Changes

'''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.

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.

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.

   

   

==Gravitation physics==

==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 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)<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 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>.

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''.  

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''.  

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

===So how come then it is [[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.  

That's the fate of science. It is never sure. It can change any time when new data comes in and cant be fit into the old frame. [[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 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, 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 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, 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?===

===Why then 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 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.

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 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.  

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 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 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. 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).