No abstract

The concept of the "Dyson Sphere" is well known-to build an engineering construction around a star to utilize as much of the star's energy as it is possible. Even if the detection of a "Dyson Sphere" by infrared radiation contradicts to the entire idea of the collection of star energy, they still could be detected by the gravity of a star within the "Dyson Sphere" as well as by brightness changes of stars passing behind them. A star within the "Dyson Sphere" adds the star's gravity into the gravity of the galaxy containing this star, even if the star itself is hidden. Therefore if "Dyson Spheres" exist, the total gravity of light-emitting objects in galaxies must be less than the gravity of the entire galaxy. In fact we observe this effect, which is a well-known effect of "hidden mass" in galaxies. To solve the "hidden mass" puzzle, physicists introduced a new kind of matter-"dark matter". However (as far as the author knows) the "Dyson Spheres" were never seriously taken into account and discussed in scientific literature as a possible solution of the "hidden mass" problem. Researches of gravitational microlensing put strict limits to the percentage of regular cosmic objects that can pretend to solve the "hidden mass" problem. However these researches are not fully suitable for analysis of "Dyson Spheres" because "Dyson Spheres" have no negligible size and because they do not only amplify the brightness of stars (gravitational microlensing) but also de-amplify the brightness of a stars when they travel behind the "Dyson Spheres". Since minimal size of "Dyson Spheres" must not be less than the habitable zone, we infer the "Dyson Spheres" radius for our Sun to be between 1.48x10 8 and 2.54x10 8 km or about 1/6 of the gravitational microlensing size. If "Dyson Spheres" are bigger than habitable zones the graph of star brightness produced by the horizontal movement behind "Dyson Spheres" will be more complex and in some cases the entire effect of microlensing could disappear.

“Doppler boosting” is a well-known relativistic effect that alters the apparent luminosity of approaching radiation sources. “Doppler de-boosting” is the name of relativistic effect observed for receding light sources (e.g. relativistic jets of active galactic nuclei and gamma-ray bursts). “Doppler boosting” changes the apparent luminosity of approaching light sources to appear brighter, while “Doppler de-boosting” causes the apparent luminosity of receding light sources to appear fainter. While “Doppler de-boosting” has been successfully accounted for and observed in relativistic jets of AGN, it was ignored in the establishment of Standard candles for cosmological distances. A Standard candle adjustment of an Z>0.1 is necessary for “Doppler de-boosting”, otherwise we would incorrectly assume that Standard Candles appear dimmer not because of “Doppler de-boosting” but because of the excessive distance, which would affect the entire Standard Candles ladder at cosmological distances. The ratio between apparent (L) and intrinsic (Lo) luminosities as a function of the redshift Z and spectral index α is given by the formula ℳ(Z) = L/Lo=(Z+1)α -3 and for Type Ia supernova appears as ℳ(Z) = L/Lo=(Z+1)-2. “Doppler de-boosting” may also explain the anomalously low luminosity of objects with a high Z without the introduction of an accelerated expansion of the Universe and Dark Energy.

The definitions of “good” and “bad” typically belong to the field of ethics. Does physics have a property that can distinguish and group “good” and “bad” events using only its own physical instruments and equations? Although the physical property “entropy” as a measure of chaos appears to be the prime candidate for such a grouping, it is in fact unsuitable for a detailed analysis. However, the “Entropic Potential of an Event”, which describes the influence of the current event to the future change in entropy, perfectly suits this role. While the second law of thermodynamics dictates the direction of entropy change in an isolated system it does not dictate the speed of entropy growth. The speed of entropy growth on Earth is changing in particular due to human-related events, which ethics calls "good" or "bad". Such events, which ethics defines as "good", always eventually decelerate entropy growth. In contrast, events which ethics defines as "bad", always eventually accelerate entropy growth. This article presents the methods of calculating the “Entropic Potential of an Event” for the cases: “A commander receives an order to bombard a city”, “A cancer tumor is growing inside a human’s body” and other. This article also stresses the importance of the “Time factor” since only for a sufficiently large time interval T the “En-tropic Potential of an Event” Z(T, A) can be estimated and potentially precisely calculated. This article also checks on a scale of several centuries if real-life events are averaged in such a way that their entropic potentials become negligible. This analysis shows that prior 1750 the averaged entropic potential of events occurred in human society was negative and had the value of approximately 10^17 bits (value is an initial approximation). The situation after the industrial revolution is more complicated, as past 1750 human civilization began to utilize non-renewable resources (oil, coal, gas, etc.) for warming, cooling, and transportation with a corresponding entropy growth. The term “entropy” is applicable to a very wide range of events, from physics and chemistry to art and information. Correspondingly, the significant advantages of the “Entropic Potential of an Event” as a physical foundation of the intuitive terms “good” and “bad” is its measurability, ability to compare events of entirely different natures and its universality Weak point of "Utilitarianism" is inability to quantify, compare, or measure happiness or well-being which is postulated to be the ultimate goal of moral behavior. The "Entropic Potential of an Event" solves this problem and presents in formulas (and sometime calculates in bits) the Entropic Potentials of events we normally label as "good" and "bad".

The purpose of this article is to raise the question, "Is gravity the only way to bend the space-time, or can there be other ways to bend space-time?" The answer to this question can be either, A) a description of the mechanism of non-gravitational curvature of space-time, or B) proof that gravity is the only method to bend space-time and there is no other way. Since modern science can prove neither A nor B, the question raised in this article remains open. This article also discusses and rejects the objection that non-gravitational curvature of space-time would be observed as a kind of "additional" gravity, what is not taking place. The scale and strength of non-gravitational curvature is important. Also, the non-gravitational curvature of space-time does not necessarily have the U-shaped form, which we observe as a gravity. The explanation of gravity by the curvature of space-time generated by the presence of massenergy was put forward by Einstein in his works Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation [1] and Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie [2], published in 1915 and 1916 respectively. The Theory of General Relativity has been brilliantly confirmed in many fields of physics and is used in astronomy, engineering, astronautics, atomic physics, etc. Thus, General Relativity and subsequent experiments: A. created a precedent that space-time can be bent; B. proposed the presence of mass-energy as the mechanism of this curvature; C. confirmed this model in many experiments in various fields of science and technology. Thus, a precedent has been created. It is possible to bend space-time and there is at least one mechanism that can do this. However (as far as the author knows) no one has ever proved that gravity is the only way to bend space-time. Therefore, may there be some other mechanism of space-time curvature? This question is unusual, but in the absence of evidence that gravity is the only way to bend space-time, it is a legitimate one. The author's goal, of course, is not to propose another way to bend space time. Perhaps it simply does not exist. This article is merely a statement of the problem, which in all probability has only two solutions: A. a description of the mechanism of non-gravitational curvature of space-time, or B. proof that gravity is the only method to bend space-time and there is no other way.