and why the time runs the slower the farther one looks.
|
| (C) 2009 W. Jim Jastrzebski |
|
| |
|
and why the time runs the slower the farther one looks. | |
|
| |
In 1687 Isaac Newton (1643-1727) discovered a mathematical theory of gravitation. He didn't know the physical reason for his theory but he refused to believe that it is gravitational attraction since he didn't believe in action at a distance. Neither did Albert Einstein (1879-1955) who called it spooky. In 1905 Einstein discovered relativity that made possible to discover physical theory of gravitation. He did it in 1911-1915. Its field equation turned out to be unstable and Einstein stabilized it in 1917 discovering cosmological constant Λ. The only flaw left then was the symmetric metric tensor of spacetime that prevented to discover the reason for the redshift of photons in stationary space. In 1950 Einstein found that the metric tensor must be non symmetric. It was a necessary step in discovering the reason for the Hubble redshift. Einstein was already over 70 and apparently not interested in fixing all the mathematical details of his theory. He left to younger physicists the explanation of Hubble redshift.
The younger physicists failed miserably:
In 1973 Charles Misner(1932-), Kip Thorne(1940-), and John Archibald Wheeler(1922-2008) (MTW) ignoring the interrelation of time and space of relativity, Einstein's assertion of 1950 that metric tensor of spacetime must be non symmetric, and even the principle of conservation of energy, published their own, mathematical theory of general relativity based on axioms.
They assumed symmetric metric tensor of spacetime and they accepted 1931 idea of an astronomer, mathematician, and Catholic priest, George LeMaitre (1894-1966) that the universe got created in the Big Bang event 14 billion years ago and is expanding ever since.
MTW book has been adorned with a picture of an angel blowing a horn and a quote from Leibniz "One suffices to create Everything of nothing!" on
The necessity of calculating the amount of redshift in Einstein's universe that would falsify the story of creation was avoided by convincing astrophysicists that it is negligible. The cosmology with never calculated amount of intrinsic redshift and with violated principle of conservation of energy became a "standard cosmological model". The lack of conservation of energy has been more subtle than the creation of whole universe from nothing. It was an assumption that photons move without any loss of energy as if the real gravitation was not Einstein's but Newton's mechanics.
In 1985, not knowing that the redshift in Einstein's universe is supposed to be negligible, I calculated it using Newton's math and Einstein's physics.
The Hubble constant of Einstein's universe turned out to be
Table of Contents
|
The result proved to be unpublishable despite this remarkable agreement with observations of Hubble constant and its acceleration, both predicted by Einstein's gravitation and both observed by astronomers in deep space. It seemed to be no surprise to editors of scientific journals as if they had known already that the real universe is Einstein's stationary universe and that the expansion is just wishful thinking of cosmologists opposing Einstein's gravitation.
The cosmology seemed to deteriorate to the point that despite that Hubble constant of Einstein's universe could be calculated from first principles by a sculptor and was the same as the one observed in the real universe by the real astronomers, the cosmologists responsible for maintaining observations and theory in agreement with one another still maintained that the universe was created in a hot Big Bang and it is expanding. It turned out to be an immutable axiom of their hypothesis of creation of universe.
For astronomers it meant choosing what in their opinion was the more probable option. The atheists, like Carl Sagan (1934-1996), have chosen even earlier, an eternal, stationary Einstein's universe but the consensus of ill informed (by editors of scientific journals) astronomers still prefers the expanding, "standard model" universe controlled by Newtonian mechanics.
For Einstein's general relativity it meant that there exists a tensor formed by second partial derivatives of proper time with respect to coordinate time and coordinate distance (called H-tensor or tensor of "general time dilation" to distinguish it from common "gravitational time dilation" that being of vectoral character disappears in homogeneous space). Physical sense of this H-tensor is that time at the distance from the observer runs slower than at the observer proportionally to the exponent of the distance, simmulating the accelerating expansion of space. This tensor should add up with Ricci tensor of curvature of space, to (tensoral) zero, making the spacetime intrinsically flat, proposed also by Halton Arp (1927-) Jayant Narlikar (1938-) team, which is also necessary for the principle of conservation of energy to hold.
Einstein's universe got vindicated as predicted by Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988), that "Whenever the predictions o Einstein have been found to differ from ideas of Newtonian mechanics Nature has chosen Einstein's."
| Feynman could enjoy the success of his prediction if the editors of scientific journals didn't decide to keep the collapse of MTW mysticism a secret.
Officially as not interesting enough to their readers.
My guess is that they decided not to publish the news that the universe is Einstein's not to embarrass the theorists who were making living off the idea of expanding universe and astronomy seemed to be not important enough to justify such an embarrassment of theorists.
After all "the beauty of astronomy is that unlike in civil engineering one can be 100% wrong and nobody is hurt" [Don A. Lautman, my astronomy teacher at Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA].
Since the news about Einstein's universe and about the general time dilation were refused to be published by scientific journals (like "Nature", "Physical Review Letters", "Science", "The Astrophysical Journal", even by popular ones as "Physics Today", "Scientific American" and others) the astronomers still don't know it even today (in 2009, which still doesn't hurt anybody) and many of them who don't understand Einstein's physics might think that the redshift they see as the Hubble redshift results form the recession of galaxies in expanding universe. The necessary in such scenario creation of energy from nothing they might treat as a "natural phenomenon" resulting "somehow" from "negative gravitational energy" the mechanism they might not understand what cosmologists (mostly application mathematicians who have little appreciation for physics and firmly established physical principles as e.g. the principle of conservation of energy) keep "explaining" to them. Even Einstein complained that he stopped understanding his theory when mathematicians began to explain it to him. And that's maybe why physicists don't understand gravitation. Feynman called some cosmologists idiots for supporting a "claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)" [fragment of Feynman's letter to his wife from 1962 Gravity Conference in Warsaw, Poland]. In the above fragment Feynman might have meant the principle of conservation of energy which is invalid in the BBGR while Feynman considered it true. After 1998 disastrous for BBGR observation of accelerating expansion the opponents of Einstein's universe patched their hypothesis of expanding space with assumed ad hoc "repulsive gravitation" called now "cosmological constant" and with the existence of exotic "dark energy" contained in this "cosmological constant" that allegedly were using this repulsive gravitation, through action at a distance, to expand the universe faster and faster. The editors of scientific journals might have known that cosmology is a pseudoscience created to employ scientists who couldn't earn living in any legitimate branch of science. But cosmologists aren't even smart enough to keep low profile, to admit cautiously that "they actually don't know", and to limit their activity to picking up their salaries, allowing at least astronomy to develop at its own pace. Instead they insist against Einstein's theory that (1) space is expanding, (2) spacetime is curved (of unknown yet intrinsic curvature), (3) the metric tensor of spacetime is symmetric, and (4) energy constantly created (most likely through divine intervention) an idea supported by the Pope and creationist businessmen with their millions of dollars in awards to cosmologists who support creation. But the worst of all, (5) they consider investigating the nature of "dark energy" the most important problem of physics of 21st century, blocking resources that are needed in real sciences, and (6) being the referees of gravitation papers they control the publication of papers dangerous to the Big Bang hypothesis. The cosmology from cheerful and harmless activity of the previous century became a damper on science. The creationism got into science through the back door of astronomy using mimicry calling their hypothesis of creation "general relativity" the name by which Einstein theory has been known. Support of creationists for the BBGR has been documented by March 2008 Templeton Foundation's award of $1,600,000 to an astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician, and Catholic priest, Michael Heller from the Papal Academy of Krakow, Poland, "in recognition of scholarship and research that has pushed at the metaphysical boundaries of science". If this trend continues we might be in a danger of establishing laws against engaging in science without a license (applied especially to sculptors). Even now people are banned for life from scientific fora, as it happened couple of times to me, just for trying to discus Einstein's universe which apparently creationists consider dangerous to the idea of creation. With complacency of people responsible for maintaining those fora not even creationists themselves. So far... |
Einstein's real general relativity doesn't allow neither "repulsive gravitation" nor "creation of energy". All of them are empty ideas that differentiate between science and creationism. The spacetime requires intrinsically flat geometry (as long as the space is curved and time dilated). It doesn't need "dark energy" (another empty idea) and gravitation is so simple that the high school education suffices to understand it. Even a sculptor with a high school education may explain it to anyone who wants to learn why things fall. That's why "few of the best men are doing work in it [...] It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere." [Feynman].
Since editors of scientific journals claim that their readers aren't interested in the results that I got (as e.g. editors of "Phys. Rev. Lett." wrote to me) I'll show below, for those few who are interested, how Einstein's gravitation works. Why things fall, why the curvatures of spacetime cause the illusion of gravitational attraction and the illusion of accelerating expansion of space. Then I'll make comparison between the Big Bang general relativity and Einstein's general relativity in an attempt to show the readers who are interested, why there is no reason for believing in neither the Newtonian gravitation nor the Big Bang GR. Not to expand this text too much the quantum nature of Einstein's gravitation will be skipped. It suffices to mention that quanta of gravitation are photons so unifying gravitation and electromagnetism is already contained in Einstein's theory. "Some physical theories are often smarter than their creators" [Hertz]. The reader may easily deduce the quantum nature of gravitation from the basics of gravitation and find out that role of gravitons may be taken on by any particles that atoms exchange between themselves like photon's, gluons, neutrinos (or shmutrinos if they exist).
Einstein's gravitation can be really explained to anyone's grandmother especially when the granny attended a high school, liked physics and math, and is not prejudiced against Einstein, which almost never happens to grandmothers but often to physics professors. Some physic professors would like to abolish the conservation of energy under pretext of reconciling Einstein's gravitation with quantum mechanics. Apparently those professors don't known that Einstein's gravitation is already a quantum theory.
In the Big Bang hypothesis we have a collision of physics (the redshift of photons interacting gravitationally with the rest of universe) with assumed math (the symmetric metric tensor that prevents photons from having redshift in stationary universe). That's most likely why Einstein solved this contradiction in 1950 by assuming non symmetric metric tensor for the spacetime which allows the Hubble redshift in stationary universe. Simple calculation reveals that the Hubble redshift observed in our universe is exactly equal to the redshift resulting from dispersion of kinetic energy of photons in a stationary universe. Yet, the cosmologists assumed the symmetric metric tensor of spacetime and got an artifact of expanding space.
Feynman warned the cosmologists: "Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not nature." [Feynman lectures on gravitation]. Yet in the case of universe the view of nature has been changed to accommodate for mathematical assumptions.
Finally, Einstein's 1950 assertion that metric tensor of spacetime must be non symmetric was not even mentioned by MTW. Those gentlemen assumed at the onset of their monograph a symmetric metric tensor, as also Einstein did at the beginning but for Einstein it was in 1911 when no one yet heard about the Hubble redshift. MTW did it in 1973, 23 years after it was known that Einstein maintained in 1950 that symmetrical tensor field must be replaced by a non-symmetrical one. Yet MTW didn't try then to examine the Einstein's assertion allegedly because it wouldn't be as elegant a metric tensor as the symmetric one. To which Einstein had already said: "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor."
Newton himself, having a critical mind, never believed that such attractive force existed. He knew that his theory is only a mathematical theory, so called phenomenological theory, and as such it is only describing phenomena and not explainig the reason for them, their physics.
It turned out that Newton was right and there is no such attractive gravitational force in Nature.
The gravitational force turned out to be coming from diminishing energy of particles in vicinity of material objects, along direction towards those objects. Along this direction the time happens to run slower (the effect called gravitational time dilation) and therefore all velocities are proportionally smaller. There is also an expansion of space in vicinity of material objects so it takes even more time to cover the expanded space at any given velocity. Both effects result in effective slowing down all velocities and with them the diminishing of all energies. Anything that does any movements, rotations, or vibrations does them slower so it contains less energy than before the particle got into the vicinity of certain material object.
Since the total energy of each particle is its inertial mass times coordinate speed of light squared (the famous Einstein's
Summing it all up: The diminishing of energy of a particle is caused by the slowing of velocities related to this particle.
Slowing of velocities is caused by the slowing of time and the expansion of space.
The slowing coordinate speed of light along certain direction causes the internal energy of a particle to diminish along this direction.
The diminishing energy pushes the particle in the direction of diminishing energy and as always in such cases a force shows up and it's equal
The acceleration must be such since the excess internal energy that the particle loses while the coordinate speed of light gets diminished, changes into a kinetic energy of the movement of the particle and so the energy is conserved automatically. And of course in a free fall the total change of energy of particle is automatically zero. This is the reason for conservation of energy in gravitation. No more mysterious "gravitational potential energy" that changes into kinetic energy of movement causing as the effect the conservation of energy: it is other way around: since nature can't make energy from nothing (remember Anaxagoras) there is acceleration g in a free fall that follows form this inability of nature to make energy from nothing.
So finally we know what gravitational force is: It is an inertial force with which any object restricted from following its path of free fall to get to the position of its lower energy, pushes at whatever is restricting it.
It is a force coming from within the gravitating object itself due to the particular properties of space and time around it (spacetime in short) and equal to minus derivative of energy of particle with respect to the displacement of particle in our frame of reference
Integral of this gravitational force along displacement is gravitational energy the same as in Newton's theory.
What is different in Einstein's physics than in Newton's math is that in Einstein's physics this energy has a well defined location in space, namely the gravitating particle itself.
And its value, as we show in section "How gravitational force is generated", is
The gravitational push varies according to structure of time dilation in space and the curvature of space (or according to structure of spacetime) which in turn varies according to distribution of energy in this space. So the gravitational force is an inertial force generated by certain, in general varying (and the results of changes propagate with speed of light), distribution of energy in this space, the principle of conservation of energy, and nothing else.
It is an important feature of Einstein's gravitation that there is nothing else beyond curvatures of spacetime and the principle of conservation of energy is controlling all gravitational phenomena in universe including its apparent accelerating expansion.
The gravitational force will be derived below and then it might be seen why it must have quantum nature automatically.
An atom, exchanging a quantum of energy, e.g. a photon, with another atom, loses by it also a quantum of its gravitational energy
Details of how gravitational force is generated
In our frame of reference the total energy of any particle is (see Landau and Lifshitz, Theory of fields)
| (1) |
| (2) |
| (3) |
The derivative of energy (1) with respect to displacement x (a derivative that when with opposite sign is called "force that pushes the particle" since the particle always tries to achieve a lower energy level), putting
| (4) |
Since for a particle at rest
| (5) |
|
The proof of dc(x)/dx = - g / 2c
We need to find out how the coordinate speed of light c(x) is related to gravitational field g. To figure out this relation we need to remember the following facts: The angle of deflection of light ray in vicinity of material objects is twice as large as it would be predicted by existence of Newtonian gravitational field due to time dilation. Einstein's guess was that half of this angle of deflection is due to time dilation that simulates the Newtonian gravitation and the other half is due to the curvature of space that has no counterpart in Newtonian gravitation. Next fact is that when the time slows down everything is running more slowly in the same space. When one side of a light ray runs more slowly than the other the light ray bends in direction of smaller c(x) and the angle of deflection is
In a flat space the angle of deflection of light ray would be due only to the change in speed of light across the ray. In a situation when space is curved the curvature of space bends the light ray without any change in the speed of light since then both sides of the light ray move in the (curved) space straight. The light "gets bent" (but actually going straight in a bent space) due to the space curvature without a difference between speeds of light across the ray. So to find observationally dc/dx we need to take a half of the observed angle of deflection of light in gravitational field g and apply equation (6) to it. The angle of deflection of light ray may be derived from an example with a rocket ship in space, sufficiently far from all material objects not to feel any influence of those objects, accelerating let's say as much as the particles that fall on the earth. If there is a light ray that enters the rocket ship perpendicularly to the direction of acceleration of rocket ship the observer in the rocket ship will feel gravitational field but the light ray won't and so it will move along a straight path in relation to the fixed points outside accelerating rocket ship. The observer accelerating with the rocket ship however will see the light ray bent towards the rear end of rocket ship (assuming that the rocket ship accelerates forwards). In relation to the rocket ship that is accelerating "up" with acceleration g the ray is dropping "down" with the same acceleration g. The height of this drop is (integrating the acceleration g twice with respect to time)
According to Einstein's principle of equivalence of acceleration and gravitational field this case is identical to the case when the light ray moves across a rocket ship that is standing on Earth, and so the ray bends in gravitational field g, the same as the ray seen by observer in accelerating rocket ship.
Since half of this angle comes from the curvature of space and the other half from the change in speed of light across light ray we take
Vanishing gravitational force in free fall
So we've showed that energy (1), the total energy of a particle, is composed of its (in general huge) gravitational energy It turns out that in the real world it is not a gravitational "pull" by "attraction" of some external body but inertial "push" by inertia of the particle in space where there is a change of internal energy of the particle as a function of displacement. So it is not a body attracting other bodies but other bodies are pushed by themselves towards an "attracting" body with this body not attracting them but just modifying the spacetime around herself by her presence in such way that those other bodies get themselves pushed towards the "attracting" body. "Attraction" is a figure of speech here and what is reall is the "push" towards this "attracting" center. Now we need to do the test with free fall to see if energy of a particle in free fall doesn't change.
Since in a free fall in gravitational field with
Differentiating with respect to x and ignoring small higher order terms
After substituting (9) and (11) to (4) we have a change of total (gravitational) energy of a free falling particle as
This concludes the explanation of basics of Einsteinian gravitation. The rest of this page shows how conservation of energy is responsible for an effect called here the general time dilation that in turn is responsible for the Hubble redshift (illusion of accelerating expansion of space) and possibly also for the high redshift of quasars.
Illusion of accelerating expansion of spaceIf one assumes that the redshift of galaxies is due to their velocity (effect called "Doppler effect") then universe looks as if it were expanding and its expansion were accelerating. This is so since the light coming from distant galaxies has on average a smaller frequency (is "redder") than the light generated by the same sources close to observer.The reason for this smaller frequency of photons was assumed by BBGR theorists to be a recessional velocity of galaxies causing redshift through Doppler effect but it turned out that the time at those galaxies runs slower than at observer and so the effect of the expansion of space has been simulated. Furthermore the simulated expansion looked as if the space were expanding with accelerating expansion. This effect of the time running slower in deep space turned out to be necessity if energy couldn't be made out of nothing and the simple derivation of this effect, from the principle of conservation of energy, is presented below for a spherical light wave and a derivation with a different method for a planar light wave, with a more detailed explanation of the method of obtaining the result, is in Appendix 2. The Hubble constant of Einstein's universe calculated for a spherical light waveIntroducing c the speed of light, G the Newtonian gravitational constant, ρ the density of dust of Einstein's universe,
The Einsteinian interpretation of the above is of course the time running slower at a distance form observer according to relation
In a general form it might look like (subject to verification by a tensor calculus expert)
The redshift produced by the effect of general time dilation is
The obvious application of this effect is the calculation of density of space of our universe from the value of observed Hubble constant.
The value of Hubble constant After splitting the Hubble constant into Taylor series the acceleration of this apparent expansion comes out as
Since now Einstein's theory can't be falsified by observations as it predicts strict conservation of energy (non falsified yet), Einstein's universe (non falsified yet), and other (non falsified yet) observational results within one σ, (which in astronomy means a perfect agreement), then now we may suggest the metric tensor of spacetime not only non symmetric but also degenerate. Despite that, the resulting metric is quite decent
Now let's look at the CBR. Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR)This radiation cannot be just the redshifted starlight since then it could not have the black body spectrum that it has. It seems therefore that it has to be the radiation from non-luminous matter that is in thermal equilibrium with the redshifted starlight. If it is so then we can calculate the average size of the pieces of non luminous matter of universe. This is because the probability P of a photon hitting an obstacle of diameter D on it's way, and transferring to it its energy, which then becomes thermal energy, is approximately proportional to the area of the obstacle
So, knowing the temperature of the redshifted starlight, presumably
Origin of Big Bang GRThe "expansion of space" has been suggested by astronomers because of galactic redshifts discovered by an American astronomer Vesto Slipher in the years following his discovery of blueshift of Andromeda in 1912. Most of these shifts turned out to be redshifts, with ratio of red to blue 4:1. Then these redshift, because of absence of Einstein's gravitation at the time, were interpreted by astronomers as Doppler redshifts that were taken by theorists for a proof that universe is expanding. In 1931 Georges LeMaitre proposed an explanation of this expansion, known later as the Big Bang.In the Big Bang "theory" it has been assumed (after Einstein, who changed his opinion only in 1950 when he proposed a non symmetric metric tensor) that the geometry of spacetime is pseudo Riemannian and that the metric tensor of spacetime is symmetric. At such conditions it is impossible to have redshift of photons that move along closed loops in stationary space (Hubble type redshift). Therefore it has been considered an established fact that the Hubble redshift is a result of the expansion of universe and that in a stationary universe there wouldn't be any Hubble type redshift. But it has been overlooked that the principle of conservation of energy implies the existence of dynamical friction of photons which would cause Hubble redshift anyway. Therefore the metric tensor of spacetime couldn't be symmetric. Einstein realized this only in 1950 when he proposed a non symmetric metric tensor for the spacetime. In the meantime it was the 1929 line of reasoning of Fritz Zwicky (1898-1974) who maintained that because of asymmetry of gravitational interaction between photons and the universe there must be a Hubble type redshift in any light. It was called tired light effect but ignored in favor of the expansion of universe by the gravity physicists for whom it was too exotic an effect not fitting in any way the general relativity since they strongly believed, against reason, in Riemannian geometry of spacetime with its symmetric metric tensor. Zwicky didn't know how to calculate the redshift properly and so he didn't get results that he could use to convince the opponents of tired light effect. It was the common problem of many astronomers and astrophysicists who apparently tried to do calculations in Newtonian, approximate (and illegal) way to get the tired light effect. Apparently the first guy who calculated the redshift of photons rigorously, not using any Newtonian approximations and so he got in 1985 the right result (after many years of trying to do the same approximate Newtonian calculations) seems to be me. I was not a physicists though but a sculptor, therefore my credibility was zero, so no one (except referees) wanted ever to see my result. The referees however didn't understand Einstein's gravitation. So their seeing my results didn't help. For some reason they couldn't imagine that curvature of space implies time dilation, which Feynman said "it would be kind of crazy" if it didn't. Well, referees were no Feynmans and for some reason they didn't see the connection between curvature of space and time dilation. As I said, their understanding of relativity had been rather poor, which I'd seen from many discussions with them, which I used to learn general relativity from (as accordning to a Chinese proverb "a wise man can learn much more from a stupid then a stupid from a wise"). The referees didn't find any formal problems with my result but since none of them had any advanced knowledge on gravitation all recommended the rejection of the solution for the reason of my not proposing any new physics (which they thought was necessary to solve such a profound problem that even they didn't understand). So the first results solving the problem exactly along Einstein's lines of reasoning were rejected by Nature, Physical Review Letters, Science, The Astronomical Journal, and even Nuovo Cimento (defunct since then), not to mention many popular science journals like Scientific American and Physics Today. Zwicky's idea was not even mentioned in MTW who being gravity physicists might have not even known about dynamical friction, and maybe that's why they had never calculated its value for photons assuming zero value as best fitting their purpose. Had they calculated the value of dynamical friction of photos there wouldn't be a need to assume that the universe is expanding and that energy can be created from nothing, not even to mention that the true nature of quasars could be discovered decades earlier to satisfaction of Halton Arp (an astronomer) and Jayant Narlikar (a pure mathematician) who seem to be the most informed opponents of the expanding space hypothesis. The plot thickened when Arthur Eddington suggested in 1929 that according to the general relativity (as he understood it) Einstein's universe is unstable with respect to the small fluctuations of radius of curvature of space and so the universe has to either expand or contract. It is an analog of suggestion by some gravity physicists that the orbits of planets are unstable with respect to small fluctuations of their radii since centrifugal force increases with radius and therefore leads to even greater increase of the radius (which would be true if other factors, like conservation of angular momentum, didn't take part in this phenomenon). So Eddington's suggestion may be ignored as long as all the factors taking part in the stability of universe are not taken under consideration. Besides, it is risky to tell how a system of 1011 galaxies is going to behave if we don't know yet how to predict analytically the behavior of three bodies. However, most gravity physicists lead by Gamov (1904-1968) and later by Wheeler embraced the idea, baptized "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) that was proposed in 1931 by George LeMaitre, a priest of Jesuit background, as the only possible way of creation of universe. Since the Hubble redshift was already included in the so called Big Bang general relativity as a result of expansion of space, and the expansion of space became the basis of the Big Bang GR, the conservation of energy had to be dropped to avoid the contradiction within the theory and the dynamical friction of photons had been assumed exactly zero to the bewilderment of those astronomers who still believed that energy is conserved. In the Big Bang GR the contradiction between expansion of universe and the conservation of energy had been decided by the theorists against the conservation of energy. The dynamical friction has been assumed to be limited only to Newtonian physics despite that Einsteinian physics as more general should explain all observed Newtonian effects. This limitation of dynamical friction to all particles except photons in the Big Bang GR is an equivalent to an assumption that while all other particles are subject to the principle of conservation of energy and so to the dynamical friction the photons aren't (they are supposed to have zero redshift in a stationary universe), and so, while photons are moving through the universe, carrying energy and modifying the gravitational field, the energy needed to compensate for the dynamical friction of photons is assumed by theorists like Wheeler and others to be created from nothing. It is a point where divine intervention into the affairs of universe is to be assumed by the gravity physicists. It has been tacitly assumed by astronomers (in order to understand the gravity physicists) that this energy is so small that assuming that it is created from nothing won't change any observational results [source: Dr. Bohdan Paczynski, astrophysicists]. Actually there exists even a back-of-envelope Newtonian calculation that convinces astrophysicists that this is really the case. Consequently the amount of this energy has been never calculated, just assumed on the basis of this back-of-envelope calculations to be negligible. Unfortunately for the Big Bang GR it isn't negligible and consequently it is a fatal flaw of this hypothesis. Obviously one has to return to Einstein's GR with global conservation of energy and consequently with non symmetric metric tensor and possibly assume non Riemannian geometry of spacetime. I have been explaining many mysterious features of cosmology as simple relativistic effects of Einstein's gravitation, explaining physics of the illusion of accelerating expansion of space, providing calculation of Hubble constant of apparent expansion of space and its (apparent) acceleration (confirmed by observations after 1998 with data from SN Project), predicting the Density of universe, estimated already by astronomers within a fraction of order of magnitude. The calculations narrowed the uncertainty of the density of space to 16% standard deviation (twice the uncertainty of the Hubble constant). Even the average size of pieces of non luminous matter of universe has been provided. And all was done from first principles and Einstein's general relativity. It has been shown that restoring the principle of conservation of energy as a valid physical principle and with it restoring the dynamical friction for photons allows to drop the assumption that the universe is expanding, however not, as it might have been expected, through restoring the Newtonian idea of tired light proposed by Zwicky. It has been done by demonstrating that in a world where energy is conserved the dynamical friction of photons is a relativistic effect of general time dilation. An effect of the rate of time dilation compensating for the curvature of space for the reason of inability of nature to produce energy from nothing.
Einstein's theory, by separating itself for good from the magic of expanding space, became again a physical theory explaining all the controversial or not understood elements of Einsteinian physics.
It showed the location of gravitational energy, and by this the origin of gravitational force as the minus derivative of the internal energy of particle with respect to displacement, Because of all those things there are several differences between Einstein's GR and Big Bang GR. They are in assumptions about the real world and necessarily in conclusions from these assumptions. These assumptions and conclusions are specified separately in the two tables below: Differences between Big Bang GR an Einstein's GR
The areas that a theory has no answers for are marked with question marks. All of them are in the Big Bang GR and it suggests that Einstein's original theory is OK while the Big Bang GR is wrong. Therefore we might assume that gravitational force and energy may be explained according to the old Einstein's theory based on conservation of energy and explain them as such. Therefore we seem to be justified in explaining gravitation as it is explained in the following section.
Observational evidence for Einstein's GR as opposed to Big Bang GR
Glossary of terms pertaining to gravitation (and some added for entertainment).
Abandonment of symmetric metric tensor. Einstein might have realized in 1950 that symmetric metric tensor implies violation of the principle of conservation of energy and abandoned it. "The answer on which the theory under discussion is based is that the symmetrical tensor field must be replaced by a non-symmetrical one. This means that the condition gik = gki for the field components must be dropped" [Einstein, "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", Scientific American, April 1950]. Einstein's abandonment of symmetric metric tensor has been ignored by authors of MTW's monograph "Gravitation" who apparently didn't mind the violation of the principle of conservation of energy.
It turns out that to apply Einstein's field equation to explain gravitation in a sensible way that doesn't contradict any other physics (e.g. the principle of conservation of energy) it is necessary to assume that the metric tensor of spacetime is non-symmetric and degenerate (to prevent its diagonalization). The observational data imply then that the expansion of universe is an illusion. Luckily a non symmetric tensor has more independent components so they are enough to provide for the illusion of expansion. This non-symmetry of metric tensor provides for an effect not yet discovered by astrophysicist which I call general time dilation. Without it any gravitational interaction with any moving object could be used to create energy from nothing in a similar way that energy is created in the tidal power plant, by the earth's oceans moving in relation to the moon. In case of the earth-moon system the part of rotational kinetic energy of the earth is converted into electricity in a tidal power plant, and part is transferred to the moon making it flying higher and higher. So in general the effect puts a small Newtonian drag on any moving object in the universe that which is a Newtonian counterpart of the relativistic effect that is observed in the real world as reddening of light called Hubble's redshift. If we apply that drag to particles of light (photons) it turns out that they really look as if they encounter such drag. The astrophysicists interpret this effect as a Doppler effect caused by recession speed of galaxies and consequently as the evidence that the universe is expanding while this effect is caused only by the time running the slower the farther we look as required by a non-symmetric metric tensor and relation between time and space as expressed by identity
Action at a distance is an action through empty space without any carriers of this action that, as it is now known, have to carry energy from one object to another since energy has to be carried on some carrier of energy, e.g. photons, gluons, or whatever, but can't get through "empty space" which would be analog of energy disappearing in one place and appearing without any good reason in another, which would contradict one of the most important principles of physics, the principle of conservation of
Anaxagoras is a Greek who said "nothing comes from nothing".
Angular diameter of galaxies as function of distance of those galaxies from us shows a minimum at about redshift
Applied mathematicians are guys who can handle equations better than computers though not the same fast so they may never be able to replace computers, however one of their subspecies, gravity physicists, hope to replace physicists one day.
Atheism is a symptom of critical mind and a belief, that the universe is not controlled by supernatural beings (like "ghosts" or even Santa Claus) but rather by a string of events each possible to be explained without an action at a distance of some "ghosts". It is a general disbelief in existence of supernatural as e.g. the creation of matter from nothing would be. That's why it may be important for theists to "prove" that creation of matter (or energy) from nothing, as it is assumed in BBGR, is possible. Atheists didn't believe neither in creation of something from nothing, nor in ghosts, nor in Santa Claus. They might believe to have another beer though...
Axiom is a feature of a phenomenological theory, an assumption that can't be proved within the given set of assumptions of a phenomenological theory of which it is an axiom. Unlike in a physical theory where it has to be checked all the time whether its assumptions are true, one does not bother with truth or falsehood of an axiom. It is admitted as if it were "obviously true". If it turns out to be false the hypothesis built on it collapses as a magical hypothesis. E.g. what happened to the Big Bang hypothesis after it turned out that contrary to BBGR assumption the universe is not expanding.
Big Bang general relativity. "Big Bang" is a term coined by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) in 1950 to ridicule the hypothesis that the whole matter of universe has been created about 14 billion years ago as a small dot, much smaller than any dot over i, and it has been expanding ever since (Wheeler, 1973). The hypothesis has been accepted by the majority of gravity physicists though (at least by those devoid of sense of humor) and included into their version of general relativity in which energy in "negligible amounts" (how "negligible"?) is created. Since about the half of the 20th century the consensus of gravity physicists considered BBGR to be true, and papers falsifying this cosmology for violation of the principle of conservation of energy were recommended for rejection by referees of scientific journals (gravity physicists themselves) with editors complying with the recommendations. There was even a proposal directed to Alan Guth (one of believers in this cosmology), to create another universe in a lab by creating proper conditions for such an event (the proposal was witnessed by me while driving Alan, and his friend from Columbia U, to some meeting downtown Boston, MA since both guys were too drunk to drive themselves after the weekly "Early Universe Seminar" at Harvard U in Cambridge, MA, for which Harvard U provided free beer to promote science).
BBGR explains the Hubble redshift as caused by the expansion of universe and because of this it postulates constant creation of energy in "negligible" amounts, just sufficient to compensate for the dynamical friction of photons that would exist in the world in which energy is conserved but can't exist in spacetime with symmetric metric tensor postulated by Wheeler's physics in which the conservation of energy is dropped, presumably to allow the creation of material things from nothing and to allow to reconcile science with religion. This creation of energy must happen through divine intervention to keep the metric tensor symmetric since there is no other mechanism available in physics to create energy from nothing. The value of this dynamical friction has been never calculated by BBGR theorists just assumed as negligible as it should be in a spacetime with assumed symmetric metric tensor. When I calculated the dynamical friction of photons in 1985 it turned out to be as it should be in Einstein's universe. The author drew from it a very unpopular among BBGR gravity physicists and astronomers conclusion that our universe is Einstein's universe (Jastrzebski, 1985) (the Hubble constant coming out as Richard P. Feynman in his comments on gravity physicists (point 4 of his critique) called gravity physicists idiots for assuming that an "obvious and correct fact" [like the principle of conservation of energy] "accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)". In this controversy I support Einstein and Feynman, while theists, at least those from Kansas, consider attempts to falsify the Big Bang hypothesis "an atheist plot".
Conservation of 4-momentum means that in an isolated system (one with no connection to the outside of it) there is always the same fixed amount of energy and
Copernican Principle says that space is (roughly) homogeneous. The "Perfect Copernican Principle" states that the Copernican Principle is time independent. Einstein's general relativity states that our universe behaves as required by the Perfect Copernican Principle.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation before 1963 was thought to be the thermal radiation, of temperature about
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation after 1963 (a.k.a. CBR or CMBR) is radiation that comes from the sky as black body radiation of temperature
Critical mind is a mind that does not believe in anything that is not confirmed by a reliable experiment or a reliable observation. Taking also under consideration that "reliable" depends on interpretation which may be source of errors in otherwise neat theory. Newton's theory of gravitation once was such a neat theory (not to Newton himself though, since he had a critical mind himself and he didn't believe in "action at a distance") that his theory indicated. He turned to be right (there is no "action at a distance" in gravitation). The list of things that critical minds don't believe in would be too long for this article so it is skipped here.
Curvature of space means that at some places of universe there is "more space than at a point far enough from any material objects". It means that within the same 2-sphere of the same surface area, there is a greater amount of space (greater volume of space) than at a point far enough from any material objects (e.g. the same 2-sphere can hold greater amount of water). Furthermore it turns out that whenever there is "more space" also the time "slows down" in such way that product of the amount of space and the amount of time ("volume of spacetime") is constant. It means that the spacetime of universe is intrinsically flat. This is a necessary result of the principle of conservation of energy. So one may say that curvature of space, or concurrently, the time dilation, is the result of one of these features and the other is the result of the inability of nature to make energy from nothing.
Curvatures of spacetime are numbers that for each event in spacetime tell how much space at this event is curved and time is dilated in relation to events far away from any material object (where space and time are "flat" i.e. the same as in Euclidean spacetime). In Einstein's spacetime the dilated time (less time) implies increased amount of space in such way that their product (volume of spacetime) is the same in the whole universe meaning that the spacetime of universe is intrinsically flat. Einstein's gravitation is considered having flat geometry (not by MTW though).
Dark energy. Hypothetical energy allegedly discovered in 1998 by Supernova Project team of astronomers working on confirmation of predictions of the Big Bang theorists that the expansion of universe is decelerating. The team discovered that the observations are opposite to what was predicted by the Big Bang theorists. The expansion of universe instead of looking decelerating looks accelerating as predicted by Einstein's theory and also with the predicted value of acceleration. Then this discrepancy has been blamed by Big Bang theorists on an unknown yet "dark energy", set most likely by nature (that, according to Feynman, takes always Einstein's side) to destroy the elegance of Big Bang hypothesis. The properties of this hypothetical "dark energy" are investigated ever since by the Big Bang theorists.
Doppler effect. The common effect of changing the length of any wave when the wave is emitted by a moving source or received by a moving observer. When the source of wave is approaching the observer the observed wavelength gets shorter (so called "blueshift" as lightwave becomes then more blue) and when it moves away from observer it gets longer (so called "redshift" as lightwave becomes then more red).
Dynamical friction of photons is a relativistic effect of photons reaching the observer with a redshift depending exponentially on the distance that they travel,
Einstein's cosmological constant, a.k.a. Cosmological constant or Λ is a constant of Einstein's field equation and its nature is similar to constant of integration that needs to be determined while calculating integrals. The value of this constant has been a subject of Big Bang controversy since the value calculated by Einstein in 1917,
Einstein's radius a.k.a. Einstein's radius of universe,
Einstein's theory of gravitation a.k.a. Einstein's general relativity, a theory of gravitation that explains the gravitational force not as some magical force of "gravitational attraction", that even Newton who didn't believe in miracles refused to accept (for its implied action at a distance) but as a force resulting from the internal energy of the particle itself, diminishing along certain direction because of curvatures of spacetime. Gravitational force in Einstein's theory is therefore a force pushing a particle in a direction of the diminishing internal energy of particle. The excess energy (excess energy resulting from diminishing internal energy) is changing into the kinetic energy of movement of particle with the total energy of particle being always the same. In which we may see the working of the principle of conservation of energy that can't be violated in a scientific theory and so it can be use to tell a scientific theory from a fiction. The curvatures of spacetime is all that is needed to explain the shape of diminishing energy of particle in space and in turn this shape is described by the math (or rather geometry) of Einstein's theory. That's why Einstein's theory is called a "geometric theory of gravitation". There are no external ("fundamental") gravitational forces acting on particles. All is just decided by the curvatures of spacetime.
Einstein's universe is a stationary (i.e. neither expanding nor contracting) model universe described by Einstein's field equation with
Empty idea is idea of something that does not exist in the real world, as e.g. angels, elves or unicorns, that we can imagine, even draw them, but it doesn't make them existing objectively as separate entities except as (empty) ideas. Many things which existence was taken for granted turned out to be empty ideas. E.g. absolute simultaneity: idea of two events happening in two various points in space "simultaneously" is empty (since there may be observers for whom one event is earlier than the other and observers for whom it is just opposite, so simultaneity can be only relative, in relation to a particular observer) so it never happens in the real world that events happen "absolutely simultaneously" or in other words it has no meaning for nature which one is earlier. Only collision (one event happening in the same point in space) has meaning for nature. Lack of absolute simultaneity was an important discovery of Einstein's relativity. "Action at a distance" is another empty idea.
Event is a "point in (4 dimensional) spacetime" that has four coordinates: three spatial coordinates (telling where it happened) and one temporal coordinate (telling when it happened).
Einstein's field equation is a set of 10 differential equations describing the geometry of the spacetime. The equations may be combined together in tensoral form as follows:
Feynman's opinion about gravity physicists have been provoked by his attendance at the World Conference on Gravity. It illustrates Feynman's disappointment with qualification of gravity physicists as scientists.
First principles. Calculations from first principles are ones that start from the established laws of physics without making assumptions about any particular model.
Flat geometry means that a certain aspect of the space under consideration is the same everywhere, as in Euclidean flat space. A convenient thing for measuring flatness of It seems that spacetime of our universe is flat but the space is surely curved and its radius of curvature is about 4.3 Mpc since speed of light divided by this radius turns out to be
General time dilation is an effect valid for any space containing energy in any form due to the effect of interrelation of time and space in Einstein's general relativity (not present in BBGR though). It is an effect of proper time
Gravitational energy is something that used to be called internal energy of a particle
Gravitational force in Einstein's theory is the same as in Newton's theory:
Gravitational time dilation is an effect of time running slower at the source of light located at an object containing energy in any form (e.g. planet, star, or galaxy). The effect is approximately (for masses
Gravitational redshift is redshift caused by the time running slower due to gravitational time dilation
Gravity physicists are subspecies of applied mathematicians who due to their ideas about physics believe that physics can be replaced by math. See Richard Feynman's impressions from his participation in a World Gravity Conference that he applied to gravity physicists who propagated BBGR. Feynman also warned gravity physicists saying: "Let me also say something that people who worry about mathematical proofs and inconsistencies seem not to know. There is no way of showing mathematically that a physical conclusion is wrong or inconsistent. All that can be shown is that the mathematical assumptions are wrong. If we find that certain mathematical assumptions lead to a logically inconsistent description of Nature, we change the assumptions, not nature."
Homogeneous means that the thing under consideration is the same everywhere. Things with some feature of their geometry being everywhere the same as in Euclidean geometry are called flat. E.g. a surface is "flat" if the ratio of area of a circle to its radius squared is the same everywhere on this surface and equal π. So by the above criterion the surface of the Earth isn't flat as some people ("flatearthers") think that it is. They think so because the "curvature" of the Earth is too small to be noticed. They can't notice it, that's why they think it's none. Similarly as with gravitational force that depends on tiny changes of speed of light outside of particle, but so small that people thought that there are none and so this force must be caused by "gravitational attraction" which as it was discovered by Einstein doesn't exist in the nature but only in what some humans think about this nature (hopefully no one who's read this article).
Hubble constant a.k.a. Hubble parameter, is the velocity of (apparent) expansion of the universe. It is equal to the ratio of (apparent) recessional velocity of galaxies to the distance to them. Hubble constant of Einstein's universe is equal
Hubble law is the relation between distance to an astronomical object and its redshift, approximately exponential with distance. Quasars redshifts don't seem to fit this law and so their redshifts seem to be produced by a different mechanism than redshifts of galaxies (or the same mechanism if we allow the Einstein's version of general relativity, which then would be the general time dilation). However the Big Bang hypothesis can't tolerate a different mechanism of redshift than Doppler shift.
Hubble redshift is a phenomenon of light coming from distant galaxies with redshift increasing approximately exponentially with distance from the observer. The Big Bang hypothesis assumes that this redshift is Doppler shift due to the expansion of universe (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973) plus 1998 correction for the exponential change of this redshift with distance observed only since 1998 by Supernova Project team and explained through the Big Bang hypothesis by the existence of "dark energy" of unspecified yet properties. Einstein's gravitation explains it by the rate of time slowing down in curved space proportionally to the curvature of space. It is required by the principle of conservation of energy since as it follows from this principle the sum of general time dilation and the curvature of space vanishes according to equation
H-tensor (a.k.a. Hubble tensor, a.k.a. tensor of general time dilation, a.k.a. tensor of curvature of time) is a
Identity is an "equation" that is valid no matter what, while a "real" equation, that is not necessarily an "identity" is valid only for some particular case, a particular combination of variables in that equation. E.g.
Illusion of accelerating expansion of space is an illusion that the space of the universe is expanding and that this apparent expansion is acceerating. This is an artifact caused by the interpretation of the Hubble redshift as Doppler shift, allegedly caused by the recession of galaxies.
Illusion of gravitational attraction is an illusion that all particles of universe attract each other. This illusion is caused by the curvatures of spacetime that change the coordinate speed of light around each particle in such way that there shows up a gradient of particle's internal energy (dE/dx, where E is internal energy of the particle and x is displacement vector in the frame of this particle) that when the particle is immobilized it produces an inertial force
Interrelation of time and space is the effect of Einstein's relativity expressed by Feynman in his "Feynman Lectures on Physics" as "As you know from special theory of relativity, measurements of space and measurements of time are interrelated. And it would be kind of crazy to have something happening to space, without the time being involved in the same thing" [p. 42-7] and "It is impossible with space and time so intimately mixed to have something happen with time that isn't in some way reflected in space" [p. 42-14].
Intrinsic redshift was hypothetical redshift postulated the first time by Halton Arp or even by Fritz Zwicky (to my best knowledge) for a redshift existing in the universe as the reason for Hubble redshift. It was suggested as a separate redshift from all then known forms of redshifts. It turned out to be the same redshift that I used to call "general redshift", since 1985, not being aware of Arp's term. This redshift is described in this article as one that shows up in any physical space (curved space of positive curvature) and caused by general time dilation.
Isotropic is a property of being the same in any direction. The Copernican Principle states that the space of our universe is roughly homogeneous and therefore also "isotropic".
Joseph Medard Namyslowski is a physics professor and a particle physicists. He is accidentally involved in cosmology by the virtue of having a doctoral student W. Jim Jastrzebski who is doing his PhD work in the universe, also accidentally. Joe is trying to promote Jim's work among physics professors. So far with no luck.
Legend of "negligible" redshift in Einstein's universe. This autor learned from an astrophysicist Prof. Bohdan Paczynski (1940-2007) that such a legend existed when I tried to learn what would be the amount of redshift in stationary universe. Prof. Paczynski assumed that the Big Bang theorist would had calculated it if it were not negligible. Since it must have been negligible they just needed to show that it was negligible and he believed that such calculations existed somewhere in the literature since "obviously it couldn't be zero" as he said. He was surprised when I told him that it was assumed by MTW that it is zero due to the assumed symmetry of metric tensor of spacetime.
Magic is a mechanism through which a mathematical (phenomenological) model that uses non existing entities works. The same as the ordinary magic it works through accidental similarity of the model to the physical phenomenon. A good example is Newtonian gravitation with its gravitational forces that act at a distance. Newton didn't believe in such forces considering them mathematical entities that are only imagined and therefore a kind of magical things, as unicorns. Yet knowing their magical nature through the Newtonian equations that describe their behavior we may use these magical things in calculations and get almost true results due to the similarities between the equations that control their magical behavior to the real equations that control the behavior of the real gravitation (unknown in times of Newton). The magical things are useful as long as one does not consider them real and does not conclude about the real world as if those magical things were real. A newer example of magical thing is the expansion of universe that has been considered real by many 20th and 21st century gravity physicists despite that it requires dropping the principle of conservation of energy that most of them consider accepted and checked for years . Dropping a well tested principle for some, at best highly hypothetical, and at worst totally impossible, thing changes the phenomenological theory into a magical theory usually favored by theists though not by all of them since many of them believe that facts shouldn't be explained by magic.
Mathematical theory, a.k.a. "phenomenological theory" or sometimes, when it is applied outside its domain of application, a "magical theory". A theory that predicts everything that happens within its domain of application but doesn't explain why it happens this way. Examples: Newton's gravitation, the quantum mechanics, the Big Bang hypothesis. The "Copenhagen school" maintains (against common sense) that theories can be mathematical only and so the question "why?" is epistemologically empty. Some proponents of BBGR maintain that questions to which scientists don't know answers shouldn't be asked at all since they may be asked "on wrong assumptions", which I learned after asking prof. Baez, one of gravity physicists, about conservation of energy in gravitation and was told by him that "in Einstein's gravitation energy is not conserved as opposed to Newtonian physics where it is conserved", which prompted me to figure it out on my own how it is conserved in Einstein's gravitation and place it in section titled "Basics of Einstein's gravitation" for all curious people to learn how energy is conserved in Einstein's gravitation.
Metric tensor of spacetime is a tensor that describes distances along temporal and spatial coordinates in terms of their differentials. Symmetric metric tensor has only 4 independent elements and so it might be turned into diagonal form (when only non zero elements of the tensor are the diagonal terms of this tensor) while a non symmetric tensor can't be diagonalized since all 10 elements of the tensor are independent of each other (other 6 are always dependent on others). If gμν is metric tensor of spacetime then the square of distance in spacetime is equal to
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, authors of a creationist version of general relativity, an over 1200 page book titled "Gravitation" (a.k.a. "The Bible") in which they push the hypothesis of creation of universe in a Hot Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. The hypothesis has been falsified by calculation of Hubble constant for Einstein's universe that came the same as Hubble constant observed in our universe strongly suggesting that our universe is Einstein's and therefore not expanding.
Physical theory is a theory which its all predictions are true: really happen in the real world. Examples: corpuscular theory of gases, Einstein's special relativity, Einstein's gravitation, a.k.a. Einstein's general relativity (EGR) as opposed to the Big Bang general relativity (BBGR) which is a creationist hypothesis propagated between others by The Templeton Foundation with awards bigger than Nobel Prize to reconcile religion, that is based on axioms with science that is based on verifiable facts.
"Physicists don't understand gravitation" is a quote from my first semester ("Physics 1") physics teacher prof. Zharnecki who expressed the opinion of majority of physicists. I myself heard the opinion many times before. Most likely the opinion is caused by the poor way the physics of gravitation is taught. This poor way of teaching leaves over 99% of physicists without a slightest idea what is the reason for gravitational force which is the most common force in nature that every living thing feels whole its life. The physicists just know it is not "gravitational attraction" since they heard rumors that in Einstein's general relativity a.k.a. "Einstein's theory of gravitation" there is no such force acting through vacuum (also Newton was squarly against the existence of such force) yet teachers of physics assume that (screw Newton and Einstein) the best way of teaching physics is to imbue high school students, who later become physicists and astronomers, with the idea of "gravitational attraction being a real force of nature" (even one of "four fundamental forces" of nature). They know that later it is going to prevent physicists from understanding gravitation and not to protest (except those with critical minds which is only about 5% of any population) when the gravity physicists tell them that "the universe is expanding". And it may hold true even if they learn that the expansion of universe contradicts the principle of conservation of energy (remember, we are talking about ones without critical minds). This lack of opposition will allow creationists to maintain that it "might indicate" that there are more things in universe than the physicists know about and sneak into science some creationist garbage. The physicists just "won't understand gravitation" and so they won't suspect a large scale creationist fraud, as e.g. the Big Bang.
Pseudo Riemannian geometry differs from the four dimensional Riemannian geometry by signature which in Riemannian geometry is
Quantum features of Einstein's gravitation follow from the fact that an atom exchanges energy with another atom through exchange of a photon or a nucleus with another nucleus by the exchange of a meson. It means that whenever one object loses part of its gravitational energy
Quantum gravity is something the gravity physicists hope to release them from necessity to understand Einstein's gravitation. They hope that it will be a "real" theory of gravitation since they believe that the theory of gravitation should be a quantum theory and due to their way of understanding of physics of gravitation they don't realize that Einstein's theory is a quantum theory.
Quasars, a.k.a. quasi stellar sources of light are astronomical objects that look like stars (light points) but have redshifts much greater than the ones reasonably corresponding to their distance as calculated from their luminosity. Their existence indicates that they may be much closer to us than it would be indicated by the Hubble law and therefore their redshift may be due to something else than Doppler redshift assumed by the Big Bang hypothesis.
Real World is since about half of 17th century a subject of what physicists like Einstein investigate. It is thought by those physicists to exist objectively i.e. regardless of what H. sapiens thinks about it.
Redshift is an effect of wave coming to observer with longer wavelength (lower frequency) then wave emitted by sources close to observer. The reason for it may be either "Doppler shft" or the effect of time running at the source of the wave at different rate than at observer. The reason for the latter may be either "gravitational redshift" (difference of gravitational potentials between the source of light and observer) or "intrinsic redshift" (the effect of space curvature causing redshift regardless of the difference of gravitational potentials between the source of light and observer).
Repulsive gravitation is an attempt to save the Big Bang hypothesis through a magical force, apparently consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, and making universe expanding faster and faster due to the alleged existence of "dark energy" in universe. There is no repulsive gravitation in Einstein's theory since gravitational force is neither repulsive nor attractive but an inertial force. See Basics of Einstein's gravitation.
Ricci tensor is a tensor which spatial part is describing the curvature of our common
Riemannian geometry is geometry proposed by Einstein as the geometry of spacetime when he still didn't understand fully the implications of application of this geometry to solutions of gravitational problems. In 1950 Einstein started to realize that to unify gravitation with electromagnetism (as it is done today) the spacetime can be only approximately described by symmetric metric tensor and he proposed that the metric must be non symmetric (Einstein, "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", Scientific American, April 1950). In reality it must be also a degenerate, which makes Riemannian geometry non applicable in gravitation since Riemannian metric is non degenerate.
σ (sigma) is standard deviation of the measured value. It is a measure of the accuracy of measurements. Physically it is the effective amplitude of the noise that is added to the measured variable by the measurements regardless of their number. It is also known as the rms (root mean square) value of the noise of measured value.
Somehow is a favorite way of explaining by creationists the ways that nature might be working when they introduce a contradiction with known physical principles to support their particular hypothesis. It is the way energy is created from nothing to support the Big Bang hypothesis.
Spacetime is space and time considered together as one four dimensional object. The spacetime has a property that the sum of general time dilation in any direction plus the curvature of space in this direction, vanishes which means that the spacetime is flat (proper volumes of spacetime are isotropic).
Structure of time dilation means how amount of time dilation changes along any particular direction. We know how much because it is relatively easy to figure out what mass causes what time dilation since we know the relation between gravitational field and gravitational time dilation (see Appendix 1 for the relevant equations) and the relation between gravitational field and mass that generates it we know from Newton's equation. Time dilation reflects exactly the Newtonian gravitational potential except that it does not contain its ambiguity about its absolute value since it has natural zero value at infinity.
Supernova Project was a project that was supposed to prove that the expansion of universe is decelerating to confirm the prediction of MTW that Einstein's cosmological constant should be set to zero to provide the first correct prediction of the BBGR. It would also confirm that discovery of cosmological constant by Einstein was a biggest blunder of his life. Unfortunately for MTW the prediction turned out to be wrong and the observation of expansion turned out to be corresponding to acceleration expansion as predicted by Einstein's universe model which proved that Einstein's cosmological constant was at least a valid discovery (called jokingly by Einstein "the biggest blunder of his life" for causing the cosmologists bothering Einstein about value of this newly discovered constant of nature preventing Einstein from doing any useful work, to the point that Einstein forbid his secretary to let in anyone wanting to talk to Einstein about the universe [Source: Roy Glauber, who worked at the time with Einstein as his assistant]. Yet the cosmologists took Einstein's joke as an admittance that cosmological constant should be deleted from Einstein's equation for the reason of elegance (Einstein then said: "If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor").
Support of theists for the BBGR has been documented by March 2008 Templeton Foundation's award of $1,600,000 to a cosmologist, mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic priest, Michael Heller from the Papal Academy of Krakow, Poland, "in recognition of scholarship and research that has pushed at the metaphysical boundaries of science".
Symmetry is esthetics of idiots. Discovery of counter position (a.k.a. "contraposto") in Greek sculpture (around 600 BC) in which pelvis is tilted in opposite direction to shoulders, as esthetically superior to symmetrical position of figure cultivated in previous sculptures, has been a breakthrough in art that has been continued in sculpture ever since.
Theism. Philosophy, or rather a belief, that the universe is controlled by supernatural beings (a.k.a. "ghosts", also "holy") or a supernatural being (a.k.a. "God") instead of evolution. The belief is supported by the belief, also of gravity physicists, most astronomers, and applied mathematicians (though neither "pure mathematicians" who consider BBGR being pseudoscience, nor the majority of physicists who, as they claim, don't understand gravitation) that energy (and therefore the matter being the same as energy as shown by Einstein's equation
Time dilation means roughly that the time in any particular point in space runs slower than at a point far enough from any material objects. It means that presence of material objects slows down the rate of time in their vicinity.
Tired light effect is an apparent effect of photons reaching the observer with seemingly smaller frequency than they were emitted with behaving as if they lost part of their energy on the way. It turns out that photons don't do this and they just start from their sources with smaller energy since the time runs slower at their sources due to general time dilation.
University of Kansas, which introduced creationism as scientific discipline, declared that opposition to the Big Bang Cosmology is an atheist plot.
W. Jim Jastrzebski is a sculptor with MS degree in electronic engineering and the author of this article. He is accidentally involved in gravitation due to his 1985 calculation of general time dilation and his result that the expansion of space is an illusion caused by the inability of nature to make energy from nothing. Since it implies that Einstein's had it right, Jim is trying to vindicate Einstein's universe and spread this news as a tribute to Einstein. Cosmologists and astronomers ain't interested though.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![I_o_(nu) = c_1 nu^3 / [exp(c_2 nu / T_s) - 1]](pic/eq10.jpg){kind=small}
![I(nu, r) = (c_1[nu exp(r/R)]^3)/(exp[c_2 nu exp(r/R) / Ts] - 1)](pic/eq11.jpg)
![I(nu)=c_3 Integ 0..oo ((p(r)[nu exp(r/R)]^3)/(exp[c_2 nu exp(r/R)/T_s]-1))dr](pic/eq12.jpg)
