Essay:Problems in Cosmology
The problems in cosmology may be split into: 1.physics, 2.mathematics, 3.sociology so this essay may be split into at least 3 parts with other parts added when needed. The main problem is why at such level of sophistication in science there is still so little known of basic things like gravitation. Let's start with physics then.
The most neglected part of science despite it is considered the simplest is gravitation physics.
It might be because it is the simplest and so it does not present a challenge to good physicists as being so common. All creatures are affected by it to a certain degree. And there is very good Newtonian approximation of gravitation. So good approximation that it sufficed for moving humans to the Moon. But now the main problem of humans is whether the universe is expanding, and if yes then why?
We could answer those two question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering those 2 simple questions virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with small faith in scientists like us (properly called "cranks") would turn to us demanding answers or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century.
Luckily I know for sure that the universe isn't expanding. It was forever like that. The Perfect cosmological principle in action. That's why I may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that I fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called science despite it is known also as never being sure.
How come the lack of expansion is science?
That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data come in and can't be fit into the old frame as it happened with the Big Bang hypothesis. Science works only on faith that what one "knows" from other people is true. Then one has to evaluate the knowledge. How sure it is. It turns out to be a matter of probability that what one "knows" is true.
Always there may come someone and ask: "How do you know it is true?" And then one has to tell the whole story starting with Adam and Eve. And one who asked decides: is it convincing or not.
In some cases the probability is so high that one assumes it as being a sure thing. That's why I say that the universe is not expanding. And that it is science. I simply have a reason, about which other people, who think that the universe is expanding, don't know. And I know what other people don't know since some article that described this truth aren't published yet. Had they been published everybody would know that the universe is not expanding since their high school years, and that there was no reason for the universe to expand except misinformed folks who took the illusion of expansion for the real expansion.
This part is called "checking your data". I happen to know since I checked my data to a sufficient degree to tell what is not true. Science, not being able to present positive proof of its assurances is quite able to reject what is not true. It is the main mode of its operation: rejecting what's false so what's left is science. That's why what I know is science.
I'm supported in my faith by Richard P. Feynman whose "Feynman lectures on physics" I read and believed. So I'm a kind of believer, at least in the existence of objective truth. That's why reading characterisation of relativists whom I know from various encounters I have no reason not to believe Feynman.
So why the universe looks like expanding?
The answer implied by its physics is known for about a century. From the times when Einsteins discovered their theories of relativity. Special (STR) and general (GTR). Astrophysicists, while accepting SRT 100% didn't pay attention to GTR and the fact that the time and space are coupled and so the curved space implies non trivial behaviour of time. Therefore the universe looks like expanding since the time is coupled to the curvature of space and as a result the proper time in deep space runs slower than in our Galaxy.
Since the news, with the supporting calculations, have been rejected without peer reviews by scientific journals since 1985, they stayed unknown.
Astrophysicists never even calculated how much of intrinsic redshift there is in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the universe is expanding. Had they calculated, or asked somebody who knows high school calculus, they would have avoided the embarrassment and a hypothesis that the universe is expanding.
There is more to gravitation than refuting the Big Bang hypothesis
This more is that except explaining the gravitational force by particles seeking in spacetime the most probable location of lowest energy, pushing in the process on other particles with a force that is called gravitational force
- F = − (d / dx)[E = mc2(dτ / dt)]
where x is displacement in relation to the particle, E is energy of particle, rest or total, depending on application, m is mass of particle invariant or "relativistic" m, as energy, depending on application, c is speed of light in vacuum, τ is proper time of particle, and t, is the time of observer. The most prominent difference between the old prejudice of expansion and reality is the flat spacetime proposed in 1993 by Jayant Narlikar and Halton Arp. Explained in my "Gravitation demystified", not noticed possibly for low popularity of CP as scientific wiki :).
The flat spacetime requires coupling between time and space such that it makes the time running slower in curved space proportionally to the exponent of distance in the curved space (see the exact relation below).
According to exact calculations, not refuted yet by any cosmologist, while several looked at them including a professor of mathematics teaching a few years earlier the General Relativity in Cambridge, Massachusetts  the universe is stationary, as it was assumed in the first Einsteins model universe of 1917. Its Hubble constant in reality turns out to be (while at the beginning defined as Ho = v / c / r v is speed of recession of galaxy, c is speed of light in vacuum, and r is distance to the galaxy).
- Ho = c / RE = 70km / s / Mpc,
considered realistic by astronomers who have seen the derivation. The illusion of accelerating expansion comes out as
that was observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation. Therefore confirmed observationally, with maximum accuracy, with which one needs to confirm observationally the theoretically predicted numbers.
The almost Newtonian calculations (with accuracy to E = mc2) suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as
- dτ / dt = exp( − r / RE),
where τ is proper time of distant galaxy, t is the time in our Galaxy, r is distance to this remote galaxy, and RE is the mentioned already Einstein's radius.
Why Newtonian calculations in flat space produce as a result Einstein's radius of curvature of space? Isn't it something to wonder about? Not to mention the simple calculation of observed cosmological redshift and its acceleration. Isn't it a proof telling that the Big Bang is a fake refuted by the lack of expansion of universe?
And what happened to gravitational energy?
And what is the gravitational energy that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins that it is not there at all? Here we came to the real question. The answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter of the famous Einstein's equation.
- E = mc2
that was differentiated in the section above to produce "gravitational force".
What?!!! Said every physicists I told this story during the 15 minute breaks in their lectures while I was studying astronomy (except two professors who considered it interesting though, beyond their area of expertise, them being perticle physicists). The opponents said: "if it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school".
I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were never published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but suppressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student any more just a unofficial PhD student writing thesis on GTR, and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif shouldn't be linked to from their server making them suspected of supporting my PhD thesis. So when the university banned my one page paper "Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe" I typed it in into conservapedia as an essay, and let's see how long it survives here.
Let's hope that CP readers don't consider anybody who don't share their prejudice about the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently the main cosmological theory of our times, not so seriously as RW readers did. They made it clear that a crackpot like me should find himself a different wiki for debunking the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently supported even by Richard Dawkins. Too bad that not by the elementary physics.
For the time being the readers of CP, may find except a short form of my paper here, a longer form, with extensions that physicists normally "know by heart", but which a high school student may repeat and understand in Essay:Demystified gravitation in a form of a step by step derivation of cosmological redshift of our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is "surely" expanding since "so many astronomers and brilliant mathematicians as them can't be all wrong".
Incidentally, the majority of atheists of RW turned out to be believers in creation of universe as it might have been planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in it too. He just might be to shy to admit it being a relativist himself. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating due to his belief in "attractive gravitational force", while the expansion turned out to be looking like accelerating. That I managed to explain too after splitting the Hubble (so called) "constant" into Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation.
Why cranks are sometimes right
Simply because they learn early in their lives what science is and that anyone who applies all the rules of science is as likely as anyone else to discover the truth. And even more so since s/he doesn't believe scientific prejudices (or often doesn't know them being an amateur scientist only) so the well educated (but not well enough to stop thinking on his/her own) crank comes faster with a right solution. In Einstein words: "when all the experts decide that something can't be calculated comes an ignorant who doesn't know it and calculates it". It happened in my case with the redshift.
So the lack of expansion got confirmed by all observations. Though still not accepted by scientific journals, so the astronomers are sent on a wild goose chase to find "dark energy" somewhere in the universe.
Cosmological constant Λ
It does not exist in the real world but relativists still don't know why Einstein called it "the biggest blunder of my life". Just know that he did. Couldn't figure it out why though. They use it as "dark energy", not having slightest idea what it might be.
Symmetric metric tensor of 4D spacetime
I don't even know why Wheeler assumed a symmetric metric tensor of spacetime while Einstein said it must be non symmetric. Wheeler just dropped it from Einstein's papers in his bibliography.
All the sociological problems seem to be as usually about money.
Money makes the world go around
One of such money hungry projects connected with Big Bang is desribed in "New Scientist", LATEST ARTICLES: Don't panic about the missing Higgs – for now. Under the title "The Large Hadron Collider" "New Scientist" writes:
- The LHC is the world's biggest ever physics experiment, and by studying conditions close to those just after the big bang, it could solve some of science's deepest mysteries
That's why the legend of big bang must go on. The naive "cranks" who think that one pencil, a few pads, and a waste basket is enough to do science as it used to be when Einstein applied for a job in Patent Office, simply don't know what powers they are against. And therefore what are their chances to stop spending billions of taxpayers money on feeding idiots who "work" on idiotic problems that don't even exist (like the Big Bang hypothesis) since all are just "cargo cult science".
Why gravitation is not taught in high schools
Good question since it is the simplest part of physics. Not much more difficult to comprehend than Newtonian math which most high school students have no problems to learn.
JimJast 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
- ↑ See Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe of 1985.
- ↑ I've seen an appeal of an astronomer to Carl Sagan to end this scandal with Big Bang since, as put by the author of the appeal, "it makes all astronomers look like idiots", but the lobby of relativists turned out to be stronger, and Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.
- ↑ Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1.
- ↑ Prof. Tadeusz Bałaban, presently tenured professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who checked the calculations in February 1985 before saying that they don't contain any mathematical errors, after which they were sent them to "Nature", where the editor rejected them for his disbelief of them without any peer review.
- ↑ And we remember that science works only through rejection of false claimes. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 "Gravitation", that started the Big Bang craze, turned out to be cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proves that math is not science, and only physics is, which we knew anyway.
- ↑ So why don't you teach it in high schools? I say. Explanation in part 3, titled sociology.
- ↑ Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe
- ↑ Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, "Gravitation", page 410.
- ↑ Einstain, A., "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", April 1950 issue of "Scientific American".
- ↑ See Richard P. Feynman rant against relativists, from his letter to wife published in book "What Do You Care What Other People Think", page 91.