Changes

This essay is meant to explain this strange physics of [[gravitation]], with which we deal every day but generally don't understand it, don't know how it operates and where the "gravitational force" is coming from, except for 3 physicists

This essay is meant to explain this strange physics of [[gravitation]], with which we deal every day but generally don't understand it, don't know how it operates and where the "gravitational force" is coming from, except for 3 physicists

<ref>

.<ref>

According to the legend only two physicists, Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington, understood relativity since when a journalist told Eddington that he heard that only three people in the whole world understood relativity, Eddington asked him: "Yeah? Who is the third?"

According to the legend only two physicists, Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington, understood relativity since when a journalist told Eddington that he heard that only three people in the whole world understood relativity, Eddington asked him: "Yeah? Who is the third?"

</ref>.

</ref>  

I hope it soon will be clear to the readers that [[gravitation]] contains no mystery and is probably the simplest physics around and could hardly work in a different manner.

I hope it soon will be clear to the readers that [[gravitation]] contains no mystery and is probably the simplest physics around and could hardly work in a different manner.

There may be readers who might think that it should be left working as Newtonian math seemed to work when everybody and his brother thought that objects in the universe attract each other. Though it won't be true since gravitation doesn't work this way. Even according to Newton

There may be readers who might think that it should be left working as Newtonian math seemed to work when everybody and his brother thought that objects in the universe attract each other. Though it won't be true since gravitation doesn't work this way. Even according to Newton

<ref>

.<ref>

Quote from Newton [according to wikipedia]: ''"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."''

Quote from Newton [according to wikipedia]: ''"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."''

</ref>.

</ref>  

Newton was wise man and didn't believe in things that he thought are impossible. Then there were many things seemingly impossible. Though gravitation was obviously possible. How did it work?

Newton was wise man and didn't believe in things that he thought are impossible. Then there were many things seemingly impossible. Though gravitation was obviously possible. How did it work?

The Einsteinian universe theory (EUT), is a theory of universe from which the "expansion of univrese" was eliminated through the calculation of [[intrinsic redshift]], that showed that the alleged expansion is a relativistic illusion due to the curvature of space.  

The Einsteinian universe theory (EUT), is a theory of universe from which the "expansion of univrese" was eliminated through the calculation of [[intrinsic redshift]], that showed that the alleged expansion is a relativistic illusion due to the curvature of space.  

The EUT is almost the same as Einstein's stationary model universe of 1917 that was Einstein's guess, very close to the present EUT model of universe. It has common with the present EUT model the proved only in 1985, and therefore unknown to Einstein, the lack of expansion, that in original Einstein's model has been acheived via introduction of [[cosmological constant]], and therefore with purely mathematical means <ref>

The EUT is almost the same as Einstein's stationary model universe of 1917 that was Einstein's guess, very close to the present EUT model of universe. It has common with the present EUT model the proved only in 1985, and therefore unknown to Einstein, the lack of expansion, that in original Einstein's model has been acheived via introduction of [[cosmological constant]], and therefore with purely mathematical means.<ref>

And one has to remember that math is not [[science]].

And one has to remember that math is not [[science]].

</ref>.

</ref>

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 astronomers that the universe might be expanding, Einstein added his ''"cosmological constant"'' to his field equation that stopped the alleged expansion. Later he called this cosmological constant ''"the biggest blunder of his life"''.  

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 astronomers that the universe might be expanding, Einstein added his ''"cosmological constant"'' to his field equation that stopped the alleged expansion. Later he called this cosmological constant ''"the biggest blunder of his life"''.  

where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum and <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius of universe]], which means that Einstein must have been doing something right assuming the [[perfect cosmological principle]] already in 1917. And so the EUT may be also "right" as far as we know

where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum and <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius of universe]], which means that Einstein must have been doing something right assuming the [[perfect cosmological principle]] already in 1917. And so the EUT may be also "right" as far as we know

<ref>

.<ref>

Theories are never "right" unless they pass all the possible tests of their validity, which the [[Big Bang]] hypohtesis was not able to pass and that's why it has to be replaced with EUT (also unsure but at least better theory than the [[Big Bang]] that contains errors, which we don't see in EUT, hoping that in EUT there are none).

Theories are never "right" unless they pass all the possible tests of their validity, which the [[Big Bang]] hypohtesis was not able to pass and that's why it has to be replaced with EUT (also unsure but at least better theory than the [[Big Bang]] that contains errors, which we don't see in EUT, hoping that in EUT there are none).

</ref>.

</ref>

   

   

The EUT is explaning how the relativity of time and space (notions of non existence of absolute time and absolute space) are working in stationary, neither expanding nor contracting, eternal universe that has neither the beginning nor the end.  

The EUT is explaning how the relativity of time and space (notions of non existence of absolute time and absolute space) are working in stationary, neither expanding nor contracting, eternal universe that has neither the beginning nor the end.  

</ref>

</ref>

==== Step 2: Integrating the mass of galaxies ====  

==== Step 2: Integrating the mass of galaxies ====

:... of spherical shell of radius <math>r</math> of galaxies around "point zero" and thickness <math>dr</math> gives number  

:... of spherical shell of radius <math>r</math> of galaxies around "point zero" and thickness <math>dr</math> gives number  

:<math>d\tau^2=dt^2-dr^2/c^2</math> for <math>r</math><<<math>R_E</math>.  

:<math>d\tau^2=dt^2-dr^2/c^2</math> for <math>r</math><<<math>R_E</math>.  

The EUT metric seems to be the simplest metric with required by Einsteinian property of non symmetry of metric <ref>

The EUT metric seems to be the simplest metric with required by Einsteinian property of non symmetry of metric.<ref>

Einstein's 1950 paper ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', published in April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''. This paper was not placed for some reason in detailed bibliography of Einstein's papers of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. The reason might be that this book assumes at the onset the symmetric metric of spacetime while Einstein excluded such possibility possibly for it potential of creation of energy from nothing utilized indeed later in ''"Gravitation"'' in the form of Big Bang hypothesis. For this reason ''"Gravitation"'' might be considered advocating a creationist cosmology, as contrasted by stationary cosmology of '''Einsteinian gravitation'''.

Einstein's 1950 paper ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', published in April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''. This paper was not placed for some reason in detailed bibliography of Einstein's papers of 1973 ''"Gravitation"'', by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. The reason might be that this book assumes at the onset the symmetric metric of spacetime while Einstein excluded such possibility possibly for it potential of creation of energy from nothing utilized indeed later in ''"Gravitation"'' in the form of Big Bang hypothesis. For this reason ''"Gravitation"'' might be considered advocating a creationist cosmology, as contrasted by stationary cosmology of '''Einsteinian gravitation'''.

</ref>.

</ref>

===Critique of the Big Bang hypothesis (BBH)===

===Critique of the Big Bang hypothesis (BBH)===

Of course I "knew" that the universe "is expanding" and speed of expansion (called [[Hubble constant]])

Of course I "knew" that the universe "is expanding" and speed of expansion (called [[Hubble constant]])

is about 70km/s/Mpc. I also knew that photons interact with masses in the universe that have to influence those photons slightly diminishing their momentum. All this was "known". What was not known was how much of their momentum photons lose flying through the universe, due to the presence of matter in the universe. I tried to calculate it approximately but got the results always between zero and infinity depending on my approximations, which obviously meant that my approximations were wrong.  

is about 70&nbsp;km/s/Mpc. I also knew that photons interact with masses in the universe that have to influence those photons slightly diminishing their momentum. All this was "known". What was not known was how much of their momentum photons lose flying through the universe, due to the presence of matter in the universe. I tried to calculate it approximately but got the results always between zero and infinity depending on my approximations, which obviously meant that my approximations were wrong.  

In February 1985 I decided that it is crazy not to be able to calculate such a simple thing. I decided not to use any approximations this time and I calculated, with high school calculus, Newtonian math, and a little of Einsteinian physics (limited to equation <math>E=mc^2</math>) how much of cosmological [[redshift]] in the universe is due to the expansion of space and how much is due to the Newtonian interaction between photons and the masses of universe that as I learned from Ned Wright <ref>Edward L. (Ned) Wright, Astronomy

In February 1985 I decided that it is crazy not to be able to calculate such a simple thing. I decided not to use any approximations this time and I calculated, with high school calculus, Newtonian math, and a little of Einsteinian physics (limited to equation <math>E=mc^2</math>) how much of cosmological [[redshift]] in the universe is due to the expansion of space and how much is due to the Newtonian interaction between photons and the masses of universe that as I learned from Ned Wright <ref>Edward L. (Ned) Wright, Astronomy

professor from UCLA, who advises through e-mail on problems within astronomy to anybody who has such problems. </ref> was called [[dynamical friction]].  

professor from UCLA, who advises through e-mail on problems within astronomy to anybody who has such problems.</ref> was called [[dynamical friction]].  

I wanted to find out what is the real rate of expansion of space after subtracting the result of my calculations <math>\Delta H_o</math> from the [[Hubble constant]] <math>H_o</math> that, as I thought then, contained the total redshift: coming from the expansion of space and from [[dynamical friction]].  

I wanted to find out what is the real rate of expansion of space after subtracting the result of my calculations <math>\Delta H_o</math> from the [[Hubble constant]] <math>H_o</math> that, as I thought then, contained the total redshift: coming from the expansion of space and from [[dynamical friction]].  

The result turned out to be <math>\Delta H_o= \sqrt{4 \pi G \rho}</math>, where <math>G</math> is Newtonian gravitational constant, and <math>\rho</math> is the mass density of universe <ref>

The result turned out to be <math>\Delta H_o= \sqrt{4 \pi G \rho}</math>, where <math>G</math> is Newtonian gravitational constant, and <math>\rho</math> is the mass density of universe <ref>

See step-by-step calculations in [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Demystified_gravitation#Step_by_step_derivation_of_cosmological_redshift]

[http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Demystified_gravitation#Step_by_step_derivation_of_cosmological_redshift See step-by-step calculations in]

</ref> but also that it is the whole [[Hubble constant]] of our universe. There was nothing left for the expansion of space.

</ref> but also that it is the whole [[Hubble constant]] of our universe. There was nothing left for the expansion of space.

===Checking the results and the first rejection===

===Checking the results and the first rejection===

To be  sure that I didn't make any mathematical error I gave those results to a math professor who was teaching general relativity a few years earlier to check them<ref>Prof. Tadeusz Bałaban, presently tenured professor at [[Rutgers University]] in New Jersey, who checked my calculations in February 1985 before saying that they don't contain any mathematical error, after which I sent them to ''[["Nature"]]'', where the editor rejected them for his disbelief of them without any peer review. </ref>, and when he assured me that there was no math error I sent the results to ''[["Nature"]]'', which I subscribed to at that time, on February 12, 1985, for final verification and possible publication. Then I got a response from ''[["Nature"]]'': ... 20 February 1985, ''"I am afraid that we cannot publish your paper which is too speculative to be appropriate for Nature."'' Dr Philip Campbell, Physical Science Editor.

To be  sure that I didn't make any mathematical error I gave those results to a math professor who was teaching general relativity a few years earlier to check them,<ref>Prof. Tadeusz Bałaban, presently tenured professor at [[Rutgers University]] in New Jersey, who checked my calculations in February 1985 before saying that they don't contain any mathematical error, after which I sent them to ''[["Nature"]]'', where the editor rejected them for his disbelief of them without any peer review.</ref> and when he assured me that there was no math error I sent the results to ''[["Nature"]]'', which I subscribed to at that time, on February 12, 1985, for final verification and possible publication. Then I got a response from ''[["Nature"]]'': ... 20 February 1985, ''"I am afraid that we cannot publish your paper which is too speculative to be appropriate for Nature."'' Dr Philip Campbell, Physical Science Editor.

===Studying general relativity===

===Studying general relativity===

====Getting rid of cosmological constant====

====Getting rid of cosmological constant====

First idea that came to my mind was that if the Einstein's value of [[cosmological constant]] stabilizes the universe then one should come up with such a constant that changes together with <math>R</math> (contraction of Ricci tensor) in such way that their sum vanishes. I called this hypothetical constant "contraction of ''[[Hubble tensor]]''" in honor of discoverer of [[Hubble redshift]]. To have a contraction one needs also a tensor itself so I needed a ''[[Hubble tensor]]'' as well. It would be a tensor having such properties that its contraction multiplied by half of metric would be equal exactly <math>\Lambda_E</math> (Einstein's value of [[cosmological constant]]). I just learned lately from a mathematician in my school, that such arangement is possible if the metric is non symmetric. Which it is, since it was metric required by Einstein for the spacetime <ref>Einstein, A., ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''. Einstein's paper has been dropped from the bibliography of Einstein's papers in 1973 ''"Gravitation"'' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.</ref>.

First idea that came to my mind was that if the Einstein's value of [[cosmological constant]] stabilizes the universe then one should come up with such a constant that changes together with <math>R</math> (contraction of Ricci tensor) in such way that their sum vanishes. I called this hypothetical constant "contraction of ''[[Hubble tensor]]''" in honor of discoverer of [[Hubble redshift]]. To have a contraction one needs also a tensor itself so I needed a ''[[Hubble tensor]]'' as well. It would be a tensor having such properties that its contraction multiplied by half of metric would be equal exactly <math>\Lambda_E</math> (Einstein's value of [[cosmological constant]]). I just learned lately from a mathematician in my school, that such arangement is possible if the metric is non symmetric. Which it is, since it was metric required by Einstein for the spacetime.<ref>Einstein, A., ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''. Einstein's paper has been dropped from the bibliography of Einstein's papers in 1973 ''"Gravitation"'' by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.</ref>

====Hubble tensor====

====Hubble tensor====

<References/>

<References/>

[[Category: Astronomy]]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

[[Category: Cosmology]]

[[Category:Cosmology]]

[[Category: Physics]]

[[Category:Physics]]