.

I hope these objections are understandable since, as I explained, I consider that the geometry of spacetime may represent the contraction of some physical kinetic vacuum energy (rather than some material medium).

Daniele, I'm sorry -- I don't understand what it is you're referring to as an "example of great contradictions caused by Lorentz' s Transformations and that are present in theories which use them."

The graph derived from the Lorentz calculation is a perfect representation of the special relativistic relationship. What is the contradiction?

If you don't see contradictions and all is perfect, all well.

@James Arnold, re: speed of light going up or down. I'm just referring to equivalence principle orthodoxy. I haven't run any experiments. : ) But if an elevator accelerates up or down and light doesn't go with it exactly, then all bets are off on GR, because this is its axiom.

I mean an unaccelerated elevator, or only an inertial elevator, like a falling capsule. Geez, people are going to rake me over the coals on that slip!

Daniele, If you see a contradiction, nothing is perfect and nothing is well until you can point it out.

Robert, I won't allow any burning coals here -- it's my question!

James A. ,I agree, the question you raise on Minkowski's graphic representationon is complex and it requires much attention. However generally I prefer to not persist in my critical considerations when they aren't subscribed. I repeat my appreciation for your work but I want you know I think differently on questions of relativity.

Best regards.

James,

Considering "... The prediction is counter-intuitive. If an observer’s clock is slowed by acceleration, the measure of the speed of light would be expected to increase, if it was expected to change at all."

and "... un-accelerated observers at different levels in a gravitational field should measure the same speed of light if it is emitted and observed at the same level in the field..."

Speed is a local measure of velocity derived from two variables, distance and time. Observers at different levels within a gravitational field will _calculate_ the identical numerical speed of light because _both_ distance traversed and time advanced vary proportionally between the two levels.

The observer at the lower level will compute the observed speed of light to be ~300k km/s but his meters are shorter _and_ his seconds are slower than the higher observer's are. It seems to me that the light at the lower level actually traversed a shorter distance in a greater time than at the higher level. However, the calculated numerical speed would be identical.

I think this could be nicely illustrated by an animation that showed two sets of clocks and distances - with one clock running slower as light synchronously traversed a shorter distance, while the other clock ran faster as light traversed a longer distance. If each clock measured 1 second and each distance traversed was 300k kilometers the calculated speed of light in both frames would be 300k km/s.

Actual comparative observation requires a third, remote observer (say, from the Moon) - I think he would see light moving at different velocities at the two levels (if he could discern any difference, which in actuality would require exceedingly precise distant measurements.

BTW - if this simple evaluation is correct, it seems that light (EMR) may actually propagate at varying absolute velocities throughout universal times and distances. That would seem to have enormous cosmological consequences, especially in the interpretation of cosmological observations. Please consider carefully...

Interesting question, Jim!

I don't understand your expectation of "enormous cosmological consequences" though.

It seems to me the effect would be infinitesimal anywhere except in the vicinity of a star, and even then, being transverse to the observer, necessarily limited to something close to the diameter of the star.

What are the cosmological consequences?

James,

Thanks! My thought is that, in the denser early universe (in which, as I understand, even after any inflationary period and before any reacceleration, the rate of expansion exceeded current levels), the velocity and density and gravitational potential of universal spacetime was much greater than now. If the above evaluation is correct I suspect that spacetime would generally be more greatly contracted - causing greater dilation of lengths and time, throughout the universe. In that case, the absolute propagation velocity of light throughout the universe would have been lower than in recent times. Perhaps this would even affect the relationship between luminosity and redshift, used to infer the reacceleration of universal expansion, for example. If, in absolute terms, the propagation velocity of light was lower at earlier times, our estimates of time & distance throughout the universe might be skewed. I hope this is understandable - I really can't even conceptually assess the possible implications right now...

At any rate, the important question now is whether the basic evaluation is correct - that the absolute velocity of light varies even though its speed is constant. Thanks!

The speed of light is faster in a vacuum than is air.

Michaelson's 1925, 1926 experiment measured the speed of light in

smoky air by spinning multi faceted mirrors at a high rpm . the light made

8448 one way trips, and 4224 two way trips per second.

MIchael,

That's true, but it can be explained by serial absorption and re-emission along a path. I'm looking for variation under the same conditions EXCEPT for an acceleration-free environment.

I don't think that it's been determined that any acceleration of universal expansion is the product of any specific 'repulsive gravity effects' imparted to galactic scale objects. At any rate, as I understand, gravitation imparts spectral shifts to the frequency of light rather than any effect imparted to its velocity...

@James, the spectral shifts come about when light moves to a different gravitational potential, either up or down, and can be viewed as a consequence of time dilation. Using a so-called light clock, Einstein demonstrated that if time is dilated that the speed of light, relative to a distant observer who is able to notice the time dilation, is also slowed. However since the local observer's clock and lightspeed are dilated by the same amount, she still measures 3x10^8 m/s.

@Suresh, I think your comment is interesting, but unless we can obtain and verify clock synchronization at two points which are separated by distances greater than the diameter of non-expanding galactic clusters, we cannot measure lightspeed over such distances by the Einstein method. I have shown that any other methods gives a different answer. See attachment.

@James Arnold, I remind that ISS will be accelerated, since it follows Earth, which is following Sun, which has an orbit in Milky Way, which is going towards Andromeda, while the local galaxy clusters is going away ... can you find an isolated observer anywhere at all?

Since there are one too many James' here, please be more specific as to who you're addressing. I'm guessing that Robert was addressing me, while Demetris was addressing James Arnold's previous comment...

I had intended to object to Suresh's use of the phrase "repulsive gravity effects" as implying perhaps more than intended.

I agree that light moving from a time/place of contracted spacetime to a time/place of relatively expanded spacetime should impart effects on light that are similar to those imparted as light escapes a massive object. These relativistic effects may be related, but I think that implying that any form of gravitation is involved may be misleading.

As I understand, the speed of light (d/t = c) is constant, but both relative distance and time vary in accordance with proportional length expansion and time dilation...

Dear All,

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. I keep in mind the PFO-CFO Hypothesis of Solar System Formation that is available in ResearchGate. 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 in ResearchGate 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. 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.

The following concrete questions 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 the members of the Community 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, I put the following question:

(5) Is there any definite 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) Are there any reasonable objections against this Engels’s solution?

I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask all readers of this issue 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.

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.

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 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.