Changes

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 of how basic things like gravitation work? 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 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 knowledge of how basic things like gravitation work? Therefore let's start with with gravitation physics.

I expect to be asked at talk pages of this essay what is not clear about gravitation and this way helped to structure this essay properly enough for anybody to understand it.

I expect to be asked on talk pages of this essay what is not clear about gravitation and this way helped to structure this essay properly enough for anybody to understand it.

   

   

==Gravitation physics==

==Gravitation physics==

The most neglected part of science despite it is considered the simplest is gravitation physics.  

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 we have very good Newtonian approximation, so good approximation that it sufficed for moving humans to the Moon. But now the main problem for humans is whether the universe is expanding and if yes then why?  

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 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 and 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<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

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<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

Luckily I 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 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''.  

Luckily I 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 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''.  

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in and can't be fit into the old frame. 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.  

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in and can't be fit into the old frame. 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.  

And always there may come someone and ask: ''"How do you know it is true?"'' And then one has to tall the whole story of it starting with Adam and Eve (or just ''"ab ovo"'' if one prefers Latin).  

And always there may come someone and ask: ''"How do you know it is true?"'' And then one has to tell the whole story of it starting with Adam and Eve (or just ''"ab ovo"'' if one prefers Latin).  

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 still 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 now that the universe is not expanding, and that there is no reason for the universe to expand. The apparent reasons are only an illusion.  

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 still 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 now 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 belived in expansion for its illusion.

This part is called ''"checking your data"''. I happened to know what is true about the expansion of universe since I ''checked my data'' to a sufficient degree to tell what is not true. Science, not being able to present positive proof is quite able to reject what is not true. And so it is the main mode of its operation: rejection what's false. That's why what I know is science (since I know which part is false , that can be proven with simple math. In which math is good: in rejecting false reasons for something being true.

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 is quite able to reject what is not true. And so it is the main mode of its operation: rejecting what's false so what's left ''may be'' true. That's why what I know is [[science]] (since I know which part is false that can be proven with simple math. In which math is good: in rejecting ''false reasons'' for something being true.

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]] I have no reason not to believe Feynman.

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]] I have no reason not to believe Feynman.

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

===So why the universe looks like expanding?===

The implied answer is known for about a century. Folks just don't pay attention. Astrophysicists never even calculated how much there is of "[[intrinsic redshift]]" before jumping to conclusion that it is "expanding". Had they checked, the history of science would have avoided the embarrassment of astronomers<ref>I've seen an appeal of an astronomer to Carl Sagan to end this scandal with Big Bang since ''"it makes all astronomers look like idiots"'', but the Big Bang lobby of [[relativists]] turned out to be stronger, or Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.</ref> and the lame hypothesis that it is expanding.

The implied answer is known for about a century. Since Einsteins discovered their theories of relativities. Both of them. Folks just don't pay attention. Astrophysicists never even calculated how much there is of "[[intrinsic redshift]]" before jumping to conclusion that the universe is expanding. Had they checked, the history of science would have avoided the embarrassment of astronomers<ref>I've seen an appeal of an astronomer to Carl Sagan to end this scandal with Big Bang since ''"it makes all astronomers look like idiots"'', but the Big Bang lobby of [[relativists]] turned out to be stronger, or Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.</ref> and a lame hypothesis that it is expanding has no foundation except an illusion of expansion.

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. That's the whole story.

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 the deep space galaxies runs slower than in our Galaxy. That's the foundation of the illusion.

Even the Newtonian gravitation requires intrinsic redshift as a effect of relativistic [[dynamical friction]] as it is shown in the [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]. Since it was never printed a few people realise that it is the whole truth.  

Even the Newtonian gravitation requires [[intrinsic redshift]] as the effect of [[dynamical friction]] as it is shown in the [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]. Since it was never printed a few people had realised that it is the whole and extremely simple 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 belived them, thought.  

The most prominent difference is flat 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. One of the most idiotic hypothesis in physics. And it happens almost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it already as I write about it in my ''"[[Gravitation demystified]]"'' though with nobody, aspecially astronomers, paying any attention). Possibly for low popularity of CP as scientific wiki.

 

Something that destroys the Big Bang is much stronger. It is that the most prominent difference between the old prejudice of expansion and reality is the flat spacetime proposed already in 1993 by [[Jayant Narlikar]] and [[Halton Arp]]<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. One of the most idiotic hypothesis in physics, which happened almost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it as I write about it in my ''"[[Gravitation demystified]]"'' though with nobody, especially cosmologists, paying any attention). 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).  

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 (as in this case the Newtonina calculations are), 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 <ref>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. .</ref> the universe is stationary, as it was assumed in the first Einsteins model universe of 1917, its [[Hubble constant]] (ratio of assumed recession velocity of galaxies to their distance). In reality Hubble constant turns out to be <math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>, where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius]] of [[curvature of space]] implies <math>R_E=13</math> billion light years, and density of space of space of universe about <math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math> and illusion of accelerating expansion with <math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math> that was observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation and therefore confirmed observationally, as much as we need to confirm the observation of such a simple thing.

According to exact calculations, that in this case the Newtonian calculations are (and 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 <ref>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.</ref> the universe is stationary, as it was assumed in the first Einsteins model universe of 1917, its [[Hubble constant]]: assumed ratio of recession velocity of galaxies to their distance) in reality this ratio turns out to be <math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>, where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius]] of [[curvature of space]] implies <math>R_E=13</math> billion light years, and density of space of space of universe about <math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math> and illusion of accelerating expansion with <math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math> that was observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation and therefore confirmed observationally, as much as we need to confirm it observationally.

The almost Newtonian calculations suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as  

The almost Newtonian calculations suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as  

where <math>\tau</math> is proper time of distant galaxy, <math>t</math> is our time (in our Galaxy), <math>r</math> is distance to this remote galaxy, and <math>R_E</math> is the mentioned already [[Einstein's radius]].

where <math>\tau</math> is proper time of distant galaxy, <math>t</math> is our time (in our Galaxy), <math>r</math> is distance to this remote galaxy, and <math>R_E</math> 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 something to wonder about? Not to mention the observed result of cosmological redshift. And observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

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?<ref>And we remember that ascience works only through rejection of false clames of various cranks. Didn't Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler the authors of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', that started the [[Big Bang]] craze, turned out to be such cranks despite their mathematical sophistication? Which only proved that math is not science, which we knew anyway.</ref>

 

And what is ''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 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.  

And what is ''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 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.  

==Mathematics==

==Mathematics==

===Cosmological Constant <math>\Lambda</math>===

===Cosmological constant <math>\Lambda</math>===

Non existing 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.

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<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, ''"Gravitation"'', page 410.</ref>. They use it as "[[dark energy]]", not having slightest idea what it might be. And sending astronomers on wild goose chase to find it somewhere in the universe,

Couldn't figure it out why though<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, ''"Gravitation"'', page 410.</ref>. They use it as "[[dark energy]]", not having slightest idea what it might be. And sending astronomers on wild goose chase to find it somewhere in the universe,