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 quarter 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''.  

===So why the universe looks like expanding?===

===So why the universe looks like expanding?===

The answer implied by its physics is known for about a century. From the times when Einsteins discovered their theories of relativity. Special (STR) and general (GTR). Astrophysicists, while accepting SRT 100% didn't pay attention to GTR and the fact that the time and space are coupled and so the curved space implies non trivial behaviour of time. Therefore the universe looks like expanding since the time is coupled to the [[curvature of space]] and as a result the proper time in deep space runs slower than in our Galaxy.  

The answer implied by its physics is known for about a century. From the times when Einsteins discovered their theories of relativity. Special (STR) and general (GTR). Astrophysicists, while accepting SRT 100% didn't pay attention to GTR and the fact that the time and space are coupled and so the curved space implies non trivial behaviour of time. Therefore, the universe looks like expanding since the time is coupled to the [[curvature of space]] and as a result the proper time in deep space runs slower than in our Galaxy.  

Since the news, with the supporting calculations, have been rejected without peer reviews by scientific journals since 1985, they stayed unknown.   

Since the news, with the supporting calculations, have been rejected without peer reviews by scientific journals since 1985, they stayed unknown.   

:<math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>,  

:<math>H_o=c/R_E=70km/s/Mpc</math>,  

where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius]] of [[curvature of space]] implies <math>R_E=13</math> billion light years, and density of space of space of universe about  

where <math>c</math> is speed of light in vacuum, <math>R_E</math> is [[Einstein's radius]] of [[curvature of space]] implies <math>R_E=13</math> billion light years, and density of space of the universe about  

:<math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math>  

:<math>6 \times 10^{-27}kg/m^3</math>  

:<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>  

:<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>  

that was observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation. Therefore confirmed observationally, with maximum accuracy, with which one needs to confirm observationally the theoretically predicted numbers.

that was observed in 1998 with accuracy of one standard deviation. Therefore, confirmed observationally, with maximum accuracy, with which one needs to confirm observationally the theoretically predicted numbers.

The almost Newtonian calculations (with accuracy to <math>E=mc^2</math>) suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as  

The almost Newtonian calculations (with accuracy to <math>E=mc^2</math>) suggest that time in deep space galaxies changes with distance from our Galaxy as  

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 an 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.  

===Money makes the world go around===

===Money makes the world go around===

One of such money hungry projects connected with Big Bang is desribed in ''"New Scientist"'', LATEST ARTICLES: Don't panic about the missing Higgs – for now. Under the title ''"The Large Hadron Collider"'' ''"New Scientist"'' writes:  

One of such money hungry projects connected with Big Bang is described in ''"New Scientist"'', LATEST ARTICLES: Don't panic about the missing Higgs – for now. Under the title ''"The Large Hadron Collider"'' ''"New Scientist"'' writes:  

: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