Changes

'''Preamble'''

'''Preamble'''

The problems in cosmology may be split into: 1.physics, 2.mathematics, 3.sociology. Therefore this essay has to 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 knowledge how basic things work? Many most sophisticated physicists, still don't know how gravitation works. Many sophisticated mathematicians, still don't know how that math is not science and try to solve problems with the universe with math. Still other people, icludjing the most sophisticated sociologists, still don't know either that math is not science nor that ''the only science is physics and the rest is just stamp collection''<ref>The author of the quote is coming.</ref>. Therefore let's start with physics and in physics with gravitation.

The problems in cosmology may be split into: 1.physics, 2.mathematics, 3.sociology. Therefore this essay has to 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 knowledge how basic things like gravitation work? Other people, still don't know either that math is not science nor that ''the only science is physics and the rest is just stamp collection''<ref>The author of the quote is coming.</ref>. Therefore let's start with physics and in physics with gravitation.

   

   

==Gravitation physics==

==Gravitation physics==

We could answer these both question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering these 2 simple questions that virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with smaller faith in scientists like us (popularly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers (or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century)<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

We could answer these both question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering these 2 simple questions that virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with smaller faith in scientists like us (popularly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers (or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century)<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

Luckily we know for sure that the universe isn't expanding a bit, and what's more, it never did. It was like that forever. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why we may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that we fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known as ''never being sure''.  

Luckily we know for sure that the universe isn't expanding a bit, and what's more, it never did. It was forever like that. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why we may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that we fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known as ''never being sure''.  

===So how come then is it [[science]]?===

===So how come then is it [[science]]?===

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in. [[Science]] works only on faith that what we know from other people is true. Then we have to avaluate our knowledge. How sure it is. It turns out to be a matter of probability that what we "know" is true.  

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in. [[Science]] works only on faith that what we know from other people is true. Then we have to avaluate our knowledge. How sure it is. It turns out to be a matter of probability that what we "know" is true.  

In some cases the probability is so high that we assume it as being "sure thing". That's why I say that the universe is not expanding. And that it is [[science]]. I must have a reason about thich other people who think that the universe is expanding don't know. And I know what other people don't, only since some article that described this "truth" aren't published yet. Had they been published everybody would now the same thing. That there is no reason for the universe to expand. And plenty reasons not to. This part is called ''"checking your data"''. I happened to know what is true about the expansion of universe since I ''checked my data''. That much about scientific truth.

In some cases the probability is so high that we assume it as being "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, only since some article that described this "truth" aren't published yet. Had they been published everybody would now the same thing. That there is no reason for the universe to expand. And plenty reasons not to. This part is called ''"checking your data"''. I happened to know what is true about the expansion of universe since I ''checked my data''. That much about scientific truth.

===The next question to ask===

===Why the universe looks like expanding?===

If the universe isn't expanding why it looks like expanding? Here the answer is known for about a century just silly folks didn't pay attention. And those who know sociology know also how it works and can be explained with one word: relativists, which is the short answer. The beginning of long answer is what Feynman said about the [[relativists]] in his letter to his wife, linked here through this page.

The implied answer is known for about a century. Folks just don't pay attention. Short answer is [[relativists]].

The univese looks like expanding since the time in spacetime (or rather simply "space") is coupled to the [[curvature of space]] (or rather in this case to the [[curvatures of spacetime]] - note the plural, curvatures) and as a result the time in deep space galaxies runs slower than in our Galaxy.  

The univese looks like expanding since the time in space is coupled to the [[curvature of space]] and as a result the proper time in deep space galaxies runs slower than in our Galaxy. Thet's the big mystery.

Even the Newtonian gravitation requires it, as it is shown in the [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]], the one never printed before in any scientific journal.  

Even the Newtonian gravitation requires it, as it is shown in the [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]. Since it was never printed for being too simple a few people realize that it is the whole truth.  

So the gravitation is slightly  different than what the contemporary cosmologists and astrophysicists, who belive them, think.  

So the gravitation is slightly  different than what the contemporary cosmologists and astrophysicists, who belive them, think.  

The most prominent difference is flat (or a.k.a. [[Minkowski]]) spacetime proposed already in 1993 by [[Jayant Narlikar]] and [[Halton Arp]] (so there are also people who think) and can discover something with thinking only<ref>Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1. </ref>. Instead of [[curvature of spacetime]] of the Big Bang hypothesis. Probably one of the most idiotic hypothesis in physics. And it happens almost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it already though with nobody, aspecially astronomers, paying any attention).

The most prominent difference is flat (or a.k.a. [[Minkowski]]) spacetime proposed already in 1993 by [[Jayant Narlikar]] and [[Halton Arp]] (so there are also people who can discover the truth with looking and thinking only<ref>Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1. </ref>. Instead of [[curvature of spacetime]] of the Big Bang hypothesis. Probably one of the most idiotic hypothesis in physics. And it happens almost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it already though with nobody, aspecially astronomers, paying any attention).

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).  

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).  

And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins is not there at all? Here we came to the real question even Feynman didn't know the answer to. Therefore the answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter in <math>E=mc^2</math>. What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. It it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school. Then I tell them: ''"go to part 3 and learn why you didn't learn it at the high school"''. To the reades of my essay I may reveal the truth that while the universe is really not expanding and the gravitational force is really so strange a force as it is, the Jim is a "crank" with zero credibility among scientist and so despit he discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but supressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student enymore and so his paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif and such, shouldn't be linked to from their server. So I just typed it in manually into CP server and let see how long it survives here. For the time being you, the readers of CP, may find it in a form of my suppressed paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] or in simpler version that a high school student may reapeat herself [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of 11 step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' for our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''surely'' expanding. And this way converting the majority of non believers into believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe out of nothing as it was planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who belived in it too. Not anymore though, not only since he is dead but since in 1998 a Supernova Cosmology Project proved that Wheeleers "theory" is a sham. Wheeler lived long enough to see it but also to replace his theory with ''"[[dark energy]]"'' which doesn't exist neither but due to 3-rd part of this essay is still believed in, at least by creationists. Hopefully not the readers of this essay, who are soon to be explained how all the pieces of the puzzle fall into their proper places.

And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational force" that we know from Einsteins is not there at all? Here we came to the real question even Feynman didn't know the answer to. Therefore the answer is interesting though very, very, simple: It is energy content of matter in <math>E=mc^2</math>. What?! Says every physicists I told this story to. It it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school. Then I tell them: ''"go to part 3 and learn why you didn't learn it at the high school"''. To the reades of my essay I may reveal the truth that while the universe is really not expanding and the gravitational force is really so strange a force as it is, the Jim is a "crank" with zero credibility among scientist and so despit he discovered those things already in 1985 they were not published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but supressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student enymore and so his paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif and such, shouldn't be linked to from their server. So I just typed it in manually into CP server and let see how long it survives here. For the time being you, the readers of CP, may find it in a form of my suppressed paper [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] or in simpler version that a high school student may reapeat herself [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] in a form of 11 step derivation of ''cosmological redshift'' for our universe, that the Big Bang aficionados neglected to calculate before jumping to conclusion that the universe is ''surely'' expanding. And this way converting the majority of non believers into believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe out of nothing as it was planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who belived in it too. Not anymore though, not only since he is dead but since in 1998 a Supernova Cosmology Project proved that Wheeleers "theory" is a sham. Wheeler lived long enough to see it but also to replace his theory with ''"[[dark energy]]"'' which doesn't exist neither but due to 3-rd part of this essay is still believed in, at least by creationists. Hopefully not the readers of this essay, who are soon to be explained how all the pieces of the puzzle fall into their proper places.

[[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 03:18, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

[[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 03:18, 30 August 2011 (EDT)