Einstein's universe is Einstein's stationary (or "static" as some cosmologists call it) model universe of 1917.
To keep Einstein's field equation of this stationary model stable, and not knowing yet about the "Hubble time dilation", discovered by Edwin Hubble over a decade later, and suggesting to some cosmologists that the universe might be expanding, Einstein added his "cosmological constant" to his field equation that stopped the alleged expansion of his model universe. Later he called this cosmological constant "the biggest blunder of his life" (for a possible reason that there was a simpler way of getting rid of illusion of expansion).
In 1985 the "cosmological constant" turned out to unnecessary since it turned out that the Hubble redshift might be not caused by expansion of the universe but by the time runing slower at the deep space galaxies in curved space, which simmulates accelerating expansion of space with as observed in 1998 by the Supernova Cosmology Project team of astronomers.
The agreement of value of alleged acceleration of space with the results of observations of Suprnova Cosmology Project within one standard deviation, as well as my other results sugessting that the expansion of universe is an illusion has been never published in any scientific journal, despite ofering them to many since 1985, lately in the form of this paper, starting with "Nature" in 1985, "Physical Review Letters" in 1986, and many others up to this year. All rejections were based on disbelif of editors of those journals that the universe may be stationary as demostrated in my papers. JimJast 17:13, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
- Which me, being only an engineer without any training in general relativty, noticed, so it might have become noticeable to Einstein too.
- The only scientific journal offering peer review after which the referee statad that dispite I refuted all her/his arguments (after several month of discussions) she/he is going to recomend the rejection for not enough interest in the subject of readers of her/his journal, the argument repeated by another editor of the same journal a few years later.