The cosmological constant in all standard cosmological models is a constant. But to explain the observed accelerated rate of expansion of the universe, one postulates existence of dark energy where energy density of dark energy need not be a constant. But all observations are consistent with a constant cosmological constant driving the accelerated expansion.

Similarly, current observation puts a tiny upper limit to changing gravitational constant. In general relativity (GR) , G is strictly a constant. So far, GR is the best theory of classical gravity.

Thank you,sir, for your answer to my question.

Although current observations put a tiny upper limit to changing G but some of papers conclude that it is increasing while some other papers explains decreasing nature of G. So it is quite unclear about nature of G

I put a similar question and you could see it. These both questions are of principal importance. The fact is that, if the gravitation constant is time-dependent, the conclusion on the occurrence of a dark matter, dark energy , and some other fantoms are under question because this conclusion results from the constancy of the gravitation constant.

Valid point. But how fast should G vary in order to explain flat rotation curves, gravitational binding of galaxies in a cluster and the observed accelerated expansion of the universe, without assuming the existence of dark matter and dark energy?

A time varying G cannot account for the discrepancies between observations and the characteristics of compound objects (i.e. galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) predicted by very complex gravitational evaluations. The identified requirement for galactic dark matter varies not with time but, most generally, with the type of galaxy or characteristic distribution of mass, for example.

As others mention, a varying G might account for the requirements for universal dark matter and dark energy identified in the temporally developing cosmos.

There is another potential factor that should be carefully evaluated. In Newton's gravity, F is described as the force produced by the gravitational interaction of, very specifically, two point masses. The amplitude of F varies as an inverse-square function of the two point masses' separation distance (R). M is the product of the two represented objects' masses. Newton's shell theorem very fully explains that (only) a discrete, spherical object whose mass is symmetrically distributed from a center point can be correctly represented as a valid point mass.

Nonetheless, in evaluating large scale, compound, massive structures comprised of many billions of discrete masses, their mass is simply combined to determine a value for M, while a single point is used to determine the value of R. Note that in no case is the detectable mass of a spiral galaxy distributed spherically symmetrically. Moreover, the inverse square of R cannot represent the actual separation distances of billions of discrete objects.

As an information systems analyst, I'm not capable of providing what I think would be a fairly simple mathematical proof of this argument, but the rotation of spiral galaxies has been described (without dark matter or modified gravity) using both Newtonian and relativistic dynamics to better approximate the actual distribution of mass and resulting gravitational potential. Please see my brief, informal profile essay for references.

I also see that the simple terms, G, M and R are directly applied to the temporal redistribution of cosmological mass in the developing universe. I suggest that the same error introduced by improperly evaluating mass distributions as a single point mass may apply. In addition, the requirements for cosmological dark elements are related to temporal variations in cosmological parameters. Certainly analyses of a temporally varying G is warranted in cosmological evaluations.

There is a very interesting article providing historical perspective an analysis of the G constant - please see "Varying Newton’s constant: A personal history of scalar-tensor theories", http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/scalar-tensor

I'm not sure why, but there is a somewhat related suggestion getting attention today - see http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

The sign regarding variation of the Newtonian constant is not clear as one can see from the observational data from Lunar ranging which has large errors . Ref. Helings et al.

S. Tripathy,

Thanks for the reference - the paper is available on RG at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23912447_Experimental_test_of_the_variability_of_G_using_Viking_lander_ranging_data

It seems that their experiment was not testing for variation of G at cosmological time scales, but their results testing for small scale variations were inconclusive.

Article Experimental Test of the Variability of G Using Viking Lande...

I have always though the the Value of G = 6.67 E -11 ( units ) looks

a lot like 2/3 E -12 plus or minus a local acceleration of the Solar system

relative to the Universe which would be a number ( n X E -14 ).

This would render G as being just a proportionality constant between

Mu and Mass that is the vector summation of all of the applied forces

( accelerations ) working on Earth bound objects.

If we could get far away from Earth and measure G using only smaller

masses, and measure them in numerous orientations relative to

the plane of the solar System, I think we would find some

very interesting results.

I suspect there would be detectable variations in G depending upon orientation

to the plane of the galaxy, and to the plane of the Solar system, and to the

proximity of larger planets.

I think that the larger the mass utilized to measure G, the larger will be the

value of G, so using 13.5 metric tons of mercury to measure G ( CODATA )

provided a larger than wanted value of G as it is the additive vector

summation of all of the applied forces that is actually measured,

which includes the measuring objects self mass.

In short, the larger the value of the mass used to measure G, the large the value

of G that will be obtained, and the larger the value of the uncertainty as all of the

vector applied forces are acting on both the object being measure, and

the object doing the measuring.

Food for Thought.

Michael,

See J. B. Fixler; et al., (2007-01-05), "Atom Interferometer Measurement of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity", Science 315 (5808): 74–77, Bibcode:2007Sci...315...74F, doi:10.1126/science.1135459, PMID 17204644

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1135459

Its abstract states:

"We measured the Newtonian constant of gravity, G, using a gravity gradiometer based on atom interferometry. The gradiometer measures the differential acceleration of two samples of laser-cooled Cs atoms. The change in gravitational field along one dimension is measured when a well-characterized Pb mass is displaced. Here, we report a value of G = 6.693 × 10^–11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10^–11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10^–11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared. The possibility that unknown systematic errors still exist in traditional measurements makes it important to measure G with independent methods."

It has always puzzled me as to why the hundreds of various measurements of

the value of G vary so greatly since Cavendish devised a way to measure G.

It seems to be variable from Latitude, longitude, Altitude, proximity to Mountains,

proximity to oceans, time of the Day, time of the year, Solar Distance, Lunar Distance,

and many other things as well including the apparatus.

The trouble is that the variation in G dramatically effects the value of the

mass of Planets calculated from Mu = G M. , which in turn effects the

value of the average planet density.

When one attempts to create Density equations for planets which might

provide some insight into their composition if the mass, radius and

average density can be standardized, it becomes a bit frustrating

when an important value like G tends to float up and down like a cork in

a rolling sea.

Maybe we could get 1,000 universities to obtain the value all at the same time on the same day, and create a bell curve, and G would be pegged, and really

standardized statistically.

The annual change in the time would be one part in 13.7 billion, making

a change in G as being undetectable by that method.

So what we are left with is " flight time of Photons " from distant galaxies

in Billions of Years.

So what changes ?

Does the distance change ( expanding universe ),

or

does the light gradually get lower in amplitude, and longer in frequency ?

Since space is not a perfect vacuum, and has some dusty areas, does the

velocity change as it passes through space ?

I was reading the 1927 write up of the Michelson experiment and

the speed of light in air ( smoky air as they were having forest fires )

was 299,271 km/sec.

He also has errors in his calculations related to the total distance traveled.

He used 1 D and 16 flats and 528 revolutions per second.

He should have used 4 D and 4 flats and 528 revolutions per second.

Whether the rotating mirror had 4 flats, 8 flats, or 16 flats was irrelevant,

as only the two flats of the mirror that were 90 degrees apart mattered.

His simplification was 8448 D = 4224 (2D) = 2112 ( 4D )

where D we reported to be 35, 425.1 meters. ( one was path of light )

Anyway, light is slower through any medium than a complete vacuum.

Vacuum c = 299,792,458 meters per second.

The 1925, 1926 Michelson ( smoke and hazy air ) Mount Wilson to

San Antonio Peak and back again ( twice ) is roughly

c ( air ) = 299 , 271, 488 +/- 42 meters per second IF he had used the

accuracy of the US Coast and Geodetic Survey where the original base

line first order survey was reported to be 35,385.53 meters station

to station using eight ( 50 meter) Invar Tape measures, 4 separate base lines,

and 46 survey segments.

The most accurate distance survey ever completed on the planet up to that time.

They surveyed to a centimeter accuracy, and he rounded to a decimeter

the distance he added in the last few meters to the instrument.

So his plus or minus is 420 meters per second, not 42 meters per second.

That was the long way around, but light goes slower through any

medium than it does through a perfect vacuum.

Change the density of the materials ( air pressure, smoke, moisture ),

and the velocity changes. It really slows down inside a diamond.

Whether the gravitational constant G is varying is still subject to measurement. It can be speculated to be a non-constant, but it needs to be measured, and these measurements must have correct error boundaries, As you know it is one of the least well known, but so often used 'constants' in many equations of motion. We (at the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory, HartRAO, South Africa) are currently building a Lunar Laser Ranger (LLR), to participate in the small global network of LLRs. Specifically, we are interested in estimating the value of G, and the possible first derivative and the errors involved. The idea is to use the Earth and Moon as test masses in their orbit around the Sun. Of course this has been done before to some level of accuracy. The idea is to minimize all sources of error...these creep in from geophysical considerations (pole tide, Earth tide, ocean and atmospheric loading), measurement accuracies, data quantity, planetary ephemeris errors etc. Even so, LLR remains one of the most accurate and viable methods to determine G-dot. Adding an LLR to the Southern Hemisphere will decrease geometric biases to some extent, so we are aiming for an improvement in previous estimates, and to add some unique and new modelling approaches which will improve accuracies.

Ludwig,

Yours is a worthy enterprise - best wishes!

There is an unrelated issue that might be addressed using LLR capabilities that I'm compelled to mention. Perhaps the simplest model of the graviton is as a massless particle that behaves in many ways like a photon, except that it mediates a gravitational rather than EM interaction. I think that, in the simplest model, the Sun, for example, would emit gravitons that would be linearly propagated through space at the speed of light and would be absorbed by the Earth and the Moon. Likewise, of course, the Earth & Moon would also emit linearly propagating gravitons. However, in the case of the Moon, it would also receive a nearly fixed amount of gravitons from the Earth but, just like photons, the Earth would sometimes block the propagation of gravitons emitted by the Sun. As a result, in this admittedly unlikely scenario, the Sun's gravitational influence on the Moon would vary depending on how many of the Sun's gravitons were blocked by the Earth.

While this idea can be easily dismissed, I suggest that this should also be an experimental question. Testing this hypothesis would at least place some constraints on the potential behavior of any gravitational force mediating particle...

Also see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_gravitons_be_discovered?

I think there's little else I can add, except that I think experimental observation would be useful to basic science, even if not terribly exciting! Just a small suggestion...

James, your suggestion is indeed an experimental question. One of the things to be investigated is the shape and variability of the Earth-Moon orbit. Any deviations from the expected (e.g. due to violations of the Strong Equivalence Principle) are subject to investigations. If there are measurable blockage of the Sun's influence on the Moon by the Earth, this will be investigated. Currently, modelling will be based on accepted Newtonian plus GTR affects, deviations or tests to the practical measurable limit is what we are interested in.

Ludwig,

Great - thanks!

The recession rate of the Moon away from the Earth was measured by

Lasers fired from the McDonald Observatory in Texas, and over a 15 year

period the recession rate averaged 38.2 mm per year.

However, I thing this is due to a change in the mass ratio of the

Earth and the Moon, and not a detectable change in the value

of Big G, the gravitational constant.

The theory is that the change in the distance divided by the distance

is proportional to the change in the time divided by the total elapsed time,

and is proportional to the change in the mass divided by the total mass

of the system. ( Parts Per Billion )

The change in mass is actually about 1.3 E 15 kg per year which is actually

the constant rate of change in the mass over the elapsed time of

4.5444 E 9 years.

I made a whoops in the Michelson -1925, 1926 velocity of light experiment.

The actual number of trips is 8448 one way trips between stations,

or 4224 two way trips per second.

By moving the spinning mirror toward and away from the telescope

across the valley, the exact distance can be obtained where the

image becomes stationary. This occurs when the spin rate of the mirror

is an exact integer multiple of the number of flats, and an integer can

be multiplied by spin rate to obtain both 4224 and 8448.

528 / 16 = 33

8448 / 528 = 16

4224 / 528 = 8

Because we have defined the speed of light in a vacuum as

299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum, it changed the

distance between the mirrors, and the total distance traveled

by a small amount, and the Michelson light speed in smoky

air by a tiny amount.

The distance is now 35, 424. 429 684 59 meters ( one way )

or two way trip is now 70, 848. 859 369 18 meters ( two way )

so c ( smoky air ) = 299, 265, 581. 975 416 meters per second.

This speed is a nodal integer ( constructive wave fronts ),

so the distance not traveled must also be a nodal

integer of both 4224 and 8448.

That is the speed not obtained is

299, 792, 458 - 299, 265, 581. 975 416 = 526, 876 .024 584 m/sec

526,876.024584 / 8448 = 62. 366 953 67 meters.

In a vacuum, as in space, the distance between meters would

need to be 62. 366 953 67 meters farther apart.

Vacuum distance = 299, 792, 458 / 8448 = 35, 486. 796 64 meters apart.

Michelson's distance = 35, 424. 429 684 59 meters apart ( smoky air ).

When Michelson rounded his distance between stations from

35, 385.52 to 35,385.50, that 2 cm rounding error was multiplied by

8484 one way trips so he built in a 0.02 x 8448 = 168.96 meter per second

error in his calculation.

However, if we only had slide rules and log tables,

we would have done the same thing.

Interesting that they cannot explain variations. Perhaps it would be informative to repeat the experiment at different altitudes, or on board the ISS...

Professor Walter Lewin has a good lecture:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-11/

In addition to the phys.org report mentioned by Joachim Pimiskern above, there is a nice synopsis at http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.101102.

There's also another news report at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show

(replete with a nice slide show of the apparatus).

Using small test masses are problematic when attempting to evaluate G, the scale is just too small. Apart from the Lunar Laser Ranging technique, where any anomalous orbital evolution can be estimated and an estimate for Gdot be derived, one can also use satellite laser ranging satellites such as LAGEOS, which has a very well defined and accurately measured orbit. The idea would be to estimate G as a solve-for parameter, this can be done directly within the least-squares solution of precise orbital determination. Of course there are pitfalls here, as the effects of alternative strategies such as different gravity models and a priori constraints on other solve-for or consider parameters need to be considered to evaluate this technique. I have used this approach to estimate PPN parameters Gamma and Beta, this evaluation includes the Schwarzschild terms and the effects of rotational frame-dragging (Lense-Thirring precession), de Sitter (geodesic) precession and Shapiro delay. The solved for PPN parameters are fed back into the least-squares process during the analysis. A similar approach could be used for G, with the solution looking to minimize the observed minus computed residuals.

Dear Sureash,

I think that your issues are similar to a salad prepared from the tainted vegetables and serviced with the Javanese long pepper. The fact of the matter is that such phantoms as supernovas, quasars, and blackholes result from the so called theory and, really, from the hypothesis, which includes the notion on the light speed constancy. If the gravitation coefficient is not constant over the Universe and because light deviates in the gravitation field, the speed of light is not constant; in addition, there are no proofs of occurrence of fusion reactions within stars and we consider the principally another possibilities of the stellar energy and formation of chemical elements. Somewhat earlier I listed at ResearchGate several possible causes that could lead to the light speed inconstancy. The light constancy follows from nowhere.

All this taken together and each of these conclusions taken separately mean that the notions on the nature of the supernovas, quasars, and blackholes are no more than phantoms. For example, according to the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, the supernovas represent the explosions of the stellar radiation zones but not the explosions of the entire stars. As for the so-called quasars, and blackholes, they exist on the papers only on the basis of assumptions proved by nothing.

In our articles that are available at ResearchGate and in the ResaearchGate discussions that relate to different astrophysical problems which are put by different researchers, I presented criticism against the widely-distributed astrophysical hypotheses and gave the alternative PFO-CFO Hypothesis. I see that you read nothing these. Meanwhile, each of us, I think, should be not only writer but also reader.

Regards.

I would rather ask Is G increasing or decreasing with the spin rate changes of stellar object (e.g. Earth)? I have found that direction very fruitful.

@Mohammad Ayaz Ahmad Gravitational constant might be another nice example of geocentric thinking.

Dear Dr. Suresh Kumar,

You wrote the following issue here somewhat earlier. It is not seen in this page now, and, therefore, I repeat it. I correct your spelling neither here nor below.

“Evolution of gravitational constant is not with time but related to the intensity of matter-energy interactions in high particle domains.Naturally,if sufficiently high as to constitute optical lattice-like structures with a higher population of relatively higher energy particles,in a constrained space,then it is plausible that gravitational constant is high in such domains,which one naturally comes across t the beginning of universe;and also in to some extent in stellar cores,and even supernova,quasars,and blackhole vicinites.

The gravitational constant is high in such regions of space,and decreases to normal values drastically,outside of the domain peripheries.

At the beginning of the universe,it is even probable that gravitational constant is comparable to em coupling so that photons are decelerated by matter.”

I answered you:

Dear Suresh,

“I think that your issues are similar to a salad prepared from the tainted vegetables and serviced with the Javanese long pepper. The fact of the matter is that such phantoms as supernovas, quasars, and black holes result from the so called theory and, really, from the hypothesis, which includes the notion on the light speed constancy. If the gravitation coefficient is not constant over the Universe and because light deviates in the gravitation field, the speed of light is not constant; in addition, there are no proofs of occurrence of fusion reactions within stars and we consider the principally another possibilities of the stellar energy and formation of chemical elements. Somewhat earlier I listed at ResearchGate several possible causes that could lead to the light speed inconstancy. The light constancy follows from nowhere. All this taken together and each of these conclusions taken separately mean that the notions on the nature of the supernovas, quasars, and black holes are no more than phantoms. For example, according to the PFO-CFO Hypothesis, the supernovas represent the explosions of the stellar radiation zones but not the explosions of the entire stars. As for the so-called quasars, and black holes, they exist on the papers only on the basis of assumptions proved by nothing. In our articles that are available at ResearchGate and in the ResaearchGate discussions that relate to different astrophysical problems which are put by different researchers, I presented criticism against the widely-distributed astrophysical hypotheses and gave the alternative PFO-CFO Hypothesis. I see that you read nothing these. Meanwhile, each of us, I think, should be not only writer but also reader. Regards.”

You opposed me as follows:

“I have shared some of my thoughts and concepts as above in the prestigious science journal as eletters in commentary section and article comments ,which are vetted by the editorial team for substance before being put online as approved ,and people like Victor may read to come out of his closed notional mentality.

science progreses based on new thoughts and not a narrow focus,as people like VICTOR clearly evidence out of limited knowledge and lack of thinking,while passing judgement on others out of that constriction.

repulsive gravity effects out of inversion of particle enrgies hence a distinct possibility to evidencee enhanced mass energy effects in high particle locations,as I indiated .

victor may also try to post more clearly rather than gibberish,before commenting adversely.”

My answer to this your issue is below.

It goes without saying, I should answer you; however, being busy, I couldn’t do this immediately and do this only today. Your issues are hard-to-read but, I hope, I correctly understand their content. I am sorry for the delay.

The following text is, I think, important, and it is addressed not only to you but to all researchers interested in the question under consideration. Moreover, the extremally rude form of your answer to my last issue forces me to doubt that you are capable of understanding this text, and, therefore, it is addressed mainly to all other members of this discussion.

(1) Why did I write that your issues are similar to a salad prepared from the tainted vegetables and serviced with the Javanese long pepper?

When analyzing different observational visions in the Universe, each person, independently of the occurrence or absence of his e-letters “in commentary sections of the prestigious science journals”, must remember the interconnection between the widely distributed explanations of these visions.

I not randomly write “visions” but neither phenomena nor events. Indeed, we see in the vault of heaven no more than light spots, and the real light ways in the Universe are inscrutable. Really, light is capable of going to us from a direction that differs significantly from the shortest direction to the light source and its luminance does not respond to the brightness of the parental object because of such light features as absorption by different celestial objects, refraction interaction with other light fluxes, divergences in gravitation fields, etc.; moreover, there are observations that show that this is fact but not an assumption. I wrote you that such phantoms as supernovas, quasars, and black holes result from the so-called theory and, really, from a set of hypotheses, which includes the notion of the light speed constancy over the Universe and a number of other arbitrary assumptions. If the gravitation coefficient is not constant over the Universe and because light deviates in the gravitation field, the speed of light is not constant.

According to your “e-letters in commentary sections of the prestigious science journals”, the gravitation coefficient is not constant and, thus, it varies over the period, when light traverses the Universe. Meanwhile, the SR and GR are based on the assumption of the speed-of-light identity and constancy everywhere over the Universe. If this is not the case, the hypothetical calculations which had led to such phantoms as quasars, black holes, etc. are free of their ground. (In addition, as I wrote you earlier in another my issue, Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary and have no grounds).

Thus, when rejecting the light speed constancy, you reject the notion on quasars, black holes, etc. All they together are inconsistent.

To substantiate the occurrence of quasars, black holes, etc., you should take the light speed constancy over the space, and, to take the light speed constancy over the space, you should take that the gravitation coefficient varied never, because it is stated that gravitation field deviates light, and this means that the light deviation depends on the gravitation coefficient, because variations in the gravitation coefficient lead to variations in the strength of gravitation and to variations in the degree of light deviation from the linear direction. I hope, you understand that the light-deviation variations are equivalent to variations in its speed, if we measure the speed as the (real distance to a celestial object)/(time interval for traversing this distance) ratio.

Therefore, your salad is inedible. When writing about the pepper, I bear in mind other your fantasies, but this is a theme for another consideration.

I hope, you now understand who of us two writes gibberish.

If not, you may read my discussions in other ResearchGate pages, the publications of 2013 and the earlier ones dedicated to the PFO-CFO Hypothesis (they are available in my and in Elena Kadyshevich ResearchGate pages).

(2) I don’t advise you to use, in the future, the phrases, which are similar to the following one

“people like Victor may read to come out of his closed notional mentality” with respect to the persons who are unfamiliar to you. You can write any your opinions relative to the ideas, results, and techniques that are proposed by other researchers, and just your opinions demonstrate your scientific level to all members of the community. I understand that your delusions are your pride and joy. But you are not of divine nature to determine the degree of mentality of your opponents at distances.

Open letter.

Dear Prof. Matts Roos,

I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”.

This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention.

The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows.

(i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington);

(ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington);

(iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity);

(iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR).

None of these assumptions was proved.

The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc.

Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them?

As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it.

The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation.

We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons:

(x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.

(y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.

(z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.

We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies.

The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes.

Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation.

This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space.

We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them.

(1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements?

(2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma?

(3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe?

(4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe?

We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless.

The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism.

The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question:

(5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang?

Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question:

(6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections?

I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive.

I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works.

Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there.

The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars.

The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows.

The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications.

I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers.

The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored.

Sincerely,

Victor Ostrovskii

It is depend from the phase of mater... Example a piece of rock (gravity field will remain same) if will remain in actual condition observed in our soundings… But exist condition our solar system when gravity can reduce to the zero onto the surface of rocky planet: (Explication in: http://planeterosion.blogspot.hu/ and in booklet: Tényekkel Igazolható a Gravítáció Valós Oka (2009)

Preprint Change constant of gravity when mass is the fifth dimension