Modern cosmology is rooted in Einstein’s geometric theory of gravity and Hubble’s law interpreted as Doppler effect. It also pre-supposes the validity of the so called "cosmological principle", which can be understood as the belief that the Universe should be homogeneous and isotropic at a large enough scale. Based on that, the "Standard Cosmology" proclaims that everything there is has been created out of nothing in a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago and is presently flying apart. A Wikipedia article on Physical Cosmology states "Vanishingly few researchers still advocate any of a handful of alternative cosmologies, but professional cosmologists generally agree that the Big Bang best explains observations". Scientists tend to fall in love with their theories - or shall we say with their funding and status - and professional cosmologists are not exception to this. When confronted with empirical evidence contrary to their beliefs, they invent stuff like "dark matter", "dark energy" and the like and write proposals to search for it, declaring in the process that their theory best explains observations. Similar situation is observed in solar physics, where an apparent shortage of muon neutrinos was dealt with by hypothesizing that neutrinos can and do change their flavor in flight and the "solar neutrino problem" was declared solved. Those of us naive enough to praise rational thinking and common sense as what makes us unique among all creatures should know better than that. Ptolomean epicycles did in fact acount for the astronomical observations in their time, but more rational explanation exsisted and Copernicus would not have found it if he was not looking for one. There are those who acknowlegde that cosmology and astrophysics are in crysis[1,2] and there is the "establishment". A group of scientists recently noted that "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies"[2]. This situation is not tolerable. It is not argued that the conventional models should be abandoned, but that alternative theories should not be a priori declared unscientific and denied dissemination and funding. Yet this seems to be the current practice in the field. The desire to change this provides the main motivation for establishing the Institute.

The Institute’s primary mission is to facilitate free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific communication in selected fields of astrophysics. In an ideal world this would be a given, in astrophysics or elsewhere, as it is absolutely essential for the sound development of any science. Yet we live in the real world where censorship in specialized physics journals and government funding agencies is not unheard of. Being a private entity with a modest budget, the Institute will not be able to support developments in the whole vast area of astrophysics or even cosmology. By the same virtue, however, the Institute does not need excuses for being subjective in its funding practices. Therefore, we have identified three areas of interest, involving fundamental issues, to which the Institute’s activities will be mainly directed. There areas are as follows:

Cosmological models with (multi)fractal distribution of matter as opposed to an expanding homogeneous Universe

In view of the apparent Poincare-invariance of the world around us, models in which no privileged point (the center of mass of the Universe), direction (the direction of the velocity of the Universe) or inertial frame (the Universe’s rest frame) exist seem to make a lot of sense. Such models are only possible if both coordinate and velocity distributions of the matter in the Universe are fractal. During the recent years several researchers have argued that the empirical evidence points to a fractal spatial distribution of the matter in the Universe[3]. To the best of our knowledge there has been only one suggestion that the velocity distribution is fractal as well[4]. In contrast, in order to avoid the existence of a special point in space and time and a special reference frame where the Big Bang happened to occur and appear isotropic, standard cosmology states that space and time were created along with matter and energy in the same "explosion". Enough said.

Studies in Classical and/or Quantum Electrodynamics identifying and elucidating mechanisms by which Doppler-like redshifts of light waves would occur upon propagation through intergalactic, interstellar and general medium

Standard Big Bang cosmology depends crucially on the interpretation of the cosmological redshifts as a manifestation of the Doppler effect. Some researchers, however, have pointed out that such an interpretation is incompatible with many observations[5]. Among the alternative theories put forward for explaining the redshifts as properties of light propagation through vacuum or material media one finds, most notably, the Wolf spectral changes upon scattering from correlated medium[6] and Marmet’s forward scattering redshift[7]. Not only do these theories account for the cosmological redshifts without involving an expanding Universe, but they also naturally embrace phenomena like the relative redshift in spectral lines from the center and the limb of the Sun[8] and the larger redshifts for hotter stars compared to colder ones in Sun’s environment[9], for which standard astrophysics has no explanation at all. More theoretical and experimental work is needed, especially in the case of Marmet’s proposal, in order to end up with a satisfying and rational picture of light propagation in empty space or material medium. Clarifying this matter will also most likely advance our understanding of the detailed mechanisms, classical and/or quantum, of radiation-matter interactions.

Alternatives of the Standard Solar/Stellar Model, in which the bulk of the energy produced comes from sources other than nuclear fusion

It is widely believed that our Sun and other stars are powered by two types of nuclear reactions suggested by Hans Bethe as early as 1939. Based on this is the Standard Solar Model (SSM)[10], which ascribes luminosity to fusion reactions in the solar core. According to it, the Sun is composed mainly of light elements - hydrogen and helium. Empirical evidence however shows that the Sun’s elemental composition is not very different from that of the meteorites and nearby planets[11]. Bethe’s reactions produce a flux of neutrinos related to the Sun’s luminosity. Much less neutrinos were measured than expected. This "missing neutrino" problem was "solved" by postulating exotic properties of neutrinos, like rest mass and flavor oscillations[12]. Another observation unaccounted for by the SSM is the peculiar temperature behavior from the photosphere (~5880deg) to the corona (~3000000deg) with a temperature minimum in between. Then there are periodic fluctuations in the Sun’s size and luminosity, in particular the 160-minute pulsations. Such a behavior is incompatible with the SSM’s hydrodynamics but indicates a homogeneous density distribution without a pronounced core. In 1948 N.A. Kozyrev studied the inner workings of the stars by analyzing the available astrophysical observations. He concluded that there could not be a physical process responsible for stars’ luminosity and that the energy radiated was of external origin. More recently, an interesting alternative to the SSM and in line with Kozyrev’s observations is presented by the "Electric Sun" model, part of the so-called Plasma Cosmology[13]. It seems worthwhile to actively pursue this and similar common-sense lines of research in parallel with the SSM.

According to Langmuir, pathological science is "fantastic theory contrary to experience". Standard cosmology and astrophysics seem to qualify. Finding the current situation an embarrassment, we establish the Institute in an attempt to encourage the development of alternatives. To that end annual workshops will be organized and will take place at different locations in Bulgaria to discuss topics relevant to the lines of research indicated above. Also, a quarterly peer-reviewed Journal of Rational Astrophysics (JORAS) will be published and distributed to science libraries around the world free of charge. If successful, down the road we will consider direct funding of related research as well.

1. R. Lieu, "ΛCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?", arXiv:astro-ph/0705.2462v1
2. www.cosmology.info
3. Y.V. Baryshev, F. Sylos Labini, M. Montuori, L. Pietronero, P. Teerikorpi, "On the fractal structure of galaxy distribution and its implications for cosmology", arXiv:astro-ph/9803142v1; B.G. Elmegreen, D.M.Elmegreen, "Fractal structure in galactic star fields", Astron. Journ.121 p.1507 (2001); Y.V. Baryshev, P.Teerikorpi,"Fractal approach to large-scale galaxy distribution",arXiv:astro-ph/0505185v1 and references therein;
4. G.S.M. Moore, "Fractal gases of zero momentum with respect to all inertial frames", Am. J. Phys. 59(6) p.581 (1990); G.S.M. Moore, "Resolution of Olbers’ paradox for fractal cosmological models", Prog. Theor. Phys. 87 (2) p.525 (1992);
5. H. Arp, "Companion galaxies: A test of the assumption that velocities can be inferred from redshifts", Astrophys. Journ. 430 p.74 (1994); T. Van Flandern, "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Aperion 9 (2) p.72 (2002); G. Burbidge, E.M. Burbidge, H.C. Arp, W.M. Napier, "Ultraluminous X-ray sources, high redshift QSOs and active galaxies", arXiv:astro-ph/0605140v1
6. E. Wolf, "Invariance of the spectrum of light on propagation", Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 p.1370 (1986); E. Wolf," Correlation-induced Doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines", Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 p.2220 (1989);
7. P. Marmet, "A new non-Doppler redshift", Phys. Essays, 1, p.24 (1988);
8. J. Halm, "Ueber eine bisher unbekannte verschiebung der Fraunhoferschen linien des sonnenspectrums", Astron. Nachr. 173, p.273 (1907); P. Marmet, "Redshift of spectral lines in the Sun's chromosphere", IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 17 p.238 (1989);
9. H. Arp, "Redshifts of high-luminosity stars - the k-effect, the Trumpler effect and mass-loss corrections", Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 258 p.800 (1990); G. Burbidge, "Redshifts of unknown origin", in Examining the Big Bang and diffuse background radiations, Eds. M. Kafaros and Y. Kondo, p. 407 (IAU 1996);
10. J.H. Bahcall, J.H. Pinsonneault, S. Basu, "Solar models: Current epoch and time dependences, neutrinos, and helioseismological properties", Astrophys. Journ. 555 p.990 (2001); J.A.Guzik, C. Neuforge-Verheecke, A.C. Young, R.I. Epstein, F.M. Poulin, J.R. Schissel, "Standard and non-standard solar models", Solar Phys. 200 p.305 (2001);
11. O. Manuel, "The Standard Solar Model vs. Experimental Observations", Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics (IOP, Bristol, ed. H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus) p. 307 (2003);
12. J.N. Bahcall, C. Pena-Garey, "Solar models and solar neutrino oscillations", New Journ. Phys. 6 p.63 (2004); A.B. McDonald, "Evidence for Neutrino Oscillations I: Solar and Reactor Neutrinos", Nucl. Phys. A751 p.53c (2005);
13. H. Alfven, "Model of the plasma Universe", IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. PS-14 p.629 (1986); A.L. Peratt, "Introduction to plasma astrophysics and cosmology", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227 p.3 (1995)