Всехсвятский

Acquaintance with the hypothesis by Vsehsvyatsky

Origin of Comets, Solar system

In 2006, I began to read the 4th chapter of the book “Problems of Modern Cosmogony” (Russian). The book was published in 1972 (2nd edition), a small circulation for the Soviet period – 2700 copies. Its authors are followers of the hypothesis of Academician Viktor Ambartsumyan, who believed that celestial objects are formed by the decay of denser objects.

At that time I was already sure that any galaxy formed as a result of the decay of its nucleus. I was convinced in this due to photographs of spiral galaxies back in September 2004. As for the origin of the stars, there were doubts, and this book did not dispel these doubts. I bought the book in 2005, but I did not read the 4th chapter, because it is called “Cosmogony of the Solar System”. As soon as I reached it, I thought: what about the Solar system? Really … No, it cannot be!

The belief in accretion was very strong in me, and I was perplexed about what the researcher of the Solar system does in the company of the followers of Ambartsumian. Each time I was perplexed and each time I did not read the 4th chapter. Why? Perhaps there is a hidden answer to the question: why scientists are so limited by modern theory?

Ideas that are entrenched in the head, enslave the human mind and severely restrict his freedom.

Nevertheless, more than a year after the acquisition of the book, I began to read the 4th chapter. Its author, Sergei Vsekhsvyatsky first told that the comets, flying up to the Sun, lose an appreciable part of their ice. I knew that. Then he concluded that the comets are short-lived by astronomical measures, and, therefore, young. Here I was surprised. I was surprised that I never did such a simple and logical conclusion myself, but even more surprised that I did not hear this conclusion from other scientists. Then Sergey Vsekhsvyatsky, having analyzed the location of the cometary orbits, made a stunning conclusion.

Comets are born in the systems of giant planets. They are ejected as a result of volcanic activity from some satellites of Jupiter and Saturn.

This conclusion amazed me. I liked it by its scientific character. I will explain my idea. I did not believe that comets are ejected from the volcanoes on satellites. But I really liked the hypothesis, because it was falsifiable. It could be refuted. After all, the space age has already begun. It was enough to fly to the satellites of large planets and make sure that there is no volcanism there. That’s all. After that, one could say with a smart look that the Soviet astronomer was mistaken. Vsekhsvyatsky proposed a simple and non-trivial solution for the origin of comets. The main thing was drawing a conclusion, to which NO ONE did not believe and which could easily be refuted.

So, Vsekhsvyatsky concluded that there is volcanic activity on satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, which have the size of our Moon. This is not ordinary volcanism, as on Earth, but SUPERVOLCANISM. It is such volcanism, in which from the depths of satellites volcanic bombs several kilometers in size with the speed of several kilometers per second are thrown out. When Vsekhsvyatsky wrote this, NO ONE BELIEVED that there could be some noticeable geological activity on the satellites of the planets. Even more so, NO ONE did not believe in volcanism on these satellites. Vsekhsvyatsky predicted SUPERVOLCANISM. Therefore, no one took his ideas seriously.

It may be recalled that in 1916, after Albert Einstein constructed the general theory of relativity, he predicted that light traveling near the Sun should deviate by an angle 2 times greater than follows from Newton’s theory. Einstein built a very cumbersome mathematical theory of gravity. This theory claimed the role of a revolutionary one, in the sense that it had to replace Newton’s gravitation theory. But the prediction about the deflection of light was not revolutionary. Nobody knew whether the light deviates in the gravitational field and how justified it is to apply Newton’s gravitation theory to light.

So, the cumbersome theory and incommensurably small in importance the prediction about the double deviation of the ray. This is not only my opinion. For example, Wolfgang Pauli considered the same way. Here’s what he said to Werner Heisenberg about Einstein’s theory of gravity:

Паули

Nevertheless, when it was discovered that the light is rejected in accordance with the general theory of relativity, the scientific community recognized the general theory of relativity.

But what about the hypothesis of Vsekhsvyatsky? Was there volcanism on satellites? How did the scientific community react to this?

Vasily Yanchilin

Leave a Reply