“The more we progress, the less we understand the Univers”,
this is the fine conclusion of the pearl of theoricist,
Stephen Weinberg. Do not see any connexion with the american congres refusal
to finish the Supercollisioner.
Cosmology is governed by the
Hilbert General Relativity equations. It suffices to add the adequate terms
for matching with apriori philosophy.
Einstein believed
in a static univers: his adhoc “cosmological constant” acts as a repulsory
force preventing the gravitation collapse. This equilibrium is instable, but a
genius do not care for such elementary coinsideration.
Neglect the advice of the true discoverer of relativity,
Poincaré, that cosmology cannot be governed by differential equations, since,
precisely, it generates "free parameters".
Do not see any connexion between the fact that
Lemaître
was a parish priest with his propension to promote a dramatic begining, the famous Big
Bang. Nothing to do with the biblic genesis. In fact, after the pope Pie XII
acclaimed the “fiat lux”, Lemaitre publicly tried to calm the game… The indian
theoricist Narlikar claims that
the Univers is pulsing: of course no relation with hindouism.
Let us come back to the crusty history of modern cosmology. The expansion law is
an “observation” of
Edwin Hubble,
resuting from a comparaison of his galactic distance measurements (in Megaparsec)
and the spectral shifts of Slipher (in km/s). No matter this has been published
before by
Lemaître, following a De Sitter model.
The Lemaître
expansion rate, underestimated by a factor 10, was expressed in « km/s by
Megaparsec » : so a distance measurement was presented as a time determination.
Very nice to confirm genesis. In fact the theoricists briskly mix the time and
space concepts, forgeting another advice of Poincaré, the true author of the
spacetime concept, (said “of
Minkowski”).
But Lemaître
had the bad taste to be belgian. In the late english traduction of his article,
his dramatic prediction was simply « forgotten », as
Luminet
reveals in "L’invention
du Big Bang".
But had
Hubble, the pearl of observors, corrected the value ? Inutil, why boring ?:
it was sufficient to « find back » exactly the same grossly approximation of
Lemaître,
with the same ridiculous unity. It is fair to recall that the experimental
points make in fact a confused fog, which is anything but a straight line. But
the historic
Hubble article was immediatly preceeded, in the same scientific journal, by
a
Humason’s paper, which confirmed the LemaîtreHubble value, by a single far
galaxy. So, as is revealed by
Hoyle
et al in "A
Different Approach to Cosmology", all the scientific community was
embarking in an 10fold eroneous expansion rate, from a single measurement.
The author od this providentiel measurement,
Milton Humason, was the muledriver of the Hubble observatory…
With modern measurements, the points considered by Lemaître and Hubble always do
not make a straight line, for the simple raison that many galaxies are part of
the Local Group which… do not participe the expansion. No matter, the factor 10
cannot be anything else than an calibration error.
But, this error maked the Lemaître’s univers younger than the earth. He used the
« repulsive constant » for accelerating the expansion, giving so a larger
univers age. Of course, as soon as one introduces a repulsive force, the Big
Bang pertinence is badly perceived. This is the reason why, when the measurement
was corrected, the arbitrary “cosmological constant” was rejected, and all the
cosmologie treatises professed that « the expansion is slowing down », untill
the damned day… when the expansion acceleration was observed. It was sufficient
to come back to this constant, to state that even an
Einstein mistake
is rich of meaning, and to give it a new name : the
black energy.
But, in the interval, our « cosmologists » have made even stronger. This cannot
be invented. Noting that the spectral law of the
background
follow the spectral thermal law, as in any honest oven, one obtains oddities
with the Big Bang, because nothing is more different from a thermal equilibrium
than an explosion. No matter: it is sufficient to decrete that our nivers is,
inside a giant « multivers », nothing but a small thermalized part, which has
been amplified with a … superluminal speed. So, one explains why our univers is
homogene, isotrope and with « critical density ».
No historian reveals that the concurrent model, the “steadystate” had predicted
the expansion acceleration, as well as a thermal background, resulting from the
fossil star radiation. With a simlple one line calculus, Thomas Gold had
predicted, in 1955, 2,8 Kelvin, the right temperature, starting only with the
Helium proportion (25% in masse) and the stellar density 3 x 1031 g cm3, see "A
Different Approach to Cosmology" Hoyle et al, p.83.
The second Big Bang stage is called "inflation".
In fact, in the present epoch, the repulsive force just becomes stonger than the
attraction. The Big Bang has in fact 3 stages. Any comparaison with
anticopernicien
epicycles is not welcome, specialy from young researchers which are devoted
to check the general consensus, as in the good old time of Middle Age.
But why precisely our epoch is seeing the expansion inversion? Simple : « we are
living in a fantastic time ». Any comparaison with the antiCopernicien dogm «
we are living in a fantastic place» would be grotesque and illadvised, because
the intriging correlations between the large cosmological numbers and the
electricity/gravitation force ratio are easily explained if one admits there are
momentary. Indeed as was finely noticed by
Dicke and
Carter, since the Big Bang, it was necessary that the stars construct the
heavy atoms we are made of, then disperse they by supernovae, to reconcentrate
in our planet. And the mean star life is indeed tied to the electricity/gravitation
force ratio.
Despise the few people who affirm that these cosmoic correlations are in fact
very precise, and claim to come back to the very foundation of science by
starting from observation instead of deducting a universe theory. Because this
would mean the Universe is nothing but a giant atom. Even
Eddington was rejected as foolish, simply because he dared to calculate the
univers horizon radius from an atomic mass: h2/Gm3.
Neglegt the fact that one obtains the Eddington’s formula directly by a simple
nonlocal
dimensional analysis (without « c »), merely by starting from the essential
fondamental constants list, and do not make the first choice of Francis Sanchez
which suppose that the cubic mass term is the product of the
electron,
proton and
neutron masses. If one obtains the half of 13,8 billion lightyears, while
the « socalled » univers age is 13,7 ± 0,1 billion years, and that 2128
electronic time h/mec2 gives 13,9 billion years, this cannot be anything but a
double fortious coïncidence. Do not imagine that a simple physicist can
ridiculise in his 3 first minutes of cosmology all our famous genies:
Lorentz,
Planck, Einstein,
Bohr,
Dirac,
Feynman… But it would be fair to supress the
fondamental
constants list in the Terminale S program, because any student could claim
the refutation of the BigBang, which is teached in the Seconde “common program”,
that will make disorder...
The fact that the same nonlocal
dimensional analysis (without « c »), starting from the characteristic
background energy kT, gives the proton wavelength, with a coefficient 8/3 which
matches the above factor 2 with the
Sanchez Holophysics, is pure manipulation.
