H. Universe

The night sky is full of stars. All they belong to our galaxy. Our nearest star is Sun. All this knowledge is not old, but men had observed sky from his early days. Only 5 centuries ago was Sun positioned correctly in the centre of the Solar system. Only in the last century was cleared up that universe expands.

Long centuries were the observations of Sun motion misconstrue. Wrong interpretations of observations are common in the history of exploration. Why have now scientist so a confidence in the truthfulness of their interpretations? The serious researcher are not so doubtless. Even Einstein had doubts about his theory of gravity. His followers not so much, and today's scientists are without any doubts of Einstein gravity conception. Why?

An other case, the motto of quantum scientists: 'shut up and calculate'. Then it is no wonder, that the current reputation of science is poor. More and more specialization leads to more and more knowledge about a narrower range of investigation. And the result will be that the ideal, foremost scientist knows anything about almost nothing.

I think that the worst action in the history was the division of exploration into two branches in the days of Rene Descartes. The spiritual one, which was under the auspices of church. And the material one kept for science. Only the first was allowed to reach the transcendence, the cosmic truth. But this level was accomplishable only for the courageous, who ignored the outdated dogmatic regulations of church.

Despite this, scientific exploration of the universe revealed lot of interesting material structures outside Earth. Astronomy and astrophysics investigations of Solar system, our galaxy (where all the stars on heaven belong to), extragalactic objects and of the distant universe depend on rational interpretations of executed observations, as we have no chance to touch or explore these objects direct, and light – which is the only connection and source of knowledge in universe – needs milions of years to pass over.

Regardless, we have reached some understanding of what universe is. The dominating force in universe is gravity. Our observations can be interpreted, that our universe was generated by some event – Big Bang – about 15 thousand million years ago. From this moment on the whole universe expands.

In the first minutes all the matter emerged out of present energy. Primeval inhomogenities formed into cosmic 'pancakes'. This preliminary mass condensations were the starting point of galactic clusters. Gravity and inertia, but expecially angular momentum formed the galaxies, stars and planetary systems around the stars.

What is remarkable in universe – there is mostly vacuum without any matter present on long scales. On the other side, in locations where angular momentum was negligible large mass condensations formed. In this locations we observe indirectly the presence of black holes – mass condensations, which are so strong, that they forbidden an escape of energy. Light, as electromagnetic energy form is also bound, and cannot escape. We observe two locations, where black holes can be present. Firstly quasars, as active nuclei of galaxies. This black holes have the mass of billion stars. Next case are the black holes as remnant of massive stars evolution.

What is paradoxical in our observations of universe, are the interpretations of galaxy rotations and the decelaration of universe expansion rate. Both are limited by the dogmatic scientific image of gravity. This mens that the apparent 'missing mass' and 'missing energy' issues are not natural, they are the result of poor interpretation and misunderstang of natural principles. Gravity is not what the scientists theorize, but what nature gives. And the one, who had insight was Eric Verlinde, with his 'entropic gravity', gravity as information of material particles position.

Also the inflationary epoch after the conjectured Big Bang singularity/fluctuation is a useless theoretical extension. Its uselessness is given by the fact, that information spread is not to replace with signaling in space-time, information apparently needed to explain the observed shape of the universe is instantly present everywhere.

We have to be flexible. Not only with our interpretations, but also with our certainties. For example, we can predict the motion of Moon only marginally – after only some millions of years, which is a short epoch in comparison with the age of universe, is the position of Moon incalculable.