This is the name of a book by the famous English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, which my Mother bought a long time ago, based on her son’s diverse interests.

My mother, not knowing the basics of didactics and pedagogy, somehow intuitively tried to develop me HARMONIOUSLY, in a diverse way, and not to liken me to a “specialist” according to Kozma Prutkov.

“A specialist is like a flux: Its completeness is one-sided!”

I started to reread it the other day, and, more correct and honest, to READ it AGAIN. Because, reading it at too young age, I followed the author’s reasoning obediently, like a diligent student. He likened the thought to rolling, “a well-oiled and serviceable supermarket cart.”

And even then it should have been “POORLY LUBRICATED and with one faulty wheel!”

(See the note “The supermarket cart which is not working properly.”)

Fred Hoyle, “Galaxies, nuclei and quasars”.

An astronomer, a man who deserves respect at least for his fantasy novel “The Black Cloud”, despite the mistakes and absurdities made in it (See notes on this topic: “Sir Fred Hoyle’s Black Cloud” and “What a Wicked Irony”).

From the very first pages, this series of university lectures caused me irritated perplexity: He begins to talk about the classification of galaxies by their EXTERNAL SHAPE and immediately “suffers from stupidity”, but why are they like this and what appeared earlier: Stars or galaxies?

He might as well have been looking at the clouds floating in the sky and asking the same questions.: Which used to be: Clouds or microdrops of water condensed on dust particles, of which they are composed? He just says it with a claim to irony: Chicken or egg?

The question should be asked differently:

Why did billion-star galaxies arise instead of one huge star?

What is a “cloud” of cosmic gas and dust? This is the same colloidal solution of finely dispersed conglomerates of atoms and molecules suspended in a rarefied gas or simply in a vacuum. Do any forces act inside such a cloud, other than mutual gravitational attraction and mechanical centripetal and centrifugal forces, in the case of its rotation “around the center of mass”?

Of course! The forces of “Brownian” motion, electromagnetic forces, since both dust particles and an atomic-molecular mixture are exposed to various physical and chemical influences: Cosmic corpuscular and wave-phoron radiation, collisions with each other at very high speeds, local and generalized heating and cooling, continuously occurring phantom charges with a frequency of trillions of times per second, forces of adhesion and repulsion, internal “lightning”, and hence the resulting shock waves, acceleration of flows of charged particles and their decelerations, ionization, hard and soft ultraviolet radiation, infrared, visible, X-ray and gamma radiation…

Thus, it can be seen that any sufficiently large cloud of cosmic dust and gas is not a motionless, frozen mass inside, but a variously active and “living” mechanical and electromagnetic environment, a SYSTEM! If galaxies arise from such clouds, then the influence of all these factors and THEIR COMBINED, unidirectional and multidirectional interaction with each other should be taken into account first of all.

The very formulation of the question by Hoyle and galaxy astronomy in general is flawed, in my opinion, because one should ask a completely different question: Not “why do galaxies differ so much in shape?”, but under what dominant factors (of the above) will an elliptical, spiral, globular or combined galaxy arise. That is, to build physical models of the evolution of the cloud in one direction or another, asking the question: What happens if we assume the predominant effect of “such” factors or others and take into account their temporary changes?

No process develops endlessly in one direction. There is always an opposite factor “inside this process” that eventually stops it and turns it into its opposite.

Nascentes morimur. Being born, we die. Maniliy, “Astronomy”

What is this but a private application of the “Law of the Transition of Opposites Into Each Other”?

Then, instead of a stupid and meaningless “classification” purely based on form and “thoughts like : “Why are they like this?”, we will immediately, “automatically”, get answers under WHAT conditions helicity, sphericity, ellipticity, etc. arise.

Some justification can only serve as a rebuke to my, alas, usual, excessive haste in judgments, because “I JUST STARTED READING” and, perhaps, in the future, the author moves from general “classifications” to serious scientific analysis of data and their theoretical understanding.

The second factor justifying Hoyle is my complete ignorance of astronomy.

7 VII 2026