Changes

It might be because it is the simplest and so it does not present a challenge to good physicists as being so common. All creatures are affected by it to a certain degree. And there is very good Newtonian approximation of gravitation. So good approximation that it sufficed for moving humans to the Moon. But now the main problem of humans is whether the universe is expanding, and if yes then why?  

It might be because it is the simplest and so it does not present a challenge to good physicists as being so common. All creatures are affected by it to a certain degree. And there is very good Newtonian approximation of gravitation. So good approximation that it sufficed for moving humans to the Moon. But now the main problem of humans is whether the universe is expanding, and if yes then why?  

We could answer those two question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering those 2 simple questions virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with small faith in scientists like us (properly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>.

We could answer those two question offhand: "No" and so the second question becomes moot, yet because of sociology ivolved in answering those 2 simple questions virtually no one would believe and so we need to answer more questions with which the people with small faith in scientists like us (properly called "cranks") would turn to us ''demanding'' answers or just ignore us as "cranks" as they do for last over quater of a century.<ref>See [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] of 1985.</ref>

Luckily I know for sure that the universe isn't expanding. It was forever like that. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why I may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that I fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known also as ''never being sure''.  

Luckily I know for sure that the universe isn't expanding. It was forever like that. The [[Perfect cosmological principle]] in action. That's why I may answer all kinds of questions truthfully not worrying that I fail not to explain anything adequately. Such sure knowledge is called [[science]] despite it is known also as ''never being sure''.  

:<math>F=-(d/dx)[E=mc^2(d\tau/dt)]</math>

:<math>F=-(d/dx)[E=mc^2(d\tau/dt)]</math>

where <math>x</math> is displacement in relation to the particle, <math>E</math> is energy of particle, rest or total, depending on application, <math>m</math> is mass of particle [[invariant mass|invariant]] or [[relativistic mass|"relativistic"]] <math>m</math>, as energy, depending on application, <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>\tau</math> is proper time of particle, and <math>t</math>, is the time of observer. The most prominent difference between the old prejudice of expansion and reality is the flat spacetime proposed in 1993 by [[Jayant Narlikar]] and [[Halton Arp]]<ref>Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1. </ref>. Explained in my ''"[[Gravitation demystified]]"'', not noticed possibly for low popularity of CP as scientific wiki :).

where <math>x</math> is displacement in relation to the particle, <math>E</math> is energy of particle, rest or total, depending on application, <math>m</math> is mass of particle [[invariant mass|invariant]] or [[relativistic mass|"relativistic"]] <math>m</math>, as energy, depending on application, <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>\tau</math> is proper time of particle, and <math>t</math>, is the time of observer. The most prominent difference between the old prejudice of expansion and reality is the flat spacetime proposed in 1993 by [[Jayant Narlikar]] and [[Halton Arp]].<ref>Narlikar, J. and Arp, H. Flat spactime cosmology - a unified framework for extragalactic redshifts, 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1.</ref> Explained in my ''"[[Gravitation demystified]]"'', not noticed possibly for low popularity of CP as scientific wiki :).

The flat spacetime requires coupling between time and space such that it makes the time running slower in curved space proportionally to the exponent of distance in the curved space (see the exact relation below).  

The flat spacetime requires coupling between time and space such that it makes the time running slower in curved space proportionally to the exponent of distance in the curved space (see the exact relation below).  

that was differentiated in the section above to produce "gravitational force".

that was differentiated in the section above to produce "gravitational force".

What?!!! Said every physicists I told this story during the 15 minute breaks in their lectures while I was studying astronomy (except two professors who considered it interesting though, beyond their area of expertise, them being perticle physicists). The opponents said: ''"if it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school"''<ref>So why don't you teach it in high schools? I say. Explanation in part 3, titled '''sociology'''.</ref>.

What?!!! Said every physicists I told this story during the 15 minute breaks in their lectures while I was studying astronomy (except two professors who considered it interesting though, beyond their area of expertise, them being perticle physicists). The opponents said: ''"if it were so simple we would learn it already in a high school"''.<ref>So why don't you teach it in high schools? I say. Explanation in part 3, titled '''sociology'''.</ref>  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were never published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but suppressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student any more just a unofficial PhD student writing thesis on GTR, and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif shouldn't be linked to from their server making them suspected of supporting my PhD thesis. So when the university banned my one page paper ''"[[Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]"'' I typed it in into conservapedia as an essay<ref>[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]</ref>, and let's see how long it survives here.  

I am a "crank" though with zero credibility among scientist and so despite I discovered those things already in 1985 they were never published before this essay (OK, they were published in RW, but suppressed by university of Warsaw since I was not their student any more just a unofficial PhD student writing thesis on GTR, and so my paper explaining gravitation and cosmological redshif shouldn't be linked to from their server making them suspected of supporting my PhD thesis. So when the university banned my one page paper ''"[[Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]"'' I typed it in into conservapedia as an essay,<ref>[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]]</ref> and let's see how long it survives here.  

Let's hope that CP readers don't consider anybody who don't share their prejudice about the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently the main cosmological theory of our times, not so seriously as RW readers did. They made it clear that a crackpot like me should find himself a different wiki for debunking the [[Big Bang]] hypothesis, apparently supported even by [[Richard Dawkins]]. Too bad that not by the elementary physics.  

Let's hope that CP readers don't consider anybody who don't share their prejudice about the Big Bang hypothesis, apparently the main cosmological theory of our times, not so seriously as RW readers did. They made it clear that a crackpot like me should find himself a different wiki for debunking the [[Big Bang]] hypothesis, apparently supported even by [[Richard Dawkins]]. Too bad that not by the elementary physics.  

It does not exist in the real world but [[relativists]] still don't know why Einstein called it ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''. Just know that he did.

It does not exist in the real world but [[relativists]] still don't know why Einstein called it ''"the biggest blunder of my life"''. Just know that he did.

Couldn't figure it out why though<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, ''"Gravitation"'', page 410.</ref>. They use it as "[[dark energy]]", not having slightest idea what it might be.

Couldn't figure it out why though.<ref>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 1973, ''"Gravitation"'', page 410.</ref> They use it as "[[dark energy]]", not having slightest idea what it might be.

===Symmetric metric tensor of 4D spacetime===

===Symmetric metric tensor of 4D spacetime===

I don't even know why Wheeler assumed a symmetric metric tensor of spacetime while Einstein said it ''must be'' non symmetric. Wheeler just dropped it from Einstein's papers in his bibliography<ref>Einstain, A., ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''.</ref>.

I don't even know why Wheeler assumed a symmetric metric tensor of spacetime while Einstein said it ''must be'' non symmetric. Wheeler just dropped it from Einstein's papers in his bibliography.<ref>Einstain, A., ''"On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"'', April 1950 issue of ''"Scientific American"''.</ref>

==Sociology==

==Sociology==

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

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

That's why the legend of big bang must go on. The naive "cranks" who think that one pencil, a few pads, and a waste basket is enough to do science as it used to be when Einstein applied for a job in Patent Office, simply don't know what powers they are against. And therefore what are their chances to stop spending billions of taxpayers money on feeding idiots who "work" on idiotic problems that don't even exist (like the Big Bang hypothesis) since all are just "[[cargo cult science]]"<ref>See Richard P. Feynman rant against [[relativists]], from his letter to wife  published in book ''"What Do You Care What Other People Think"'', page 91.</ref>.

That's why the legend of big bang must go on. The naive "cranks" who think that one pencil, a few pads, and a waste basket is enough to do science as it used to be when Einstein applied for a job in Patent Office, simply don't know what powers they are against. And therefore what are their chances to stop spending billions of taxpayers money on feeding idiots who "work" on idiotic problems that don't even exist (like the Big Bang hypothesis) since all are just "[[cargo cult science]]".<ref>See Richard P. Feynman rant against [[relativists]], from his letter to wife  published in book ''"What Do You Care What Other People Think"'', page 91.</ref>

===Why gravitation is not taught in high schools===

===Why gravitation is not taught in high schools===

[[Category:Cosmology]]

[[Category:Cosmology]]

[[category:Astronomy]]

[[Category:Astronomy]]

[[category:Physics]]

[[Category:Physics]]