Changes

The problems in cosmology may be split into: 1.physics, 2.mathematics, 3.sociology. This 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 knowledge known of how basic things like gravitation work? . Let's start with with gravitation physicsthen.

==Gravitation physicsPhysics==

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

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes 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 just ''"ab ovo"'')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 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 ''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.

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 journalssince 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<ref>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, or and Carl Sagan didn't know that the Big Bang is a fake.</ref> and a hypothesis that the universe is expanding.

===There is more to gravitation than refuting the Big Banghypothesis===

This more is that except explaining the gravitational force by particles seeking in spacetime the most probable location in spacetime of lowest energy, pushing in the process on other particles with a force that is called ''gravitational force''

where <math>x</math> is displacement in relation to the particle, <math>E</math> is energy of particle, rest or total, rest or total, depending on application, <math>m</math> is mass of particle [[invariant mass|invariant]] or [[relativistic mass|"relativistic"]] <math>m</math>, as energy, depending on application, <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>\tau</math> is proper time of particle, and <math>t</math>, 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]].<ref>Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1. </ref>. Explained in my ''"[[Gravitation demystified]]"'', not noticed possibly for low popularity of CP as scientific wiki :).

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 <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]] in reality turns out to be (while at the beginning defined as <math>H_o=v/c/r</math> <math>v</math> is speed of recession of galaxy, <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, and <math>r</math> is distance to the galaxy).

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 the universe about

considered realistic by astronomers who read 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 we need one needs to confirm observationally the theoretically predicted numbers.

where <math>\tau</math> is proper time of distant galaxy, <math>t</math> is our the 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 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?<ref>And we remember that science works only through rejection of false claimes 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 proves that math is not science, and only physics is, which we knew anyway.</ref>

What?! Says !! Said every physicists I told this story toduring 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). If The opponents said: ''"if it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school"''.<ref>So why don't you teach it in high schools? I say. Explanation in part 3, titled '''sociology'''.</ref>.

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were not 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 an 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 papersPhD thesis). So when the university banned my main one page paper ''"[[Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]"'' I typed it in into conservapedia as an essay,<ref>[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]</ref>, 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.

Incidentally, the majority of non believers atheists of RW turned out to be believers in ''creation'' of the whole universe from nothing as it might have been planned by John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in it too. He just might be ashamed to shy to admit it being a [[relativists|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 illusion of acceleration Hubble (so called) "constant" into Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation.

Simpy Simply because they learn early in their lives what science is and what is not 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 being an illusion 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.

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,

I don't even know why Wheeler assumed a symmetric metric tensor of spacetime while Einstein said it ''must be'' non symmetric. Just Wheeler just dropped it from Einstein's papers in his biographybibliography.<ref>Einstain, A., ''"On the generalized gravitation theoryGeneralized Theory of Gravitation"'', April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''.</ref>.

All the sociological problems seem to be as usually about money.

One of such money hungry ptoject projects connected with Big Bang is desribed described in ''"New Scientist"'', LATEST ARTICLES: Don't panic about the missing Higgs – for now. Under the title ''"The Large Hadron Collider"'' ''"New Scientist"'' writes:

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 they are talking about. 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 Banghypothesis) since all are just the "[[cargo cult science]]".<ref>I read an appeal of an astronomer See Richard P. Feynman rant against [[relativists]], from his letter to Carl Sagan to do something to stop the Big Bang project since wife published in book ''"it makes all astronomers look like idiotsWhat Do You Care What Other People Think"'', page 91.</ref>  ===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 might be obvious from the short Feynman rant against [[relativists]]most high school students have no problems to learn.

[[categoryCategory:Astronomy]][[categoryCategory:PhysicsEssays]]{{DEFAULTSORT:Problems in Cosmology}}