News

May 15, 2013   New consistent version of the closed model with relativistic redshift is checked

Z. Zakir (2013) The closed model of the universe with relativistic redshift, TPAC, 8, 2, p. 24 – 36, doi: 10.9751/TPAC.4518-030

Z. Zakir (2013) The closed model of the universe with relativistic effects of extra dimension. TPAC, 8, 2, p. 37 – 61, doi:  10.9751/TPAC.4518-031

April 15, 2013   New observable effects in cosmology are discovered

Z. Zakir (2013) Redshift stasis of photons at crossing the gravitationally-bound regions revises the supernovae data, TPAC, 8, 1, p. 1 – 6, doi: 10.9751/TPAC.4488-027

Z. Zakir (2013) The frequency and intensity stasis effects for radiation crossed galaxy clusters. 1. Localized sources. TPAC, 8, 1, p. 7 – 15, doi: 10.9751/TPAC.4488-028

Z. Zakir (2013) The frequency and intensity stasis effects for radiation crossed galaxy clusters. 2. Isotropy and anisotropy of CMB. TPAC, 8, 1, p. 16 – 23, doi: 10.9751/TPAC.4488-029

September 28, 2012    DOI international Code for publications of the journal

Since September 28, 2012  Centre for Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics (CTPA, Tashkent, Uzbekistan) is a member of PILA – The Publishers International Linkage Association, registering DOI international standard code for digital objects.

The official DOI code prefix for CTPA is 10.9751

For any publication the publisher can freely define its interior suffix after DOI code prefix. For the journals published by CTPA as journal’s code are accepted:

10.9751/TPAC. and 10.9751/TFAK.

with inserting after the point an interior code of a publication in this journal.

For an interior code of the publication in CTPA is accepted following system:

(a publication day). (an order number of publication)

As a day of publication is accepted a number of days from 01/01/2001, i.e. number of days of current century (and millenium). As a result, DOI codes for the first paper in English and Russian issues of the journal look like

10.9751/TPAC.2091.001 and 10.9751/TFAK.2091.001

since the day of publication 09/22/2006 corresponds to 2091-th day of the century.

Since 2009 the journal’s issues are published in dates, multiple to 100 days, since the date 03/19/2009, corresponded to 3000-th day of the century (4000-th day has occurred at 12/14/2011).

September 18, 2012   Welcome to the new site of the journal!

New site of the journal Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology is started!

The content of issues is still free for downloading up to starting of subscription program.

The discussion of articles is welcomed. Comment section of any abstract page is available for professional scientists, educators and students.

Popular discussion of ideas and results, including social aspects, is available at Forum of Theor-Phys.org portal.

4 Responses to “News”

  1. Beck.Rashad
    November 10th, 2012 at 03:05 | #1

    Great content like this isn’t easy to find online. You have given the world a wonderful article with many good points to consider. I agree with a lot of your views and enjoyed this article.

  2. Zahid Zakir
    November 15th, 2012 at 20:04 | #2

    Thanks. This is first open response.
    Still lack of response of professionals I understand as “Silence gives consent”.

  3. Peter Diehr
    January 3rd, 2013 at 23:56 | #3

    Silence may be golden, but silence is not a form of consent.

  4. Zahid Zakir
    January 5th, 2013 at 06:31 | #4

    In the scientific dispute silence means consent when a true solution contradicts to interests of “mainstream” due to crash of reputation of leading persons.
    This is an ordinary phenomenon at paradigm shifting periods (see Kuhn’s book).

    Notice, my reply to you in the LinkedIn blog has been removed by moderator. So, if you interested by real science, describing real world, and can read the research papers, not only their abstracts, below I present my reply without censorship:

    “@Peter: “as I learned GR, the proper time continues on at it’s “proper rate” as objects fall towards the event horizon of a black hole. The distant observer sees the motion of the object slow down, slower and slower as the event horizon is approached – so that in the limit the object appears frozen at the event horizon.

    But in the objects reference frame it is actually accelerating, and will zoom right through the event horizon. ”

    Peter, as you “learned” is not GR, but BH paradigm, which is illegal hybrid of GR by Newtonian BHs and contains obvious internal contradictions. Main of them is following:

    As you know, in GR the worldline r(t) of a particle on a falling dust shell, parametrized across world time t, does not cross grav.radius 2M eternally r(t)>2M, while exists our Universe – this simply follows from the Schw. solution, an exact solution of Einstein eq.

    You also must know, that in GR the worldline, not only its small intervals, is invariant, and set of events along it does not change at any parametrization, thus at turning to proper times tau(t), as another parametrization of the same set of events, you again will come to the same restriction: r(t)=r[tau(t)]>2M.

    A mistake in BH paradigm is ignoring of this constraint for any proper time moment be related by a definite moment of real world’s time t< infinity.

    See also last discussion about frozars vs BHs, where I explained why GR leads only to frozars, while G.'t Hooft attempted to defend BHs:

    http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=197654004&gid=3091009&commentID=110918635&trk=view_disc&ut=1TK0SywbV34lA1 "

    @Peter: "you are the editor of the journal which published your paper".

    We live in the period of deepest crisis in fund. sci. One of consequences of that is breaking of scientific ethics by editors of leading journals, who reject papers contradicting to "mainstream" paradigm directly or send them for peer reviewing to experts having conflict of interests.

    In this situation I follow to one of best traditions of world economy – to guarantee quality of produced good by own name as a trade mark – my papers do not contain arbitrary hypotheses, internal contradictions and are based on experimentally well checked theoretical principles only. If they contradict to commonly accepted and "learned" concepts, mistaken are latter and they should be improved without hysterics.

    In the case of collapse, we follow GR in the frozar picture, which described in my papers (independently where they are published!), and break GR in case of BHs.

Add reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.