Difference between revisions of "Essay:Problems in Cosmology"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Preamble''' | '''Preamble''' | ||
| − | The problems in cosmology may be split into: 1.physics, 2.mathematics, | + | 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. |
==Gravitation physics== | ==Gravitation physics== | ||
| − | The most neglected part of science despite (or because) it is considered the simplest is gravitation physics. All creatures are affected by it to a | + | The most neglected part of science despite (or because) it is considered the simplest is gravitation physics. All creatures are affected by it to a certain degree but for humans the main problem is whether the universe is expanding and if yes then why? |
| − | We could answer these both question offhand: | + | We could answer these both question offhand: "No" and so the second 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 quater of a century)<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] from 1985.</ref>. |
| − | Luckily we know for sure that the universe isn't expanding a bit, and what's more it never did | + | 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]]. So 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''. |
| − | If the universe isn't expanding why it looks like it? The expansion is simply an illusion caused by the relativity of time that is running at the deep space galaxies slower than in our Galaxy. | + | If the universe isn't expanding why it looks like it? Here the answer is known for about 100 years 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]]. |
| + | |||
| + | The expansion is simply an illusion caused by the relativity of time that is running at the deep space galaxies slower than in our Galaxy. Even Newtonian gravitation requires as it is shown in the [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] that 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 alsmost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it alredy with nobody, aspecially astronomers, paying 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). | ||
| − | According to | + | 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) <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]]. | 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]]. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
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 right result of cosmological redshift. And right (as 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 something to wonder about? Not to mention right result of cosmological redshift. And right (as observed) accelerating expansion of the universe. | ||
| − | ====How sure gravitation is?==== | + | ====How sure the science of gravitation is?==== |
| − | + | Well, we know from personal experience that ''what goes up must come down''. Not always immediately, as planes and birds show, but ''eventually''. What about the Moon? It flies aroun and around for millenia, and as far as we can tell it was ''always there''. Well, one day we may lose'er since it seems to go higher and higer and ''eventially'' it might be on such a remote orbit that we may not consider it a part of out ''Earth-Moon'' system. All those things are responded to by [[science]] of gravitation in general and ''astrophysics'' in paticular. | |
====What powers the Moon ...==== | ====What powers the Moon ...==== | ||
| − | in its getting on higher orbit? It is rotational energy of the Earth. When the Earth stops rotating the Moon stops moving higher and higher and might one day crash into the Earth. But before that happens it might get split into separate stones orbiting the Earth as Saturn rings orbit Saturn. So the universe is full of surprizes. | + | in its getting on higher orbit? It is rotational energy of the Earth acting through tides. When the Earth stops rotating the Moon stops moving higher and higher and might one day crash into the Earth. But before that happens it might get split into separate stones orbiting the Earth as Saturn rings orbit Saturn. So the universe is full of surprizes. |
====But what "powers" (Einsteinian) gravitation?==== | ====But what "powers" (Einsteinian) gravitation?==== | ||
| − | And what is ''gravitational energy'' that one simply differentiate to get "gravitational | + | 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. |
==Mathematics== | ==Mathematics== | ||
| − | Since it got so complicated even the mathematicians have problems with understanding it. | + | Since simpler times it got so complicated even the mathematicians have problems with understanding it. |
==Sociology== | ==Sociology== | ||
| − | Of it all, needed to understand what's going on in parts 1 and 2. | + | Of it all, needed to understand what's going on in parts 1 and 2. One word explanation is [[relativists]] by Richard P. [[Feynman]]. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 07:16, August 30, 2011
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[1]. Therefore let's start with physics and in physics with gravitation.
Gravitation physics
The most neglected part of science despite (or because) it is considered the simplest is gravitation physics. All creatures are affected by it to a certain degree but for humans the main problem is whether the universe is expanding and if yes then why?
We could answer these both question offhand: "No" and so the second 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 quater of a century)[2].
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. So 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.
If the universe isn't expanding why it looks like it? Here the answer is known for about 100 years 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.
The expansion is simply an illusion caused by the relativity of time that is running at the deep space galaxies slower than in our Galaxy. Even Newtonian gravitation requires as it is shown in the Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe that 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[3]. Instead of curvature of spacetime of the Big Bang hypothesis. Probably one of the most idiotic hypothesis in physics. And it happens alsmost a century after Einsteins (Mileva Marić and Albert, who explained it alredy with nobody, aspecially astronomers, paying 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 [4] 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 right result of cosmological redshift. And right (as observed) accelerating expansion of the universe.
How sure the science of gravitation is?
Well, we know from personal experience that what goes up must come down. Not always immediately, as planes and birds show, but eventually. What about the Moon? It flies aroun and around for millenia, and as far as we can tell it was always there. Well, one day we may lose'er since it seems to go higher and higer and eventially it might be on such a remote orbit that we may not consider it a part of out Earth-Moon system. All those things are responded to by science of gravitation in general and astrophysics in paticular.
What powers the Moon ...
in its getting on higher orbit? It is rotational energy of the Earth acting through tides. When the Earth stops rotating the Moon stops moving higher and higher and might one day crash into the Earth. But before that happens it might get split into separate stones orbiting the Earth as Saturn rings orbit Saturn. So the universe is full of surprizes.
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 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.
Mathematics
Since simpler times it got so complicated even the mathematicians have problems with understanding it.
Sociology
Of it all, needed to understand what's going on in parts 1 and 2. One word explanation is relativists by Richard P. Feynman.
See also
References
- ↑ The author of the quote is coming.
- ↑ See Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe from 1985.
- ↑ Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1.
- ↑ 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. .