Essay:Problems in Cosmology

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

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 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.

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, the lack of expansion, is science?

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).

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.

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.

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?

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 and the lame hypothesis that it is expanding.

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.

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.

So the gravitation is slightly different than what the contemporary cosmologists and astrophysicists, who belive them, think.

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. 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.

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). 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.

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>\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.

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.

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I 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 my 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 repeat herself or himself 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 believed in it too. Though he believed that the expansion would turn out to be decelerating according to his theory while it turned out to be apparent and looking like accelerating. That I managed to explain after splitting the illusion of acceleration to Taylor series and confirming the observations with accuracy to one standard deviation. So the 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 this "dark energy" somewhere in the universe.

Mathematics

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. Couldn't figure it out why though. They use it as "dark matter".

Symmetric metric tensor of 4D spacetime

Don't even know why Wheeler assumed a symmetric metric tensor of spacetime while Einstein said it must be non symmetric. Just Wheeler dropped it from Einstein's papers in his biography.

Sociology

All the sociological problems seem to be about money.

Money makes the world go around

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

The LHC is the world's biggest ever physics experiment, and by studying conditions close to those just after the big bang, it could solve some of science's deepest mysteries

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 Bang) since all are just the cargo cult science which might be obvious from the short Feynman rant against relativists.

JimJast 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)