Essay:Problems in Cosmology

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

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?

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).

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?

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 evaluate 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 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.

Why the universe looks like expanding?

The implied answer is known for about a century. Folks just don't pay attention. Astropysicists never even calculated how much there is of "intrinsic redshift" before jumping to conclusion that it is "exspanding".

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. 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.

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. 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).

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 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) <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 (do we need an exact number?) <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.

The almost Newtonian calculations suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as <math>d \tau/dt=exp(-r/R_E)</math>, where <math>d \tau/dt</math> is rate of time at distant galaxy <math>\tau</math> in relation to our time <math>t</math>, <math>r</math> is distance to this 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.

But what "powers" (Einsteinian) gravitation?

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. 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.

Jim is a "crank" though 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 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.

JimJast 03:18, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

See also

• Counterexamples to Relativity